zlacker

> "diversity related topics" included things like biodiversity which is an important area of research and should be apolitical. Not because of a shift in focus, but because of top-down orders to not fund anything related to "diversity."

Do you have a source for this? How can you prove it was simply because it was "diversity related" and not because it someone, somewhere determined the budget needed to be cut because the spending was wasteful?

As far as I can tell, the budget never passed, so we have no way to know one way or another the effects.

I have never seen a government entity claim that cutting their budget wouldn't be catastrophic.

>>robswc+(OP)
>One environmental researcher NPR spoke to, whose employer receives federal funding, confirmed that they have been advised to avoid the terms "climate change," "sustainable" and "sustainability." Even "biodiversity" is of concern to some of their colleagues because it includes the word "diversity."

(Please don't just respond to the quote - lots of context in the full article.)

https://www.npr.org/2025/04/14/nx-s1-5349473/trump-free-spee...

This language-based filtering began in the first term and has been widely reported.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/dec/16/cdc-banned-w...