How an NSF Report Set the Stage for Current Anti-DEI Policies

by Mandy Morgan March 4, 2025

Something slipped by last October when America’s attention was focused on the election.

The NSF Politicized Funding report, chaired by Texas’s Ted Cruz and released by the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation’s minority staff, asserted that the National Science Foundation (NSF) has increasingly allocated funding to research projects influenced by diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) frameworks. It claimed that these projects undermine “objective” scientific disciplines such as physics, chemistry, and biology by introducing ideological bias, particularly through what the report labels neo-Marxist perspectives on social justice, race, gender, and environmental justice.

Aside: The phrase “neo-Marxist perspectives on social justice, race, gender, and environmental justice” refers to a viewpoint that applies Marxist theories of power and class struggle to modern social issues. In this context, it suggests that society is divided into oppressor and oppressed groups based on factors like race, gender, and economic status rather than just economic class. Neo-Marxist perspectives argue that systemic inequalities in areas such as education, science, and the environment are not accidental but are maintained by structures of power that benefit dominant groups. So….yeah, that sounds about right. Critics of DEI initiatives often use this term to frame such research as ideological rather than scientific.

The report’s conclusions play into the broader political shift against DEI initiatives seen in the current administration, where anti-DEI policies have gained momentum. By framing DEI-focused research as politically motivated rather than scientifically rigorous, this document provides a foundation for defunding DEI initiatives in science. This is evident in recent Republican-led legislative efforts to limit federal funding for DEI programs across universities, corporations, and government agencies.

The report categorizes DEI-related NSF grants into five broad themes:

• Status (research on underrepresented, socioeconomically disadvantaged, or marginalized groups)
• Social Justice (projects that advocate for inclusivity in STEM)
• Gender (research on barriers faced by women and gender-diverse individuals)
• Race (studies on racial inequities in STEM and efforts to increase representation)
• Environmental Justice (work examining the intersection of environmental issues and social inequities)

By singling out DEI-focused research as inherently unscientific, the report sets up a justification for defunding such projects. And hey, what happened next? Republican-led efforts to restrict DEI funding in education, health, and science—efforts that are already leading to cuts at universities and research institutions.

How This Type of Thinking Hurts Science and Scientific Outcomes

The fundamental flaw in the report’s argument is its false dichotomy between DEI-focused research and “hard science.” In reality, scientific progress has always been shaped by societal factors, and excluding DEI considerations from research actively harms scientific outcomes in multiple ways:

1. Ignoring Context Leads to Bad Science

• Science does not exist in a vacuum. Research that ignores the impact of systemic inequities produces results that are incomplete, misleading, or even harmful. For instance, medical research that fails to account for racial and socioeconomic disparities in health outcomes leads to treatments that do not work effectively for all populations.
• Climate science benefits from environmental justice research because understanding who is most affected by climate change is essential for crafting effective mitigation strategies.

2. Diversity Enhances Scientific Innovation

• The report assumes that science is best advanced by maintaining the status quo. I’m not sure that has been true for science, ever. Diverse teams produce stronger, more innovative research. Studies have shown that teams with diverse backgrounds are more effective at problem-solving and generating new ideas.
• DEI programs that expand access to STEM fields ensure that the scientific workforce includes talent from all backgrounds, ultimately strengthening U.S. innovation.

3. Policy-Driven Attacks on DEI Threaten U.S. Scientific Leadership

• If DEI-focused funding is cut, the U.S. risks falling behind in global scientific competition. Countries like China, Germany, and Canada are actively investing in inclusive STEM initiatives because they recognize that diverse perspectives drive technological progress.
• Rolling back DEI initiatives discourages students from underrepresented backgrounds from entering STEM fields, reducing the talent pipeline.

4. Misrepresenting DEI as an Attack on “Hard Science”

• The report mischaracterizes DEI research as political activism rather than legitimate scientific inquiry. In reality, research on how social inequities shape scientific access and outcomes is essential for advancing knowledge.
• The document selectively frames DEI projects as ideological, while ignoring how historical biases have shaped scientific institutions (e.g., past racial and gender discrimination in academia).

Recommended Changes Outlined in the Report: What’s on the Horizon?

While the report is primarily an argument against DEI funding, it does outline potential changes that could be on the horizon if the current administration acts on its recommendations:

Restricting NSF Funding for DEI Research: The report recommends curtailing grants that focus on diversity, inclusion, or systemic inequities, arguing that they divert resources from “pure science.” This could mean cuts to funding for projects aimed at increasing participation in STEM by marginalized groups. (ALREADY HAPPENED)

Increasing Oversight of Federal Science Funding: The report suggests that Congress should exert more control over how NSF funds are allocated, ensuring that research projects adhere to “objective scientific principles.” This aligns with broader Republican efforts to scrutinize federal research spending and defund social science initiatives. HAS NOT HAPPENED BECAUSE CONGRESS HAS COMPLETELY ACQUIESCED TO THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH.

Reprioritizing STEM Education Funding: The report calls for shifting focus away from social justice concerns in STEM education and toward technical training that does not emphasize social factors. If implemented, this could result in the defunding of STEM equity programs aimed at increasing participation among women, Black, Latinx, and Indigenous students. MAYBE HAPPENED, IT’S KIND OF A SECONDARY EFFECT

Rolling Back DEI Mandates in Government Science Agencies: The document criticizes the Biden administration’s DEI policies in federal science agencies and calls for their repeal. AND YEAH, THIS HAPPENED TOO.

Focusing on “Merit-Based” Science: The report argues for “merit-based” funding criteria. This common conservative talking point ignores how systemic barriers affect access to scientific careers and research opportunities. If enacted, this could make it harder for researchers studying racial, gender, and environmental disparities to receive funding. Study sections have been freezing, and there is a list of bad works published by NSF (which can also be found in Appendix B of the report.) It still remains to be seen if researchers can reframe their work in a way that aligns with these shitty, shitty policies.

A Database of “Problematic Science”

Cruz then released a database identifying over 3,400 NSF grants totaling $2.05 billion, claiming they funded DEI initiatives and “neo-Marxist propaganda” under the Biden administration. Cruz accused DEI efforts of corrupting research and called for an end to their influence in federal funding.

I’ll upload the database here, and a future post will explore what’s in it. Funny–I couldn’t find the word Marx in any of it. It almost like the word has no meaning apart from “bad.”

Final Thoughts

The NSF Politicized Funding report appears to have been the blueprint for dismantling diversity initiatives in science. What hasn’t happened yet, but is sure to, is long-term harm to U.S. scientific innovation, as exclusionary policies drive talent away. Unless, of course, those innovations from the private sector, which means they can be patented and monetized. Which is always the point. Consolidate power, consolidate money.

Ghouls.

Scientists, educators, and policymakers must push back against efforts to erase the role of DEI in research. The best science is inclusive, contextual, and representative of the full diversity of human experience—not an isolated pursuit detached from social realities. If science is truly about seeking truth, then it must include all perspectives, not just those deemed poitically convenient.

Find your rep. Contact your Rep.

Act Now – Transform Public Health Today!

Don’t wait—join the movement shaping the future of public health. Subscribe for free to get weekly, expert-curated insights and actionable updates.
⚡ Time is critical! Share this blog now and inspire others to be part of this essential mission.