CONTEXT NEEDED
NSF terminated 1,500+ grants in 2025, with ~90% being DEI-related following Ted Cruz's database release. Claims this targets "climate science" or "specific researchers" are mostly false - terminations followed a public list, not secret targeting. However, some non-DEI grants were caught up in the process, and concerns about chilling effects on research are legitimate.
In early 2025, NSF terminated over 1,500 grants following executive orders and Congressional pressure. The Urban Institute documented that approximately 90% of terminated grants were related to DEI initiatives, based on a list Senator Ted Cruz released in February 2025. Claims that NSF is secretly targeting climate scientists or specific researchers are not supported by evidence - the terminations followed a publicly documented process. However, the policy change is significant, and concerns about impacts on scientific research merit serious consideration.
What Actually Happened
Following executive orders on DEI, NSF began terminating grants that fell under DEI-related categories. Science Magazine reported that the terminations closely followed a list Senator Ted Cruz had compiled and released publicly [3].
The Urban Institute analysis confirmed that approximately 1,500 grants were terminated, with about 90% related to diversity initiatives, education programs, or workforce development [2].
The Conspiracy Claims
Social media claims alleged that NSF was secretly targeting climate scientists, COVID researchers, or researchers who criticized the administration. FactCheck.org found no evidence supporting these claims - the terminated grants were publicly documented and followed the Cruz list [11].
However, some legitimate research projects were caught up in the terminations due to keyword matching or broad category definitions, leading to genuine grievances [4].
The Policy Debate
Supporters argue the terminations eliminate "wasteful" spending on non-scientific programs. Senator Cruz's office stated the grants diverted funds from "hard science" to "political activism" [9].
Critics from AAAS and scientific organizations argue that diversity programs support scientific advancement by broadening participation, and that terminating mid-stream grants harms ongoing research [7].
Legitimate Concerns
While conspiracy theories about targeting are unfounded, legitimate concerns exist. Nature documented that some researchers have self-censored grant applications to avoid keywords that might trigger termination [4].
The Chronicle of Higher Education reported that several universities suspended hiring for NSF-funded positions due to uncertainty about future funding [8].
Conclusion
NSF grant terminations are a real policy change with significant impacts on scientific research and education. However, claims about secret targeting of specific researchers or fields are not supported by evidence. The process followed publicly documented criteria. The legitimate debate is about whether DEI-related programs should be federal funding priorities, not about whether a conspiracy exists.