Newly revealed memos from President Donald Trump’s administration, published by The New York Times (NYT) last Friday, show that over 100 words have been flagged for removal or limitation across government agencies. The list, compiled from official and unofficial agency guidance, highlights terms that authorities are being advised to avoid, many of which relate to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI).
While the full extent of the list remains unknown, the flagged words include seemingly neutral terms such as “black,” “women,” and “political.” The targeted language focuses on concepts linked to diversity efforts and issues frequently opposed by the Republican Party, such as “clean energy” and “injustice.”
Sweeping Censorship Across Federal Documents
These flagged terms are under review for potential removal from government websites, official documents, and public communications. While not all words have been explicitly banned, agency leaders are being strongly advised to limit their use to avoid further scrutiny.
This directive aligns with the Trump administration’s broader crackdown on DEI initiatives, arguing that such efforts compromise hiring standards in government roles. In early February, for instance, references to transgender and non-binary individuals were erased from numerous federal websites, including the U.S. National Park Service’s page on the Stonewall National Monument—a site commemorating a historic LGBTQ+ rights movement. The removal of this information sparked protests at the monument.
Wider Implications for Marginalised Groups
The censorship extends beyond LGBTQ+ communities, with the flagged list suggesting that other groups—including Indigenous Americans, African Americans, women, and gay people—may also face erasure from federal discourse.
Despite this suppression, President Trump continues to position himself as a champion of free speech. On his first day back in office, he signed an executive order titled “Restoring Freedom of Speech and Ending Federal Censorship,” which asserts that “government censorship of speech is intolerable in a free society.” However, this order has been widely interpreted as providing legal protections for federal employees who engage in discriminatory behaviour.
Documents Altered to Fit the Administration’s Agenda
The NYT investigation uncovered multiple instances of official documents being edited to align with the administration’s policies. One example is a 2021 Head Start memo, which originally addressed the disproportionate impact of COVID-19 on underprivileged communities. The original text explicitly mentioned racial injustice and acknowledged that a significant portion of Head Start’s teaching staff were Black, Indigenous, and people of colour (BIPOC).
Original Memo (2021):
“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 Office of Head Start 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.”
Revised Memo (Current):
“The last year has brought significant challenges to the Head Start workforce. All staff have been impacted by COVID-19. As such, OHS is committed to a culture of wellness that includes holistic support for the entire Head Start workforce.”
The Growing Debate Over Censorship and Inclusion
The changes reflect a larger effort to reshape the federal government’s language and limit discussions on diversity, equity, and social justice. While the administration insists these actions prevent “politicisation” of government agencies, critics argue that they are a coordinated effort to erase marginalised communities from official discourse.
As more agency memos surface, concerns are growing over the potential long-term impact of these language restrictions—not only on government transparency but also on the rights and visibility of affected communities.
