You would think a POTUS has more important things to do with his time. Anyway, in an expected but weird move to reshape federal communication, the Trump administration has instructed government agencies to limit or eliminate the use of hundreds of terms deemed “woke,” according to a report by The New York Times. This directive aligns with President Donald Trump’s broader efforts to roll back diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives across the federal government. During his recent address to a joint session of Congress, Trump declared that the United States would be “woke no longer.”
It is so ridiculous and seemingly blatantly rooted in bigotry in this writer’s personal opinion.
Get this: the list of targeted words includes phrases such as “diversity,” “equity,” “systemic,” and “sense of belonging.” Even seemingly neutral terms like “institutional” and “women” have reportedly been discouraged in certain contexts, the NYT report stated. Other terms flagged for restricted usage include “historically,” “Native American,” “health equity,” and “political.”
Diversity. Native American. Women … Removed from official language. Absurd.
Government memos and agency guidance documents have outlined these changes, with some directives ordering the removal of specific terms from public-facing websites and educational materials. In other cases, agency officials have been advised to exercise caution when using specific phrases. Grant proposals and federal contracts containing flagged terms have reportedly faced heightened scrutiny.
They have time for this while egg prices are insane, Ukraine is out on a limb, and unemployment is creeping back up. Clownery.
Moreover, the NYT report noted that while the full scope of these changes remains unclear, it reviewed only a portion of available agency memos, many of which were vague about what language is impermissible. The linguistic overhaul marks a stark departure from previous administrations, reflecting a deliberate effort to align federal communication with the Trump administration’s policies.
Every presidential administration adjusts government language to reflect its priorities, and it is within a president’s authority to amend or remove web pages accordingly. However, the current push to eliminate specific terms has sparked debate over the implications for federal communication and the broader cultural and political significance of such changes.
How many more years do we have to deal with this?