US science language shift
The National Science Foundation is reportedly discouraging explicit references to “climate change” in new proposals, prompting researchers to reframe climate work to align with changing federal signals. That shift comes as the UK has revised migration estimates and U.S. data show slowing population growth tied to lower immigration — a policy and framing change that could affect funding, research priorities, and how climate‑driven mobility studies are supported. (govexec.com) (commonslibrary.parliament.uk) (san.com)
Grist’s analysis republished by Government Executive found NSF grant titles or abstracts mentioning “climate change” dropped from 889 in 2023 to 148 in 2025, a 77% plunge. (govexec.com) Internal memos and agency practices reportedly moved staff to substitute phrases such as “elevated temperatures,” “soil health,” and “extreme weather” after a USDA memo listed more than 100 discouraged words, roughly a third tied to climate. (govexec.com) NSF has sent previously approved proposals back for “secondary review,” froze certain grant payments on Jan. 27, 2026, and by early May 2025 had terminated roughly 380 grants bringing total terminations to about 1,425 as program officers screened projects for alignment with administration priorities. (climate.law.columbia.edu) The UK’s Office for National Statistics moved to administrative data and published revised long‑term migration estimates in November 2025 as part of a methodological overhaul that changed prior migration totals. (commonslibrary.parliament.uk) The U.S. Census Bureau’s Vintage 2025 estimates show national population growth of 1.8 million (0.5%) from July 1, 2024, to July 1, 2025 — the slowest rate since the early COVID period — with analysts identifying reduced net international migration as a primary driver. (census.gov) Those statistical revisions and the drop in U.S. immigration are converging with federal screening that flags “climate change” among objectionable topics, prompting researchers to reframe climate‑driven mobility and vulnerability work in non‑climate terms to preserve eligibility for NSF review. (climate.law.columbia.edu) Stopping new awards and routing proposals through additional reviews has already slowed NSF funding flows for environmental work and resulted in large numbers of terminated grants, a shift that reshapes which climate‑related studies are likely to secure federal support. (nature.com)
