Roberts met with his union to figure out how to respond to the memo. They concluded that the best course of action was just to avoid the terms and try to get their research published by working around them. Throughout the federal agency, \u201cclimate change\u201d was swapped for softer synonyms: \u201celevated temperatures,\u201d \u201csoil health,\u201d and \u201cextreme weather.\u201d<\/p>\n
It\u2019s part of a bigger trend. Across federal agencies and academic institutions, scientists are avoiding words they once used without hesitation. When Trump took office last year \u2014 calling coal \u201cclean\u201d and \u201cbeautiful\u201d while deriding plans to tackle climate change as a \u201cgreen scam<\/a>\u201d \u2014 a so-called \u201cclimate hushing\u201d took hold of the United States, as businesses<\/a>, politicians<\/a>, and even the news media<\/a> got quieter about global warming. There\u2019s a long list of supposedly \u201cwoke\u201d words<\/a> that agencies have been discouraged from using, many tied to climate change or diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives.<\/p>\n The language changes were accompanied by larger shifts in how the federal government operates. Elon Musk\u2019s Department of Government Efficiency, known as DOGE, laid off hundreds of thousands of federal workers last year<\/a>. The Trump administration also slashed spending on science, cutting tens of billions of dollars in grants<\/a> for projects related to the environment and public lands. Researchers are adapting to the new landscape, with some finding creative ways to continue their climate research, from changing their wording to seeking out different sources of funding.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n For federal researchers studying, say, the interplay between weather patterns and soybean diseases, the key is to reframe studies so they don\u2019t clash with the Trump administration\u2019s politics. \u201cInstead of making it about the climate, you would instead just make it about the disease itself, and be like, \u2018This disease does these things under these conditions,\u2019 rather than \u2018These conditions cause this disease to do this,\u2019\u201d Roberts added. \u201cIt\u2019s just changing the focus.\u201d<\/p>\n You can see how federally funded research has changed by looking at the grants approved by the National Science Foundation, or NSF, an agency that provides roughly a quarter<\/a> of the U.S. government\u2019s funding to universities. Grist\u2019s analysis found that the number of NSF grants whose titles or abstracts mentioned \u201cclimate change\u201d fell from 889 in 2023 to 148 last year, a 77 percent plunge. Part of that\u2019s a result of NSF staffers approving fewer grants related to climate change under Trump. But researchers self-censoring by omitting the phrase in their proposals also appears to play a role, evidenced by the corresponding rise of \u201cextreme weather\u201d \u2014 a synonym that gets around the politicized language.<\/p>\n Percent change from 2021 baseline, 2021\u20132025<\/p>\n Click to show or hide lines<\/p>\n Climate change\n <\/p>\n Global warming\n <\/p>\n Extreme weather\n <\/p>\n Environmental justice\n <\/p>\n Clean energy\n <\/p>\n Trent Ford, the state climatologist for Illinois, said he\u2019s started using terms like \u201cweather extremes\u201d and \u201cweather variability\u201d in framing his proposals for grants.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cIt\u2019s sort of a weird thing, because on principle, if we\u2019re studying climate change, to not name climate change feels dirty,\u201d said Ford, who\u2019s also a research scientist at the Illinois State Water Survey at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. But it\u2019s more of a practical decision than anything else: \u201cWe\u2019ve seen where grants that say everything but \u2018climate change\u2019 and are obviously studying the impacts of climate change get through with no problem.\u201d He only uses the phrase in grant proposals when he thinks it\u2019s absolutely necessary and when efforts to steer around the term would look too obvious to a reviewer.<\/p>\n Researchers have always had to tailor their framing to align with a funder\u2019s priorities, in this case the federal government. Near the end of President Joe Biden\u2019s term in late 2024, when Ford\u2019s team applied for an NSF grant to study how climate conditions could affect Midwestern agriculture, it made sense to include a line about talking to a diverse group of farmers. But that word became a problem after Trump returned to office.<\/p>\n \u201cBy the time the proposal got reviewed by the program manager at NSF, that same language that was required four months ago was now actually a death sentence on it,\u201d Ford said. The NSF liked the proposal, but wanted the researchers to remove the line about reaching a diverse set of agricultural stakeholders and confirm that they would talk to \u201call American farmers,\u201d Ford said. The team sent it back in, and the NSF approved it last April.<\/p>\n Others weren\u2019t so lucky. Another scientist at the USDA\u2019s Agricultural Research Service, who asked to remain anonymous out of fear of retaliation, said DOGE eliminated major research programs at the agency and, in the process, wiped out hundreds of thousands of dollars in federal funds for an initiative to grow plants without soil that \u201creally didn\u2019t have anything to do with climate change.\u201d The scientist said it had only been labeled as climate research to \u201csatisfy the previous Biden administration.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cAnything, any project, that had \u2018CC\u2019 in front of it, was eliminated. Because \u2018CC\u2019 stands for climate change,\u201d the staffer said. \u201cSo, unfortunately, that came back to bite them during this administration.\u201d\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n Though not to this extreme, researchers have found themselves staying away from politically fraught terms<\/a> like \u201cclimate change\u201d before. During the first Trump administration, Austin Becker, a professor at the University of Rhode Island who studies how ports and maritime infrastructure can be made more resilient to hazards like storms and flooding, started avoiding the phrase, even though it\u2019s what motivated his research. \u201cEverything that was \u2018climate\u2019 just became \u2018coastal resilience,\u2019\u201d he said. \u201cAnd we\u2019ve kind of just stuck with that ever since.\u201d<\/p>\n Ford initially resisted pressure to stop using the phrase from colleagues he was writing grants with, but he gave in this time around for financial reasons. \u201cGetting a grant could be the difference between a graduate student getting a paycheck and us having to let a graduate student go, or having to let a full-time employee of the university go,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n Some researchers have been looking for grants in new places as federal money dries up. Dana Fisher, a professor at American University and the director of its Center for Environment, Community, and Equity, has procured private funding to research ways to improve and expand communication about climate change in North America. She\u2019s also looking overseas for funding, where she\u2019s had success during past Republican administrations that were hesitant to approve grants for climate research. When George W. Bush was president, Fisher got a grant to study how climate action in U.S. cities and states could influence federal policymaking, an effort funded by the Norwegian Research Council. That fact raised some eyebrows when she mentioned it to people she was interviewing in Congress. \u201cThey\u2019re like, \u2018Huh?\u2019\u201d Fisher recalled. \u201cI was like, \u2018Well, that\u2019s what happens when there\u2019s a Republican administration.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n As scarce as funding for anything related to the climate has become under Trump, some topics appear to be even more politically toxic. In Ford\u2019s experience, and from what he\u2019s heard from other researchers, \u201cequity\u201d and \u201cenvironmental justice\u201d are \u201cactually dirtier words.\u201d The Trump administration has closed the Environmental Protection Agency\u2019s environmental justice offices at its headquarters and in all 10 of its regional offices, and continues to lay off EPA staff<\/a> who helped communities dealing with pollution. Grist\u2019s analysis of grants reveals a similar pattern: Under Trump, mentions of \u201cDEI,\u201d or diversity, equity, and inclusion, have vanished from NSF grants entirely. Terms like \u201cclean energy\u201d and \u201cpollution\u201d have also declined, but not as sharply as climate change.<\/p>\n Percent change from peak (2021\u20132024) to 2025<\/p>\n You could view the federal government\u2019s pressure on scientists to change their language in different ways. Is it Orwellian-style censorship, silencing dissent and policing language? Or simply the right of a funder, whose politics changes with each administration, to ask for research that reflects its concerns? Does it affect what research gets done, or will applicants simply swap in harmless synonyms to ensure the work can continue?\u00a0<\/p>\n The answer is complicated, according to the USDA\u2019s Roberts. Many of the climate projects at the agency\u2019s research division that have so far avoided cancellation are stuck in funding purgatory, awaiting a fate that could hinge on a politically charged word or two. Scientists are adapting their research to better align with White House priorities, hoping to continue equipping farmers with the knowledge of how to adapt to a warming world \u2014 and scrubbing any forbidden language in the meantime.<\/p>\n \u201cClever word usage, and controlling the scope of how the research is presented, allows for scientists to keep doing the work,\u201d Roberts said. \u201cThere\u2019s no one going around hunting these people down, thankfully. Not yet, anyway.\u201d<\/p>\n A list of words related to climate and the environment included in the leaked USDA ARS banned words memo<\/p>\n Clean energy: \u201cclean energy\u201d OR \u201cclean power\u201d OR \u201cclean fuel\u201d OR \u201calternative energy\u201d OR \u201chyd[\u2013] OR \u201cgeothermal\u201d OR \u201csolar energy\u201d OR \u201csolar power\u201d OR \u201cphotovoltaic\u201d OR \u201cagrivoltaic\u201d OR \u201cwi[\u2013] OR \u201cwind power\u201d OR \u201cnuclear energy\u201d OR \u201cnuclear power\u201d OR \u201cbioenergy\u201d OR \u201cbiofuel\u201d OR \u201cbiogas\u201d OR \u201cbiomethane\u201d OR \u201cethanol\u201d OR \u201cdiesel\u201d OR \u201caviation fuel\u201d OR \u201cpyrolysis\u201d OR \u201cenergy conversion\u201d<\/p>\n Clean transportation: electric vehicle, hydrogen vehicle, fuel cell, low-emission vehicle<\/p>\n Pollution remediation: \u201crunoff\u201d OR \u201cmembrane filtration\u201d OR \u201cmicroplastics\u201d OR \u201cwater pollution\u201d OR \u201cair pollution\u201d OR \u201csoil pollution\u201d OR \u201cgroundwater pollution\u201d OR \u201cpollution remediation\u201d OR \u201cpollution abatement\u201d OR \u201csediment remediation\u201d OR \u201ccontaminants of environmental concern\u201d OR \u201cCEC\u201d OR \u201cPFAS\u201d OR \u201cPFOA\u201d OR \u201cPCB\u201d OR \u201cnonpoint source pollution\u201d<\/p>\n Water infrastructure: \u201cwater collection\u201d OR \u201cwater treatment\u201d OR \u201cwater storage\u201d OR \u201cwater distribution\u201d OR \u201cwater management\u201d OR \u201crural water\u201d OR \u201cagricultural water\u201d OR \u201cwater conservation\u201d OR \u201cwater efficiency\u201d OR \u201cwater quality\u201d OR \u201cclean water\u201d OR \u201csafe drinking water\u201d OR \u201cfield drainage\u201d OR \u201ctile drainage\u201d<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/nsf-climate-interactive-v2-static-light.png\")
<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/nsf-decline-bar-light.png\")
<\/p>\n