I think the correct framing is that the NSF itself has become more political (while trying to pretend otherwise). The excerpt you provided is a good example: th

I think the correct framing is that the NSF itself has become more political (while trying to pretend otherwise). The excerpt you provided is a good example: the focus is on DEI, but they try to look impartial by using less political sounding "broader impact". That kind of language is only used in more recent documents, it is not like NSF had this "mission" since Vannevar Bush. Even the word "STEM" is mostly a political neologism [1] often used by DEI initiatives [2]. Also, it is not just "Equity", but also "Latinx", "Intersectional", and "Underrepresented". These are clearly reminiscent of the parlance of particular political faction. Some do argue that DEI initiatives are not political, but I think these denials themselves look suspiciously politically motivated. [1]: https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=%22STEM%22&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=26&smoothing=3&direct_url=t1%3B%2C%22%20STEM%20%22%3B%2Cc0 https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=%22STEM%22&yea... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science,_technology,_engineering,_and_mathematics#Terminology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science,_technology,_engineeri...