What Are the Words Banned by the Trump Administration - and How They Affected Government Messaging
Share this article:
A sweeping censorship policy under the Trump administration has come to light, revealing how hundreds of words and phrases were banned or flagged across several US federal agencies. From the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to NASA and the Department of Defence, officials were reportedly instructed to avoid terms related to diversity, gender, climate change, and public health. According to PEN America’s latest 2025 data, this language suppression shaped grant applications, internal reports, and public communication.
CDC’s “Forbidden Seven”: Where It All Began
The origins of the censorship can be traced back to the CDC, where budget-related documents were instructed to exclude seven specific terms:
These words, largely related to healthcare, equity, and scientific research, were reportedly removed or de-emphasised to align with the administration's political and ideological stance.
The Expanding List: A Web of Silenced Words
Following deeper investigations by PEN America and major news outlets, it was revealed that the censorship extended far beyond seven terms. Over 350 words and phrases were either discouraged or outright banned across multiple agencies. These include words commonly used in scientific, academic, and social contexts.
Some examples from the expanded list:
Agencies Involved: A Government-Wide Impact
The censorship wasn’t confined to one department. A wide range of federal bodies reportedly adopted these language guidelines, including:
Each agency appeared to tailor the banned words based on its domain, making the scope of suppression broad and far-reaching.
Why Were These Words Targeted?
The rationale behind the bans was to align public-facing communication with the Trump administration's ideological goals. Topics like climate change, gender identity, diversity, and racial equity were viewed as politically sensitive. Critics argue that these restrictions attempted to erase acknowledgment of vulnerable communities, environmental crises, and public health challenges from government narratives.
The Denial and the Evidence
While some federal bodies denied the existence of an official ban, multiple leaked documents and testimonies from insiders contradict these claims. Independent watchdogs and journalism collectives, including PEN America, highlighted how grant writers, scientists, and public officials had to rephrase critical language to ensure their work wasn’t rejected or flagged.
A Chilling Effect on Science and Policy
The ban didn’t just affect language - it affected action. Avoiding terms like “evidence-based,” “climate change,” or “transgender” in official documents meant real-life policy and funding consequences for crucial programmes. Researchers were forced to sanitise their findings, and organisations targeting social equity or environmental health faced additional hurdles in receiving federal support.
As the political landscape evolves, the consequences of suppressing language in governance continue to resonate. The banned words list serves as a stark reminder of how language controls policy - and why protecting open, inclusive, and evidence-driven dialogue is more crucial than ever.
CDC’s “Forbidden Seven”: Where It All Began
The origins of the censorship can be traced back to the CDC, where budget-related documents were instructed to exclude seven specific terms:
- Diversity
- Entitlement
- Evidence-based
- Fetus
- Science-based
- Transgender
- Vulnerable
These words, largely related to healthcare, equity, and scientific research, were reportedly removed or de-emphasised to align with the administration's political and ideological stance.
The Expanding List: A Web of Silenced Words
Following deeper investigations by PEN America and major news outlets, it was revealed that the censorship extended far beyond seven terms. Over 350 words and phrases were either discouraged or outright banned across multiple agencies. These include words commonly used in scientific, academic, and social contexts.
Some examples from the expanded list:
- Gender & Identity: transgender, non-binary, LGBTQ, gender transition
- Diversity & Inclusion: equity, inclusion, BIPOC, multicultural, affirmative action
- Environmental Terms: climate change, carbon footprint, clean energy, pollution
- Health & Science: mental health, obesity, vaccine, autism
- Race & Justice: racism, racial inequality, systemic, privilege
Agencies Involved: A Government-Wide Impact
The censorship wasn’t confined to one department. A wide range of federal bodies reportedly adopted these language guidelines, including:
- CDC
- USDA (Department of Agriculture)
- NASA
- FDA (Food and Drug Administration)
- NSF (National Science Foundation)
- FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency)
- Department of Defence
Each agency appeared to tailor the banned words based on its domain, making the scope of suppression broad and far-reaching.
Why Were These Words Targeted?
The rationale behind the bans was to align public-facing communication with the Trump administration's ideological goals. Topics like climate change, gender identity, diversity, and racial equity were viewed as politically sensitive. Critics argue that these restrictions attempted to erase acknowledgment of vulnerable communities, environmental crises, and public health challenges from government narratives.
The Denial and the Evidence
While some federal bodies denied the existence of an official ban, multiple leaked documents and testimonies from insiders contradict these claims. Independent watchdogs and journalism collectives, including PEN America, highlighted how grant writers, scientists, and public officials had to rephrase critical language to ensure their work wasn’t rejected or flagged.
A Chilling Effect on Science and Policy
The ban didn’t just affect language - it affected action. Avoiding terms like “evidence-based,” “climate change,” or “transgender” in official documents meant real-life policy and funding consequences for crucial programmes. Researchers were forced to sanitise their findings, and organisations targeting social equity or environmental health faced additional hurdles in receiving federal support.
As the political landscape evolves, the consequences of suppressing language in governance continue to resonate. The banned words list serves as a stark reminder of how language controls policy - and why protecting open, inclusive, and evidence-driven dialogue is more crucial than ever.
Next Story