From across the Atlantic, where we Swedes enjoy our sometimes messy multi-party representative democracy and fika breaks, it is with both chock and dismay I observe a disturbing phenomenon in the United States of America. Words, mere collections of letters arranged in a particular order, have become enemies of the American state. Not guns. Not poverty. Not even the climate crisis threatening their Gulf of Mexico. Words.
The year is 2025, and the American federal government has embarked on a bold initiative to protect its citizens from dangerous combinations of letters that might cause them to think about the systemic inequalities facing their diverse communities. These threatening terms, like “equity,” “inclusion,” and the particularly menacing “historically underrepresented”, have been deemed too radical for American sensibilities. Here in Sweden, we for sure have our set of problems too. We aspire to adhere to gender equality, which is a constitutional. We have our struggles in upholding to fundamental rights, just as most countries. Compared to many, we have come far. And from our vantage point, we observe what is happening in the United States of America with this linguistic purge with raised eyebrows.
After all, what could be more polarizing than acknowledging that barriers exist for people with disabilities? What could be more divisive than recognizing the unique challenges faced by Black, Indigenous, and people of color in a nation built on their marginalization? What could be more un-American than suggesting pregnant people deserve accessible healthcare? In Stockholm, these concepts aren’t radical—they’re simply the foundation of good governance.
Sources within various federal agencies report that a new internal taskforce, unofficially dubbed “The Ministry of Acceptable Speech” by its detractors, has been established to scan grant proposals, research papers, and even casual emails for evidence of “woke infiltration.”
“I used to study environmental quality and climate science,” whispers one researcher who asked to remain anonymous due to fears of discrimination. “Now I study ‘weather patterns’ and ‘nature situations.’ My research on pollution in vulnerable populations was flagged for containing three forbidden terms in a single title.” Another government employee, who identified herself only as a “person who sometimes advocates for other persons,” explained the new workarounds. “We’ve developed our own coded language. Instead of ‘racial equity,’ we say ‘fair treatment for certain demographic categories.’ Instead of ‘gender identity,’ we write ‘personal feelings about one’s biological assignment.’ It’s exhausting and absurd, but we’re adapting.”
The practice of controlling language to shape thought is hardly new. In 1933, Nazi Germany conducted book burnings to eliminate “un-German” ideas. Soviet censors maintained extensive lists of prohibited topics and required manuscripts to be submitted for ideological review. The Chinese Cultural Revolution eliminated “old customs, old culture, old habits, and old ideas.”
George Orwell, in his prescient novel “1984,” introduced us to “Newspeak,” a language designed to limit freedom of thought by eliminating words that could express dissent. “The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of Ingsoc,” Orwell wrote, “but to make all other modes of thought impossible.” In today’s America, the elimination of terms related to equality, justice, and diversity echoes these historical precedents with alarming precision. When we cannot name injustice, how can we fight it? When we cannot speak of disparities, how can we address them? When we cannot acknowledge the existence of transgender persons or pregnant people who don’t identify as women, how can we create a society that serves all its citizens?
Despite these restrictions, I’m told there exists a growing underground movement of federal employees committed to maintaining their multicultural, intersectional democracy… oops, there go three more banned words… their “varied population-based system of governance.” It reminds me of dissident movements in authoritarian states, not what one expects to find in the nation that once called itself the leader of the free world.
These brave souls continue to smuggle forbidden terminology into footnotes, appendices, and the final pages of reports they know will never be read. Some have created elaborate codes. “ET” for “equity,” “RGB” for “racial justice, gender diversity, and belonging.” “They can ban our words,” says one Department of Education employee, “but they cannot ban our understanding that oppression and privilege exist and shape outcomes in this country. The consciousness has been raised. The implicit biases have been recognized. You can’t unring that bell.”
As American federal agencies scrub their websites of references to inclusion and diversity, they also eliminate programs designed to address these issues. Communities that were already underrepresented find themselves further marginalized, their needs rendered literally unspeakable in official discourse.
The Gulf of Mexico—now apparently a politically charged body of water, continues to rise regardless of whether Americans acknowledge climate science. Healthcare disparities continue to claim lives whether they use the term “health equity” or not. Discrimination continues to limit opportunities whether they name it “systemic racism” or pretend it’s merely a series of unfortunate coincidences. In the Nordic countries, we have learned that naming problems is the first step toward solving them. Our commitment to transparency and evidence-based policy would make such linguistic gymnastics not only absurd but counterproductive.
In a true democracy, one does not fear words. One debates them. One does not ban concepts. One engages with them. One does not silence communities. One amplifies their voices, especially when they speak uncomfortable truths about collective failures.
The attempt to purge these terms from America’s national vocabulary reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of what has historically been that nation’s greatest strength – the ability to face imperfections honestly and work toward a more perfect union. A union that embraces its diversity rather than pretending it doesn’t exist. A union that seeks equity because it recognizes that freedom without opportunity is merely privilege extended to the few.
As an observer from a country that consistently ranks among the world’s strongest democracies, I urge of you, Americans, committed to the full expression of democratic ideals to refuse participation in their own linguistic imprisonment. You must continue to speak of justice and equality, of diversity and inclusion, of climate and science and truth. Not because these words are “woke,” but because they are necessary tools for describing reality as it exists. For in the end, reality doesn’t disappear when we stop naming it. It merely becomes a problem we’ve rendered ourselves incapable of solving. And that, perhaps, was the point all along.
This article intentionally contains over 40 terms reportedly flagged for limitation or review in American federal communications according current reporting. From the relative safety of Sweden, where our parliament maintains a belief in human rights and equality for all, I submit this analysis as a concerned global citizen watching a once-great democracy retreat from the vocabulary of progress.
With Inspiration from New York Times
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/03/07/us/trump-federal-agencies-websites-words-dei.html?unlocked_article_code=1.5E4.4E0q.V9tAnLJGt5am&smid=url-share