# Senate Republicans Identify Thousands of NSF Grants as “Woke DEI” Research: What Is the True Significance?
## Introduction
A recent document issued by Senate Republicans, led by Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas), has identified nearly 3,500 National Science Foundation (NSF) grants as advancing “woke DEI” (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) research. The report asserts that these initiatives are fueled by “Neo-Marxist class warfare propaganda” and “far-left ideologies,” inciting controversy and unease among scientists and researchers nationwide.
This article examines the ramifications of this report, the approach taken to pinpoint these grants, and the possible outcomes for scientific inquiry in the United States.
—
## The Dispute Surrounding “Woke DEI” Research
The identified grants, amounting to over $2 billion, make up more than 10% of all NSF grants issued from January 2021 to April 2024. The compilation encompasses research endeavors from all 50 states, including 257 grants exceeding $150 million awarded to institutions in Cruz’s native Texas.
One researcher caught in this examination is Darren Lipomi, chair of the chemical engineering department at the University of Rochester. His initiative, which aims to assist throat cancer patients in recovering from radiation therapy, was categorized as “woke DEI” research. Lipomi took to social media to express his indignation, contending that his work is devoid of any ideological motive and is strictly scientific.
Other researchers have echoed similar sentiments, with some expressing apprehension that their inclusion on the list may have grave implications for their professional prospects. Shumpei Maruyama, a cell biologist and Japanese immigrant holding permanent residency in the U.S., voiced concerns about being branded as an immigrant “exploiting federal funding streams,” raising fears of potential deportation or funding reductions.
—
## What Method Was Used to Identify the Grants?
The Senate Commerce Committee, under Cruz’s guidance, assembled the list utilizing a programming tool that reviewed over 32,000 NSF project descriptions for 699 keywords and phrases linked to DEI initiatives. These keywords encompassed terms such as:
– **Race, gender, and societal status** (e.g., “gender,” “ethnicity,” “sexuality,” “LGBTQ,” “Black,” “White,” “Hispanic,” “Indigenous”)
– **Social and environmental justice** (e.g., “climate change,” “clean energy,” “environmental justice”)
– **Equity and inclusion** (e.g., “underrepresented,” “socioeconomic,” “disability,” “minority”)
The committee maintains that these terms signify a departure from “hard science” in favor of ideologically driven research. However, numerous scientists and former NSF officials argue that efforts to promote diversity and inclusion have historically received bipartisan support as integral to advancing American science.
—
## The Ramifications for Scientific Research
The NSF is an autonomous government body responsible for funding roughly one-quarter of all federally backed research in science and engineering at U.S. universities. The flagged projects encompass a diverse array of fields, from medical research to artificial intelligence and environmental science.
Some of the most substantial grants on the list comprise:
– **A $29 million grant to the National Center for Supercomputing Applications (NCSA)** at the University of Illinois, facilitating computing resources for artificial intelligence research.
– **A $26 million grant to a coalition of institutions in North Carolina** to investigate microbial life in indoor settings, with implications for halting the spread of pathogens in medical facilities.
Detractors contend that the report’s extensive search criteria have resulted in the inclusion of projects that do not explicitly focus on DEI but merely mention diversity in their general impact assessments. For instance, Lipomi’s project was likely flagged because it intended to recruit a varied group of participants and evaluate outcomes based on socioeconomic factors.
Former NSF director Neal F. Lane criticized the report, asserting that diversity initiatives have traditionally been championed by both Republican and Democratic administrations. “Budget after budget was allocated funds specifically to address these issues, to ensure all Americans have a chance to contribute to the progress of science and technology,” Lane remarked.
—
## The Political and Scientific Repercussions
The publication of the list has fostered an atmosphere of uncertainty among researchers, especially during the initial phase of President Donald J. Trump’s second term. Many scientists worry that the report could prompt funding reductions, deter young researchers from pursuing careers in STEM fields, and hinder the United States’ competitive edge in global scientific innovation.
Joanne Padrón Carney, chief government relations officer at the American Association for the Advancement of Science, noted that the report aligns with a broader initiative by the Trump administration to dismantle DEI programs throughout the federal government. “With the executive order on DEI and now the list of terms from the Cruz report, NSF is currently reviewing their grants,” Carney stated.
Certain researchers fear that the heightened scrutiny may result in self-censorship, with scientists steering clear of specific subjects or
