Trump’s Own Words Violate His Administration’s DEI Ban, Analysis Finds
Photo Credit: Getty Images
A recent analysis has pointed out an ironic contradiction in President Donald Trump’s efforts to curb certain words deemed “worrisome or problematically diversity-focused.” According to The Washington Post columnist Philip Bump, the president himself frequently uses these so-called banned words in his speeches and public statements.
The Trump administration has reportedly instructed the National Science Foundation (NSF) to scrutinize research proposals for specific terms linked to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) policies. Among the words now flagged are “victim,” “women,” “barrier,” and “political.” The administration contends that such language promotes a liberal agenda and has no place in what it calls the “2025 MAGA land.”
“The clear intent is to root out things that seem as though they’re focused on addressing racial or gender inequality,” Bump wrote, emphasizing the administration’s apparent goal of restricting DEI initiatives in federally funded research. However, Bump highlighted the irony of Trump’s own language, revealing that the president frequently uses these very terms in major speeches.
To illustrate this, Bump examined Trump’s first campaign announcement speech from June 2015, delivered at Trump Tower. He noted that Trump used the term “political” while criticizing government hiring practices: “Not just a political hack that got the job because he made a contribution to a campaign, which is the way all jobs, just about, are gotten.”
Bump further scrutinized Trump’s 2024 campaign launch, describing it as “even more alarming from a DEI perspective.” He pointed out that the speech included multiple flagged words, such as “gender,” “women,” and once again, “political.” Trump also doubled down on another restricted term when he stated, “I’m a victim. I will tell you, I’m a victim.”
The columnist did find a brief exception in Trump’s 2018 State of the Union address, noting that it “managed to avoid any of the terms for which NSF grants are now being scrubbed.” However, Trump’s inaugural addresses, both in 2017 and 2025, did not escape the flagged-word scrutiny.
“Both in 2017 and last month, Trump used terms that would be flagged by the NSF,” Bump observed. “Eight years ago, he made reference to prejudice. A few weeks ago, it was gender.” Bump concluded his analysis with a satirical remark on the paradox of the administration’s language policing, writing, “We must now report with regret that this entire article has been flagged for including a surfeit of problematic words.
Please suspend your reading of it while it is policed for compliance with what the Trump administration views as acceptable.” As debates over DEI policies and free speech continue, the administration’s selective approach to language regulation raises broader questions about its consistency and motivations.
