NSF faces shake-up as officials abolish its 37 divisions

Perceived attack on science and institutions

• Many see the NSF shake‑up and 55% proposed budget cut as part of a broader effort to “destroy the administrative state,” not a neutral efficiency reform.
• Commenters link this to recent cancellations/pauses of thousands of grants and other science‑related cuts (NOAA, NIH, DOE, Peace Corps, Fulbright, AmeriCorps, Job Corps).
• Several frame it as punishment of universities and researchers viewed as “liberal” or “woke,” with science collateral damage.
• There is strong fear that this will permanently weaken US scientific capacity and take a decade or more to recover from, even if later reversed.

DEI, ideology, and gatekeeping

• The new review layer explicitly checking proposals for alignment with anti‑DEI directives is widely described as an ideological “thought police” or loyalty filter.
• Some note a pre‑existing politicization under the prior administration via DEI/broader‑impacts language, but argue the current move is far more extreme: not reforming language, but cutting the research itself.
• Long subthreads debate whether DEI equals illegal discrimination vs. simple outreach and broader participation. Experiences diverge: some report quota‑like pressure; others insist standards were never lowered.
• Commenters expect the anti‑DEI filter to extend to any research touching race, gender, climate, or other politically sensitive topics.

Career pipeline, brain drain, and lived impact

• Multiple researchers describe NSF funding as the “ladder” that enabled their grad school, postdoc, and early‑career work, and feel like those ladders are now being burned.
• Reports include cancelled or frozen grants, hiring freezes, reduced grad admissions, cuts to conference travel, and foreign students told to self‑deport.
• European institutions are already hearing from US researchers newly willing to move; some compare it to the 1930s German→US brain drain, now in reverse.
• Commenters emphasize the fragility of the training pipeline: a 4‑year disruption at key transition points (PhD→postdoc→faculty) is hard to recover from.

Centralization, patronage, and DOGE

• The abolition of divisions and replacement with a small, opaque review body is seen as concentrating power and enabling patronage (“bribe machine”).
• Several speculate that centralized, ML‑based screening (via DOGE or similar) is being used across agencies to enforce ideological lines, with rumors of text‑analysis tools applied to grants and job descriptions.
• Others connect this to a broader pattern: unilateral impoundment of funds, ignoring congressional appropriations, and using federal levers (funding, immigration, DEI ultimatums abroad) to coerce institutions.

Budget, priorities, and the role of public research

• Commenters note NSF’s ~$10B budget is a tiny slice of federal spending and argue cuts are symbolic, not fiscal necessity—especially alongside large defense increases and planned tax changes.
• Many stress that foundational technologies (internet, web, HPC, robotics, AI, nuclear/laser expertise) emerged from publicly funded research and “strategic investment” to keep knowledge alive between commercial cycles.
• A minority argue that taxpayers shouldn’t fund work markets won’t, and that private capital, not government, should decide which research to back; opponents counter that basic research has poor private ROI but high social return.

Politics, democracy, and historical parallels

• Long subthreads debate voter responsibility for enabling this administration, the failures of the two‑party system, and whether future elections will remain free and fair.
• Several explicitly compare the current moment to the Cultural Revolution or early fascist movements: attacks on press, education, and civil service; anti‑intellectualism; and “working toward the leader” dynamics among subordinates.
• Others see this as part of right‑wing populism that weaponizes resentment against “elites” while channeling material gains to oligarchs and loyalists.

Disagreement and skepticism

• A few commenters welcome cuts and reorganization as overdue, citing bureaucratic bloat, politicized “education” grants, and low‑impact research (“science for the sake of science”).
• Some question whether all cancelled projects are valuable, pointing to grant lists and asking for more discrimination and transparency rather than blanket defense of every award.
• Others push back hard, arguing the scale, speed, and ideological targeting go far beyond normal reform, and amount to deliberate sabotage of US scientific and economic strength.