Researchers at USC and nationwide have been plunged into uncertainty after a Jan. 20 executive order required the “termination of all discriminatory programs” in the federal government, including “illegal” diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility initiatives.

The executive order caused the National Science Foundation — an independent federal agency that funds research projects in areas such as mathematics, chemistry and economics — to briefly pause funding for all research as well as to flag active grants for language that may violate the executive order. 

As of Feb. 2, funding for existing grants had been restored, according to a page on the NSF website.

Daily headlines, sent straight to your inbox.

Subscribe to our newsletter to keep up with the latest at and around USC.

A lawsuit, filed Feb. 19 by the NAACP Legal Defense Fund and Lambda Legal — on behalf of several civil rights groups — is currently challenging the order. The National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education, the city of Baltimore and other groups previously filed a lawsuit against the order Feb. 3.

Darby Saxbe, a professor of psychology at Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences, posted a Feb. 3 thread to Bluesky and X with a list of terms that were flagged by NSF. According to the thread, terms like “ lgbt,” “biases” and “trauma” will result in any current grants for studies about humans being flagged by NSF. 

Saxbe said in an interview with the Daily Trojan she was “honestly not sure” how NSF decided if a flagged research project should ultimately have its grant continue.

Saxbe said one of her NSF-funded research projects, which studies expectant and new fathers, could now be at risk because the project’s title in the grant proposal contained the word “diverse.” 

She also expressed concern that some of her training fellowships that are meant to go to individuals from underrepresented groups could be in jeopardy. At the same time, she wasn’t sure if the cancellation of grants would be held up in court.

“I’m going to wait until I’m told that my funding is pulled and I’m going to otherwise proceed as per usual and see what happens,” Saxbe said.

Saxbe said she originally learned about the flagged terms from a colleague, who was leaked a list by a program officer at NSF. Saxbe said she and a group of colleagues decided she would be the one to post the list on social media to prevent the program officer’s identity from being indirectly revealed based on the researcher with whom they were associated.

The science journal Nature reported Feb. 3 that criteria for grants being flagged included language related to subjects like DEI, climate science and domestic energy. It also reported that grants found to violate the executive order could be canceled, archived or modified. The Washington Post reported Feb. 4 that an internal NSF document instructed staff to flag terms only if used in a context that could be considered DEI-related.

In a statement to the Daily Trojan on Feb. 10, Michelle Negrón, an NSF media officer, wrote that updates on NSF’s response to the executive order were being posted on the agency’s website.

“NSF is working expeditiously to conduct a comprehensive review of our projects, programs and activities to be compliant with the existing executive orders,” Negrón wrote.

The FAQs section of the updates page on NSF’s website says the review process for grant proposals would remain the same and would be considered “in conjunction with” the agency’s policies and federal laws. NSF cannot change the status of existing awards regardless of whether they potentially violate executive orders, the page read. 

Saxbe said there are “huge implications” for researchers, especially those who have limited time in preparation for potentially gaining tenure. She said the University has sent “a couple of” emails informing researchers that they are working on a response, but that the University’s guidance on how researchers should approach the situation has been limited.

In a statement to the Daily Trojan on Feb. 14, the University wrote that its senior leadership “carefully studies” each executive order to see its impact on campus. 

“We are in close contact with our 23 deans and the more than 2,000 members of our research community to ensure they are abreast of matters as we learn of them in real time,” the statement read.

The University also released a memo to faculty, students and employees Feb. 13, announcing the launch of a new webpage to organize recent executive orders that could impact programs at USC. This included the Jan. 20 order that required the end of DEI programs in the federal government. In the memo, USC wrote that it was “in close contact” with research organizations as well as state and national legislators.

“Full understanding [of an executive order’s impact] takes time, especially when the courts are involved, so we appreciate your patience when we do not communicate as soon as an EO is released,” the University wrote in the memo.

Many research proposals discuss sample demographics or recruitment strategies in order to create a balanced sample, according to Saxbe, who said it was “unclear” whether this would result in funding for a project being canceled.

“There are a lot of really good scientific reasons to talk about diversity in a grant proposal,” Saxbe said. “If I wanted to do good, rigorous research with humans … It’s really important that I have a sample that’s balanced in terms of race and ethnicity and age and gender, and I may need to use different strategies to recruit people from different groups.”

Saxbe said some of her colleagues are now trying to omit any language that may get flagged from their research proposals; however, she said she felt the practice is “a little bit pointless.”

“The goal of this is to destroy science research more broadly,” Saxbe said. “The DEI language is a screen for what I see as a more insidious goal, which is to cancel biomedical research on humans. So I don’t know that there are great workarounds [for researchers] … because I don’t think it’s designed to allow for a lot of research to get approved.”