This revolting development was completely predictable to the extent of being virtually inevitable. Nonetheless, it is ominous, dangerous and disgusting, not to mention Orwellian, for the government to try to manipulate public opinion by banning words and phrases that can support opinions and beliefs authorities don’t want the public to hold.
The Energy Department last week added “climate change,” “green” “emissions” and “decarbonization” to its list of banned words and phrases at its Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. The WrongSpeak/ThoughtCrime linguistic offenses already included “energy transition,” “sustainability/sustainable,” “‘clean’ or ‘dirty’ energy,” “Carbon/CO2 ‘Footprint’” and “Tax breaks/tax credits/subsidies.”
“Please ensure that every member of your team is aware that this is the latest list of words to avoid — and continue to be conscientious about avoiding any terminology that you know to be misaligned with the Administration’s perspectives and priorities,” the acting director of external affairs Rachel Overbey decreed.
The order applies to both public and internal communications and extends to documents such as requests for information for federal funding opportunities, reports and briefings. It’s obvious why the Trump Administration is going down this pro-indoctrination path. “It works!” as the late Harry Reid assures us from Hell. The ends justify the means, “They (the Democrats) did it first,” “Everybody does it,” yada yada yada: there are at least a dozen rationalizations on the list including #31. The Troublesome Luxury: “Ethics is a luxury we can’t afford right now” that will doubtlessly be resorted to by our current ruling censors. The practice is still unethical and the impulse is anti-American.
I believe that the linguistic attacks are encouraged by the reality that the news media is engaged in permanent pro-climate change hysteria propaganda. “Climate change is caused by rising greenhouse gas emissions, which is driven primarily by burning oil, coal and natural gas for energy,” Politico states confidently while reporting on the new language edict at Energy. More:
The new policies come days after President Donald Trump excoriated world leaders at the United Nations General Assembly for pursuing actions to confront rising emissions….Energy Secretary Chris Wright has also sought to impugn climate science by touting a report he commissioned that downplayed the role rising emissions have had in worsening weather extremes. He has endorsed some of the report’s most controversial findings, such as claiming the potential benefits of a warmer planet are undervalued. DOE has been at the forefront of the Trump administration’s efforts to quash renewable energy subsidies and incentives. Last week, Wright canceled $13 billion of funding for renewable energy projects and took shots at wind and solar incentives that the Republican megalaw will quickly sunset after more than three decades of existence.
That means we are all doomed to a fiery death, of course. Politico did not emit (Can I say that?) a similar critical tone when the Biden Administration decreed that immigration enforcement agencies could not use “terms such as ‘alien,’ ‘illegal alien’ and ‘assimilation’ when referring to immigrants in the United States.” It also ruled that illegal aliens were to be referred to as “non-citizens.” That was good linguistic manipulation and indoctrination, you see.
Baloney. The practice is unethical and an abuse of power by the government, regardless of the party in charge or the policies being pushed.
Ethics Alarms 
Here is (supposedly) the full list of words that federal agencies were (again, alledgedly) “instructed to remove or limit these terms from websites, reports, and official materials.” This list circulated in academic circles earlier this year to help people rewrite their grant proposals… somehow and to understand why grant money might have been frozen.
Yes, it reads like satire… but I don’t think it is?
A few I found particularly amusing (in the laugh or cry category), given the popularity of “What is a woman?” questions, is that “woman” “women” “female” and “females” are flagged (how, pray tell, is one supposed to describe the breakdown of subjects in scientific studies? 50 male and 48 non-male?)
A few more (it’s a long list!): sex, evidence-based (can’t have that!), ideology, excluded (yeah, how does one report about people who were ruled ineligible for a study?), barrier (stop with the traffic studies already!) elderly, gay (hence deletion of Enola Gay!) Gulf of Mexico, victim (so much for crime reporting! maybe “target of crime”?) trauma (no emergency medicine here!), prostitute (also not sex worker obviously… what term shall we use?), promote (let’s see, how about “vertical change in job status”?) and definition.
Oh, and forget about new research into the causes of the “A” word (we’ll just cite a few old discredited or small and inconclusive studies instead) — “autism” is also banned.
https://www.groundreport.in/latest/full-list-of-words-banned-by-trump-including-climate-change-8839026/
I decided to wander around on this issue, I have found nothing but “emails” (that don’t look like any I received in nearly 30 years of serving, contracting or civilian Federal Government interaction. I found no sources that weren’t anonymous, redacted, or just plain missing. If there are better actual sources out there I would hope someone could share them.
This sounds like another case of Orange Man Bad, without substance or detail….
Yeah, I had trouble finding stuff too. Here’s an article that has a least one named person at the DOE (or is it now ED?), Shaylyn Hynes, a spokesperson for the department. Notably, she is not disputing that the new guidelines exist, just that they don’t necessarily “cancel” any legislation or federal regulations that include the blacklisted terms.
https://usnewsper.com/2025/09/energy-department-bans-climate-change-words-sparks-outrage/
Thanks. Requiring precise language in technical documents or in statements that are public facing is part of clear communications.
An example, Pam Bondi spoke about “hate” speech, when she should have been discussing “inciting” language.
radiation is different than contamination.
vaccine used to mean something different
James,
You succinctly captured my thinking when I perused the list of terms that were allegedly banned by the Trump administration.
As I understand the directives, the goal is to use neutral language in order to avoid putting a finger on the scale. Many of the words in question reinforce a narrative that tends to fly in the face of real science such as “sex assigned at birth”. The terms desired are male and female not men and women as they have been redefined in progressive lexicon to advance a variety of progressive positions. One cannot have programs specifically women for example if males can claim to be women to take advantage of such privileges.
It is not clear to me that administrators who created the internal memos from which these terms were compiled are not anti-Trump holdovers. Even if not, the memos may have been sent to the Times by federal workers that may not like the Trump agenda with an editorial slant that the terms are to be banned. It is highly unlikely that Trump supporters send such messages to the NYT.
As of 9/25/25 Trump had appointed 381 persons to key positions. Of that 209 are still waiting to be voted on and only 172 confirmed. Had it not been for Thune employing a rule change to speed up the process that has been stymied by resistance by Democrats in the Senate Trump would have 48 fewer confirmations at this point. In addition, 163 persons are hold overs from prior administrations or termed positions. Source WAPO Tracking Trump’s Cabinet and administration nominations – Washington Post
Now I do not know how many are holdovers from the prior Trump administration other than Brendan Carr at the FCC nor do I know how many are anti-Trump that remain in political positions or converted to civil service positions.
The list in question takes all the words from entire paragraphs shown in the NYT article (The Words Federal Agencies Are Discouraged From Using Under Trump – The New York Times and claims they are all banned. One memo listed was dated January, 2021.
The link from Holly is from an environmental publication in India. Their site states “We do deep on-ground reports on environmental, and related issues from the margins of India, with a particular focus on Madhya Pradesh, to inspire relevant interventions and solutions.
We believe climate change should be the basis of current discourse, and our stories attempt to reflect the same”.
The article references the NYT’s piece but distorts the reporting. In one case, they imply that the Trump administration erased the Stonewall riot of 1969 because it mentioned the LGBTQ+ community but in fact it merely deleted the T&Q leaving the LGB community.
This is the wording: The italicized words were shown as strikethroughs. The updated text is the bold.
Before the 1960s, almost everything about living openly as a lesbian, gay, bisexual (LGB) transgender, or queer (LGBTQ+) person was illegal. The Stonewall Uprising on June 28, 1969 is a milestone in the quest for LGBTQ+ civil rights and provided momentum for a movement.
Queer in 1969 was considered a pejorative and the “trans” community was virtually invisible. Signs from the protests of the routine police raids only mentioned Gays. Bisexuals were simply deemed gay or negatively as queers and homos.
Some other examples:
Working at FAA offers a unique opportunity to experience a career where your impact not only reaches throughout the aviation industry but around the world as well. You’ll be a part of a diverse workforce utilizing the latest technology and systems dedicated to maintaining the safety and integrity of our civil airspace.
Why is the word diverse necessary? The utilization of this qualifier forces everyone else to use that word otherwise it will be deemed not diverse. Virtually every workforce is diverse because we all come from different backgrounds.
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 OHS 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. January 2021 (Biden)
The climate crisis knows no boundaries, and both the challenge and its solutions range from local to global in scale. Because of this, international cooperation and collaboration through negotiation and implementation of international agreements are essential. The Negotiations Team represents the United States in negotiations under the Paris Agreement and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), and in many other international fora that address climate change, including the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), International Maritime Organization (IMO), G7, G20, and others.
The first part is unnecessary.
The text removed is part of the narrative the left wants to reinforce the idea of systemic racism is prevalent. What I read is says that all personnel will be treated equally.
The irony is that they claim that language shapes the peoples understanding of an issue and that Trump is trying to change that. I would bet that government grant sources have routinely chilled scientific speech for a long time. IN short they are complaining that the wording they want used which reinforces their messages are being removed allowing people to interpret the data or information neutrally.
Yeah as I noted I had trouble finding credible sources (hence my use of “supposedly” and “alledgedly” to signal caution and low confidence). I did just find this at Forbes, rated as “Center” by All Sides Media Bias chart (which means it is only slightly left or slightly right — absolute neutrality probably doesn’t exist):
https://www.forbes.com/sites/conormurray/2025/03/07/enola-gay-aircraft-and-other-historic-items-inaccurately-targeted-under-pentagons-anti-dei-purge/
This is the problem with AI use. The elimination of Enola Gay has to be a result of using an algorithm to identify words that are associated with DEI and cannot distinguish between the term gay for being homosexual and that of a name. Most word processors have the ability to search and delete certain words and phrases without human intervention. The NYT used such programs to scour 5000 memos to create the list the others used. Even the link says that the aircraft and other historic items were inaccurately targeted.
Yes, I also strongly suspect this was/is an attempt to use AI to identify any terms associated with “woke” materials (hence woman/women/female/females) The DOGE boys clearly have unlimited faith in the capacity of AI to solve all problems… they are youngsters of the same generation as college students who rely on AI to write their papers.
imagine a supervisor telling his team to find all the DEI materials in our database. The team brainstorms the search criteria. ‘Gay” is one search term. This search is anonymously leaked as a “Final list of banned items”.
Cue the screaming and the gnashing of teeth.
perform the same search a month later and find that nearly the entire list still remains in the database, since “Enola Gay” is not a DEI dog whistle.
likewise some things that should remain are gone, due to ignorant team members who don’t know that the Tuskegee airmen were not a bunch of DEI hires.
We also don’t know if the Tuskegee Airmen references were done through ignorance of history or purposefully to smear the Administration.
Based on the headline link why is this news if they even acknowledge that the terms were mistakenly removed if not to create something out of nothing. Call me cynical but I trust no media right or left of center.
Sometimes cynicism is warranted. I think corporate media (and some independent media as well) have worked very hard to earn our mistrust. So we are just granting them their due.
Thanks, good find on the article, I don’t have access to the NYT’s. I looked around on the DOE website for the lady mentioned and found mostly technical writing dealing with research and investment. There was no buzz-word bingo, just reasonable descriptive terms of art dealing with Energy topics.
Okay thanks, so she does exist and is at Energy. I didn’t think of checking up on that. Appreciate it.