According to science.org, the Lunar and Planetary Science Conference has announced that all abstracts for its 2026 conference must comply with Donald Trump’s January 20 executive order that called DEI “illegal and immoral discrimination programs.” The conference’s parent organization, Universities Space Research Association, already removed 247 archived DEI-related LPSC abstracts earlier this year—about 0.25% of nearly 100,000 abstracts dating back to 1971. USRA receives NASA funding and manages the Lunar and Planetary Institute, which dropped NASA support earlier this year after removing DEI content. Planetary scientist Paul Byrne calls the new requirement “censorship,” while researchers note the conference has even removed gender-neutral bathroom location information from its website since January 3. The policy gives scientists presenting at one of planetary science’s most important conferences an impossible choice: self-censor or stay home.
Science meets politics
Here’s the thing: LPSC abstracts aren’t your typical conference summaries. They’re essentially “minipapers” that run two pages with figures and citations—and people actually cite them in research. So when the conference starts policing content based on political directives, we’re not just talking about fluffy mission statements. We’re talking about actual scientific communication being shaped by government policy.
And let’s be clear about what’s happening here. USRA claims this is about legal compliance and protecting federal funding. They’ve archived the removed content and say it could be restored later. But researchers like Ingrid Daubar weren’t even notified when their abstracts on supporting early-career scientists vanished. That doesn’t exactly scream “good faith effort”—it feels more like quiet censorship.
The chilling effect
Now, you might think 247 abstracts out of 100,000 is just a drop in the bucket. But the impact goes way beyond those numbers. When scientists see their colleagues’ work disappearing and new censorship policies being implemented, they start self-censoring before they even submit. Do I mention accessibility in my Mars rover research? Should I avoid discussing how to make field work more inclusive?
Basically, we’re creating an environment where certain topics become taboo in scientific discourse. And when you’re talking about a field that already struggles with diversity issues, removing conversations about inclusion seems counterproductive at best. The conference even stripped gender-neutral bathroom info—something that’s literally about basic access and safety.
Funding fears vs principles
So why is USRA going further than necessary? Other research institutions haven’t implemented such aggressive policies. Planetary scientist Catherine Neish calls LPSC’s approach “bizarre” and notes they “stand alone in their overeagerness to comply.”
Look, I get it—organizations that depend on federal funding get nervous. The executive order is pretty clear in its hostility toward DEI initiatives. But when scientific organizations start prioritizing funding security over intellectual freedom, where do we draw the line? Daubar puts it well: “Perhaps that is a genuine worry, but I still think that we need to stand up for our principles.”
What happens next
The really concerning part? LPSC hasn’t provided specific criteria for what will get an abstract rejected. Researchers are flying blind, trying to guess what might violate the policy. And let’s be honest—when you’re dealing with something as fundamental as scientific communication, ambiguity is the enemy of progress.
USRA’s fact sheet and statements try to frame this as responsible compliance, but the scientific community isn’t buying it. There’s already been calls for boycotts, and USRA felt compelled to issue a defensive response. The question is whether scientists will vote with their feet—or their abstracts.
This isn’t just about planetary science. It’s a test case for how far political pressure can push scientific institutions to compromise their values. And right now, it’s not looking good for academic freedom.
