The diamond ring phenomenon and Bailey’s Beads are visible as the moon obscures the sun on April 8, 2024, in Fort Worth, Texas.

Ron Jenkins/Getty Images

hide caption

toggle caption

Ron Jenkins/Getty Images

Experiencing totality during a solar eclipse is truly unparalleled.

“For a brief moment, it feels as though time comes to a halt, yet everything shifts,” states Corinne Brevik, a physicist from Southern Illinois University in Carbondale. As the sky darkens, stars become visible, and the sun’s corona shines brilliantly. “It serves as a powerful reminder of our connection to something far larger than ourselves.”

However, only a small segment of the country will witness this remarkable sight. In preparation for the 2024 eclipse, Brevik leveraged funding from a National Science Foundation grant to facilitate a live, interactive stream that linked middle school students within the totality path with those elsewhere in the nation. This initiative allowed thousands of students to collectively engage in the experience.

“You can literally watch the children observing the eclipse and hear their reactions of awe,” she describes. “This project brought opportunities to many kids who otherwise may have missed out on the experience.”

On Tuesday, Brevik was taken aback to discover that her grant was among over 3,400 NSF grants, labeled by Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, as “woke DEI” research, which he claims promotes “neo-Marxist class warfare propaganda.”

A database made public by Cruz this week cited an October report that asserted over $2 billion of NSF’s $9 billion budget was allocated to “left-leaning ideological initiatives disguised as ‘academic research.'” The report included an appendix listing numerous DEI-related terms, some of which NSF staff are currently using to evaluate thousands of active grants against compliance with executive orders from President Trump targeting diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts throughout the government.

“It’s incredibly frustrating,” Brevik expresses. “The sole aim was to share knowledge with everyone. This isn’t propaganda; there’s no hidden agenda. Our mission is purely educational.”

Brevik was not alone in her disappointment; many scientists voiced their concern regarding how their fundamental research was being categorized.

The database detailed research funding from various institutions across the country, both large and small. It encompassed projects like developing improved medication synthesis methods, enhancing safety for self-driving vehicles, examining how military service can inspire more women to pursue STEM careers, and understanding the mechanisms by which certain proteins malfunction, potentially leading to cancer.

“This is absurd,” comments Joshua Weitz, a biologist at the University of Maryland whose research was not flagged but has also received NSF funding. “[Cruz] is exploiting his influence as a senator to raise a ruckus about essential research and misrepresenting the reality of scientific endeavors in this country. If you scrutinize this list, you’ll find projects we should be very proud to support.”

Many proposals that seem unrelated to DEI were likely marked because they mentioned expanding participation for women and underrepresented groups in science, an aspect Congress has mandated NSF to consider since the 1990s, according to Weitz.

Cruz’s office has not responded to several requests for comments. A press release accompanying his database asserts that “DEI initiatives have tainted research efforts, undermined faith in the scientific community, and incited division among Americans… Congress must terminate the politicization of NSF funding and restore scientific integrity.”

Broader impacts

Tammie Visintainer, a science education professor at San Jose State University, was specifically named by Cruz for her efforts to engage underrepresented students in community-focused scientific research.

“I learned about it through a text from my dean, who inquired if I was receiving any threats,” she shares. “It was chilling and alarming… I even removed my name from my office door. It felt important to keep a lower profile.”

All NSF grants are required to outline the societal impacts of the research, including strategies for increasing participation in science. “This is one of the two primary criteria for NSF grant reviews,” Visintainer explains. “For competitiveness, it’s essential to address these issues because the inequities are substantial, and ignoring them isn’t based on fact.”

Her NSF-funded initiative focuses on helping educators and students conduct community research on the causes and effects of extreme heat and urban heat islands, particularly in racially and ethnically varied regions that suffer more compared to suburban areas, which are predominantly whiter and wealthier.

“The innovative work being criticized involves students collecting temperature data in their neighborhoods or mapping local heat-related issues,” she states. The primary goal is to encourage students to see themselves as scientists or aspiring scientists.

Similarly, Kylea Garces, an ecologist at Miami University, shares a parallel aim with her grant, which appears on Cruz’s list.

Garces, a product of a blue-collar background with parents in farming and construction, sometimes felt out of place in the scientific community.

She later secured an NSF postdoctoral fellowship to explore the interaction between fungi and plants that enhances resilience under stress. This grant also funds her initiative to create evaluation methods for college science courses that foster inclusiveness.

In a class designed for non-majors, for example, students are empowered to select their final project topics. One student chose to create a visual presentation on climate change, which she displayed behind her punk band during a performance.

“There’s considerable misunderstanding surrounding the terms ‘DEI’ or ‘social justice’,” Garces notes. “Focusing on student learning isn’t political. It’s simply about providing every student with a fair chance to excel and thrive in their future careers.”

The unveiling of Cruz’s database is merely the latest in a slew of actions from Republicans and the Trump administration aiming at undermining American scientific foundations. Those behind these initiatives have imposed funding freezes, budget cuts, and website purges, claiming they are curbing ideologically extreme scientific practices.

While NSF states they cannot halt payments for existing grants based on noncompliance with these orders, the recent grant freezes in January have left many scientists apprehensive about potential funding cuts.

Many in the scientific community view this as a direct assault on science, which could adversely affect the American populace. “What concerns me is the intention to dismantle U.S. scientific leadership,” warns Weitz. “If this line of inquiry is halted, how will we develop advanced materials, quantum computing, or new treatments for cancer or heart disease?”