For many researchers within the United States federal government, a new and invisible boundary has been drawn. It isn’t a physical wall, but a linguistic one. In departments like the USDA’s Agricultural Research Service, certain words have become “forbidden”—specifically, terms like “climate change,” “global warming,” and “carbon sequestration.”
As the Trump administration implements sweeping changes to federal agencies, scientists are finding that the survival of their research—and the jobs of their staff—often depends on their ability to master the art of the synonym.
The Rise of “Climate Hushing”
The shift in scientific communication is not accidental; it is a direct response to a changing political landscape. Following a memo from USDA management, staffers were instructed to avoid over 100 banned phrases. This has triggered a phenomenon some call “climate hushing,” where researchers avoid politically sensitive terminology to ensure their work remains funded and their positions remain secure.
To bypass these restrictions, scientists are adopting a new vocabulary:
– “Climate change” is replaced by “elevated temperatures” or “extreme weather.”
– “Climate resilience” becomes “coastal resilience.”
– “Climate-driven disease” is reframed as “disease behavior under specific environmental conditions.”
“It’s sort of a weird thing… to not name climate change feels dirty,” says Trent Ford, an Illinois state climatologist. “But it’s more of a practical decision: we’ve seen where grants that say everything but ‘climate change’ get through with no problem.”
Data Trends: A Drastic Decline in Explicit Research
The impact of this linguistic shift is clearly visible in the data provided by the National Science Foundation (NSF). An analysis of NSF grants reveals a staggering trend:
- A 77% plunge in grants that explicitly used the term “climate change” in their titles or abstracts between 2023 and the most recent year.
- A corresponding rise in the use of terms like “extreme weather,” suggesting that while the subject of the research remains, the label has been scrubbed.
- The disappearance of DEI terms: Mentions of “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion” (DEI) have vanished from NSF grants entirely, as terms like “equity” and “environmental justice” have become even more politically toxic than climate science itself.
The Cost of Compliance
This is not merely a matter of semantics; it has real-world consequences for scientific progress and institutional stability.
1. Funding Volatility
The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) and broader administration cuts have led to the elimination of major research programs. In some cases, projects were axed simply because they carried the “CC” (Climate Change) label, even if the research itself was vital to agriculture or food security.
2. The “Death Sentence” for Proposals
Researchers report that language required by one administration can become a “death sentence” for a grant under the next. For example, a proposal that included a mandate to engage “diverse agricultural stakeholders” was forced to pivot to “all American farmers” to secure approval.
3. Economic Stakes
For universities, the stakes are personal. As one researcher noted, securing a grant—even one with sanitized language—is often the only way to prevent the layoff of graduate students and full-time staff.
Seeking New Frontiers
As federal funding becomes increasingly conditional or scarce, the scientific community is looking elsewhere to sustain its work. Some researchers are turning to:
* Private funding: Seeking grants from philanthropic organizations to study climate communication.
* International partnerships: Looking to overseas bodies, such as the Norwegian Research Council, to fund studies that may be politically unfeasible within the U.S.
Conclusion
The current landscape forces a difficult choice upon the scientific community: adhere to political linguistic standards to keep research alive, or maintain scientific nomenclature at the risk of losing funding. While “clever word usage” allows much of the work to continue, it raises fundamental questions about the transparency and long-term direction of federally funded science.
