It's good to know the exact words that are disappearing so that they can come back once we have new leadership. It's a weird list, by the way—and very lengthy. Either Trump and DOGE are taking cues from Texas or the other way around, as an earlier published piece that I wrote titled "Monopoly Tycoons in a Game of Jenga: The Censorship of Bodies, Protest, and Speech at UT-Austin" suggests.
Whether UT-Austin or the U.S. government, no list like this should exist to begin with in the "free" world—or any other world, for that matter. And yes, we should be outraged by this since we can't transform reality unless we can name it. I love this appropriate quote by Nisargadatta Maharaj that links our very humanity to the ability to name:
"The mind craves for formulations and definitions, always eager to squeeze reality into a verbal shape."
I know that Trump's list is upsetting for a democratic (lowercase "d") mindset that respects free speech and decries censorship. It upsets me, too. However, the minute I feel my blood pressure rise, I readily take heart in the power of culture itself to overcome this trying moment.
According to cultural theorists like Gloria Anzaldúa, Emma Perez, and Homi Bhabha, culture is powerful. It can and will overcome censoriousness by emphasizing resistance, hybridity, and the subversive potential of marginalized voices. To understand this, one must first know that, like race, ethnicity, or gender, cultures are neither fixed nor monolithic, no matter how hard one might wish this to be. Rather, they are continuously reshaped through interaction and negotiation, such as when we see this in the continual "re-mixing" of dance, music, food, and artistic expression.
This liminal, in-between space that the late Gloria Anzaldúa terms, "Nepantla," allows for new meanings and interpretations to emerge, challenging rigid, censorious policies and guidelines that seek to control discourse.
Glad to see that "Chicana" and "Chicano" didn't make the list despite how progressive these terms are. The bad news is that this is so because they never made it on any website to begin with. The good news is that we never stopped being Chicana nor Chicano—or Chicanx. Not that we don't also have other identities and identifiers, but rather that we were correct in knowing from the very beginning that we Chicanas/os live entire existences in Nepantla—forever between worlds, entremundos.
Living in Nepantla gives us great skills that we should totally rely on in this current political moment. These have helped us to be better border crossers, traversing linguistic, geographical, socioeconomic, sociopolitical, and sociocultural borders—oftentimes all in the same day. And not always with ease, but criss-crossing nevertheless.
We were made for this moment! 😁
Additionally, culture has an inherent transformative power that enables individuals and communities to reclaim their agency via storytelling, poetry, and multiple forms of artistic expression, and reinterpretation of dominant narratives.
The larger point for U.S. society and the world is that instead of running away from culture—that is arguably moving at breakneck speed without anyone's permission—our task as the denizens and caretakers of future generations is to embrace ambiguity, irony, and an ongoing subversion of symbolic orders.
We must also be humble and willing to live with uncertainty. It's good for us all that culture resists simplification and censorship. Moreover, the power of culture, combined with the ease of technology we enjoy today is that alternative perspectives and suppressed histories will undoubtedly, if stubbornly, find a voice.
Separately, as researcher and teacher of teachers, future policymakers, and future school leaders, my main concern is that we not forget about decades of research that views teachers as the crucial link between culture and learning, especially for minoritized students. This basic understanding is ever the more important because our nation is only becoming more culturally and linguistically diverse while the teacher workforce is predominantly white.
Regardless of race, ethnicity, or color, the teacher workforce would do well to step back, reflect, and look at how racial and ethnic relations on the campus or school ground are always informed by cultural exchanges and power dynamics that shape not just student, but teacher, experiences, opportunities, and sense of belonging. This is something captured well in Vivian Paley's classic text White Teacher. Acknowledging these influences, educators can foster more diverse, inclusive, and equitable learning environments.
Do heed this core idea: Cultural exchange, reinterpretation, and hybridity weaken the grip of censorship by making it difficult for any single authority to fully control meaning. This dynamic nature of culture creates opportunities for resistance, dialogue, and the continual evolution of thought, which can and will erode the power of censorship over time.
Successful school leaders and teachers adapt their communication styles to align with students' cultural backgrounds. Theirs is ideally also, always, an ongoing project of building trust and community.
For the rest of us, yes, let's challenge censorship and censorious policies and practices. However, let's all still live our best lives, everybody, no matter what.
Can't let any of this get us down. I know I don't have time for this and imagine you don't either. See you in Nepantla! 🩷
-Angela Valenzuela
References
Anzaldúa, G. (2004). Borderlands/la frontera. Aunt Lute Books.
Bhabha, H. K. (2012). The location of culture. Routledge.
Chávez, M. S. (2015). Let’s meet in Nepantla: The possibility of third space as a place “others” call home. Journal of Latinos and Education, 14(4), 336-344.
Paley, V. G. (2000). White teacher. Harvard University Press.
Pérez, E. (1999). The decolonial imaginary: Writing Chicanas into history. Indiana University Press.
***
By Karen Yourish, Annie Daniel, Saurabh Datar, Isaac White and Lazaro Gamio
March 7, 2025
As President Trump seeks to purge the federal government of “woke” initiatives, agencies have flagged hundreds of words to limit or avoid, according to a compilation of government documents.
As President Trump seeks to purge the federal government of “woke” initiatives, agencies have flagged hundreds of words to limit or avoid, according to a compilation of government documents.
Reporting was contributed by Julian Barnes, Christopher Flavelle, Dylan Freedman, Apoorva Mandavilli, Katrina Miller and Nicholas Nehamas. See more on: U.S. Politics, Donald Trump
Notes: Some terms listed with a plus sign represent combinations of words that, when used together, acknowledge transgender people, which is not in keeping with the current federal government’s position that there are only two, immutable sexes. Any term collected above was included on at least one agency’s list, which does not necessarily imply that other agencies are also discouraged from using it.
The above terms appeared in government memos, in official and unofficial agency guidance and in other documents viewed by The New York Times. Some ordered the removal of these words from public-facing websites, or ordered the elimination of other materials (including school curricula) in which they might be included.
In other cases, federal agency managers advised caution in the terms’ usage without instituting an outright ban. Additionally, the presence of some terms was used to automatically flag for review some grant proposals and contracts that could conflict with Mr. Trump’s executive orders.
The list is most likely incomplete. More agency memos may exist than those seen by New York Times reporters, and some directives are vague or suggest what language might be impermissible without flatly stating it.
All presidential administrations change the language used in official communications to reflect their own policies. It is within their prerogative, as are amendments to or the removal of web pages, which The Times has found has already happened thousands of times in this administration.
Still, the words and phrases listed here represent a marked — and remarkable — shift in the corpus of language being used both in the federal government’s corridors of power and among its rank and file. They are an unmistakable reflection of this administration’s priorities.
For example, the Trump administration has frequently framed diversity, equity and inclusion efforts as being inherently at odds with what it has identified as “merit,” and it has argued that these initiatives have resulted in the elevation of unqualified or undeserving people. That rhetorical strategy — with its baked-in assumption of a lack of capacity in people of color, women, the disabled and other marginalized groups — has been criticized as discriminatory.
Indeed, in some cases, guidance against a term’s usage has arrived alongside directives intended to eliminate the concept itself. Federal diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives are one example; the Gulf of Mexico is a very different one.
That shift is already apparent on hundreds of federal government websites. A New York Times analysis of pages on federal agency websites, before and after Mr. Trump took office, found that more than 250 contained evidence of deletions or amendments to words included in the above list.
Here are some notable examples. Words that have been removed are shown inred with strikethroughs, and words that have been added are in green with underlines.
Federal Aviation Administration’s job page
National Park Service’s Stonewall National Monument web page
2021 Head Start memo
Notes: Some terms listed with a plus sign represent combinations of words that, when used together, acknowledge transgender people, which is not in keeping with the current federal government’s position that there are only two, immutable sexes. Any term collected above was included on at least one agency’s list, which does not necessarily imply that other agencies are also discouraged from using it.
The above terms appeared in government memos, in official and unofficial agency guidance and in other documents viewed by The New York Times. Some ordered the removal of these words from public-facing websites, or ordered the elimination of other materials (including school curricula) in which they might be included.
In other cases, federal agency managers advised caution in the terms’ usage without instituting an outright ban. Additionally, the presence of some terms was used to automatically flag for review some grant proposals and contracts that could conflict with Mr. Trump’s executive orders.
The list is most likely incomplete. More agency memos may exist than those seen by New York Times reporters, and some directives are vague or suggest what language might be impermissible without flatly stating it.
All presidential administrations change the language used in official communications to reflect their own policies. It is within their prerogative, as are amendments to or the removal of web pages, which The Times has found has already happened thousands of times in this administration.
Still, the words and phrases listed here represent a marked — and remarkable — shift in the corpus of language being used both in the federal government’s corridors of power and among its rank and file. They are an unmistakable reflection of this administration’s priorities.
For example, the Trump administration has frequently framed diversity, equity and inclusion efforts as being inherently at odds with what it has identified as “merit,” and it has argued that these initiatives have resulted in the elevation of unqualified or undeserving people. That rhetorical strategy — with its baked-in assumption of a lack of capacity in people of color, women, the disabled and other marginalized groups — has been criticized as discriminatory.
Indeed, in some cases, guidance against a term’s usage has arrived alongside directives intended to eliminate the concept itself. Federal diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives are one example; the Gulf of Mexico is a very different one.
That shift is already apparent on hundreds of federal government websites. A New York Times analysis of pages on federal agency websites, before and after Mr. Trump took office, found that more than 250 contained evidence of deletions or amendments to words included in the above list.
Here are some notable examples. Words that have been removed are shown in
Federal Aviation Administration’s job page
National Park Service’s Stonewall National Monument web page
2021 Head Start memo
Key topics page of State Department’s Office of Global Change
The total number of web pages identified by The Times as having changed is an undercount. The analysis involved searching for changes on more than 5,000 total pages, but it did not capture the entire universe of the federal government’s web presence. In addition, the pages were captured for comparison in early February, and more changes may have been made between then and now.
The president and some of his closest advisers, including Elon Musk, have frequently portrayed themselves as champions of free speech. One of the executive orders Mr. Trump signed on his first day back in office decried what it described as a pressure campaign by the Biden administration to stifle First Amendment rights “in a manner that advanced the Government’s preferred narrative about significant matters of public debate,” by way of putting pressure on tech platforms. “Government censorship of speech is intolerable in a free society,” it continued.
Indeed, the office of the presidency carries with it a tremendous power to drive the discourse. But the pattern of vanishing words established here suggests Mr. Trump and his administration may be more interested in chilling the national conversation — at least when it comes to their own disfavored topics — than in expanding it.
Are you a federal worker? We want to hear from you.
The Times would like to hear about your experience as a federal worker under the second Trump administration. We may reach out about your submission, but we will not publish any part of your response without contacting you first.
NOTE: PLEASE GO TO THIS ARTICLE TO TELL YOUR STORY TO THE NY TIMES
The Trump Administration’s First 100 Days
Speech at the Justice Department: President Trump repeated a number of well-trodden falsehoods in a grievance-fueled speech at the Justice Department. Here’s a fact-check.
Attacks on Law Firms: Trump opened a third attack against a private law firm, restricting its business activities just days after a federal judge ruled such measures appeared to violate the Constitution.
Aid Cuts Threaten Refugees’ Survival: The Trump administration’s freeze on aid has overwhelmed humanitarian response at a time when multiple conflicts rage, with aid agencies working feverishly to fill the void left by the U.S. government.
Arlington National Cemetery: Materials on the cemetery's website highlighting the graves of Black and female service members have vanished as the Trump administration purges government websites of references to diversity and inclusion.
Pentagon Office Focused on Future Wars: Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth ordered the shuttering of the Office of Net Assessment, a small, often secretive and sometimes opaque office that for more than 50 years has helped the Pentagon’s most senior leaders think about the future of war.
Leak Investigations: The Trump administration has opened its first known investigations into what it called “politically motivated leaks,” fulfilling promises to pursue the sources of stories involving national security revelations.
Travel Ban: The Trump administration is considering targeting the citizens of as many as 43 countries as part of a new ban on travel to the United States that would be broader than the restrictions imposed during Trump’s first term, according to officials familiar with the matter.
How We Report on the Trump Administration
Hundreds of readers asked about our coverage of the president. Times editors and reporters responded to some of the most common questions.
