As President Trump seeks to purge the federal government of “woke” initiatives, agencies have flagged hundreds of words to limit or avoid, according to a compilation of government documents.
The terms appeared in government memos, in official and unofficial agency guidance and in other documents viewed by The New York Times. Some ordered the removal of these words from public-facing websites, or ordered the elimination of other materials (including school curricula) in which they might be included.
In other cases, federal agency managers advised caution in the terms’ usage without instituting an outright ban. Additionally, the presence of some terms was used to automatically flag for review some grant proposals and contracts that could conflict with Mr. Trump’s executive orders.
The list is most likely incomplete. More agency memos may exist than those seen by New York Times reporters, and some directives are vague or suggest what language might be impermissible without flatly stating it.
All presidential administrations change the language used in official communications to reflect their own policies. It is within their prerogative, as are amendments to or the removal of web pages, which The Times has found has already happened thousands of times in this administration.
Still, the words and phrases listed here represent a marked — and remarkable — shift in the corpus of language being used both in the federal government’s corridors of power and among its rank and file. They are an unmistakable reflection of this administration’s priorities.
For example, the Trump administration has frequently framed diversity, equity and inclusion efforts as being inherently at odds with what it has identified as “merit,” and it has argued that these initiatives have resulted in the elevation of unqualified or undeserving people. That rhetorical strategy — with its baked-in assumption of a lack of capacity in people of color, women, the disabled and other marginalized groups — has been criticized as discriminatory.
Indeed, in some cases, guidance against a term’s usage has arrived alongside directives intended to eliminate the concept itself. Federal diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives are one example; the Gulf of Mexico is a very different one.
That shift is already apparent on hundreds of federal government websites. A New York Times analysis of pages on federal agency websites, before and after Mr. Trump took office, found that more than 250 contained evidence of deletions or amendments to words included in the above list.
Notes: Some terms listed with a plus sign represent combinations of words that, when used together, acknowledge transgender people, which is not in keeping with the current federal government’s position that there are only two, immutable sexes. Any term collected above was included on at least one agency’s list, which does not necessarily imply that other agencies are also discouraged from using it.
The terms appeared in government memos, in official and unofficial agency guidance and in other documents viewed by The New York Times. Some ordered the removal of these words from public-facing websites, or ordered the elimination of other materials (including school curricula) in which they might be included.
In other cases, federal agency managers advised caution in the terms’ usage without instituting an outright ban. Additionally, the presence of some terms was used to automatically flag for review some grant proposals and contracts that could conflict with Mr. Trump’s executive orders.
The list is most likely incomplete. More agency memos may exist than those seen by New York Times reporters, and some directives are vague or suggest what language might be impermissible without flatly stating it.
All presidential administrations change the language used in official communications to reflect their own policies. It is within their prerogative, as are amendments to or the removal of web pages, which The Times has found has already happened thousands of times in this administration.
Still, the words and phrases listed here represent a marked — and remarkable — shift in the corpus of language being used both in the federal government’s corridors of power and among its rank and file. They are an unmistakable reflection of this administration’s priorities.
For example, the Trump administration has frequently framed diversity, equity and inclusion efforts as being inherently at odds with what it has identified as “merit,” and it has argued that these initiatives have resulted in the elevation of unqualified or undeserving people. That rhetorical strategy — with its baked-in assumption of a lack of capacity in people of color, women, the disabled and other marginalized groups — has been criticized as discriminatory.
Indeed, in some cases, guidance against a term’s usage has arrived alongside directives intended to eliminate the concept itself. Federal diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives are one example; the Gulf of Mexico is a very different one.
That shift is already apparent on hundreds of federal government websites. A New York Times analysis of pages on federal agency websites, before and after Mr. Trump took office, found that more than 250 contained evidence of deletions or amendments to words included in the above list.
Here are some notable examples. Words that have been removed are shown in italics, and words that have been added are in bold.
Federal Aviation Administration’s job page
Working at FAA offers a unique opportunity to experience a career where your impact not only reaches throughout the aviation industry but around the world as well. You’ll be a part of a diverse workforce utilizing the latest technology and systems dedicated to maintaining the safety and integrity of our civil airspace.
National Park Service’s Stonewall National Monument web page
Before the 1960s, almost everything about living openly as a lesbian, gay, bisexual (LGB) transgender, or queer (LGBTQ+) person was illegal. The Stonewall Uprising on June 28, 1969 is a milestone in the quest for LGBTQ+ civil rights and provided momentum for a movement.
2021 Head Start memo
The last year has brought significant challenges to the Head Start workforce. The COVID-19 pandemic has had a disparate impact on under-resourced communities including many of those served by Head Start programs.There has also been heightened attention to racial injustice in our country, which has led to calls for major reforms to address long-standing societal inequities. These are particularly important concerns for OHS and the Head Start workforce. All staff have been impacted by COVID-19. Further, 60% of Head Start teaching staff are Black, Indigenous and people of color, and 30% have a primary language other than English. As such, OHS is committed to a culture of wellness that includes holistic support for the entire Head Start workforce.
Key topics page of State Department’s Office of Global Change
The climate crisis knows no boundaries, and both the challenge and its solutions range from local to global in scale. Because of this, international cooperation and collaboration through negotiation and implementation of international agreements are essential. The Negotiations Team represents the United States in negotiations under the Paris Agreement and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), and in many other international fora that address climate change, including the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), International Maritime Organization (IMO), G7, G20, and others.
The total number of web pages identified by The Times as having changed is an undercount. The analysis involved searching for changes on more than 5,000 total pages, but it did not capture the entire universe of the federal government’s web presence. In addition, the pages were captured for comparison in early February, and more changes may have been made between then and now.
The president and some of his closest advisers, including Elon Musk, have frequently portrayed themselves as champions of free speech. One of the executive orders Mr. Trump signed on his first day back in office decried what it described as a pressure campaign by the Biden administration to stifle First Amendment rights “in a manner that advanced the Government’s preferred narrative about significant matters of public debate,” by way of putting pressure on tech platforms. “Government censorship of speech is intolerable in a free society,” it continued.
Indeed, the office of the presidency carries with it a tremendous power to drive the discourse. But the pattern of vanishing words established here suggests Mr. Trump and his administration may be more interested in chilling the national conversation — at least when it comes to their own disfavored topics — than in expanding it.
• This story originally appeared in The New York Times.
