The Python Software Foundation (PSF) has withdrawn its $1.5 million grant proposal to the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) due to funding terms forcing a compromise on its commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion.
The funding would come through NSF’s Safety, Security, and Privacy of Open Source Ecosystems program, an initiative that finances research and development efforts aimed at improving the resilience and trustworthiness of open-source software infrastructure.
The non-profit organization devoted to the Python programming language submitted its proposal in January 2025, hoping to to secure financial resources to address security vulnerabilities in Python and the Python Package Index (PyPI).
Specifically, the money would help develop automated malware-detection tools for PyPI package uploads, which have been introducing risks on the platform for the past couple of years.
The same tools would have been ported to other open-source ecosystems like NPM and Crate.io.
After several months, the NSF approved the funding but imposed restrictive clauses that led PSF’s board members to reconsider and ultimately reject money.
Specifically, the terms required recipients to affirm that they would not operate programs that “advance or promote diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI).”
All PSF activities would be impacted by the clause, not just the grant-funded work, and a violation could permit requesting back the previously approved and transferred funds, creating a financial risk for the foundation.
The PSF states that DEI is central to its mission and values, and therefore is intrinsically incompatible with NSF funding under the proposed conditions.
“The mission of the Python Software Foundation is to promote, protect, and advance the Python programming language, and to support and facilitate the growth of a diverse and international community of Python programmers,” the Python Software Foundation says.
Hence, PSF’s board members have unanimously voted against accepting the funding, proceeding to withdraw their application.
This decision echoes a similar one taken by The Carpentries in June 2025, which had applied under the “Pathways to Enable Open-Source Ecosystems” (POSE) funding program, but which was subject to the same DEI-related restrictions.
In its announcement, the Python Software Foundation underlined that the need for financial support is now greater than ever, calling people to become PSF members, donate, and sponsor.
Automated Pentesting Covers Only 1 of 6 Surfaces.
Automated pentesting proves the path exists. BAS proves whether your controls stop it. Most teams run one without the other.
This whitepaper maps six validation surfaces, shows where coverage ends, and provides practitioners with three diagnostic questions for any tool evaluation.
Comments
bobson_dugnutt - 5 months ago
What a bunch of clowns. So sad that all these open source organizations are overrun with DEI and woke nonsense. Hire people based on merit not on what they look like.
Drags - 5 months ago
which are also guidelines forced by "DEI", just that the US of A is using it as political BS again. DEI != alphabet ppl; more to do with "it should not matter if male, female or attack helicopter - hire who's best."
The only "bunch of clowns" are sitting in the white house shouting BS from the rooftops and the dumb populous is eating it up.
miuku - 5 months ago
> "which are also guidelines forced by "DEI"
Oh you mean things like gender quotas, quotas that to be eligible for specific grants which require a specific number of people in your hiring/team to be of "less represented groups"?
Stop lying. You know just as well as everyone else that DEI essentially means hiring less competent people based purely on their sexual orientation or skin colour.
Drags - 5 months ago
"> "which are also guidelines forced by "DEI"
Oh you mean things like gender quotas, quotas that to be eligible for specific grants which require a specific number of people in your hiring/team to be of "less represented groups"?
Stop lying. You know just as well as everyone else that DEI essentially means hiring less competent people based purely on their sexual orientation or skin colour. "
Thats called affirmative action, not DEI (in the USA) - which is why I said - most of the populous either doesn't know the difference, doesn't care that there is a difference or is just plain repeating BS from their respective medias. One is a legally mandated and force quote while the other is trying to make sure that you get the best possible outcome. So no - I am not talking about affirmative action.
Please stop being ignoratant, while believing the lies you're fed and start researching the actual differences from multiple sources.
RexvimilZuzakzmo - 5 months ago
@Drags
Just because you successfully lied to yourself about something, doesn't mean that your opinion on the topic becomes true.
It is simple:
If you hire employees solely based on their competencies, and there is something that change it then you are no longer hiring based on competency...
Therefore DEI affecting hiring practices either doesn't work in which case it is just a waste of time and money - or it works, making it so people are not hired solely on their competencies, which mean exactly that they are being hired based on DEI supported characteristics rather than their competences alone.
And the idea that pointing out blatant and obvious truth is somehow a result of manipulation/deceit/brainwashing suggest you either were brainwashed or are being manipulative and deceitful toward us...
Ps. And if DEI was really trying to remove any preexisting biases, it would be a competency/meritocracy centered initiative - yet it doesn't even market itself as one, IN THEIR ORGANISATION VERY NAME THEY DECLARE THEMSELVES AS ANTI-MERITOCRATIC, because that what supporting COMPETITIVE SELECTION CRITERION simply IS...
To even attempt to claim otherwise, as you do - Completely Ridiculous...
Tester01 - 5 months ago
On one hand, most people don't want a completely homogenous group that keeps anyone else from joining, but on the other hand, most people also don't want gender/race hiring quotas. As problematic as the current administration is, I haven't see them do anything be go after quotas and anti-merit bias when it comes to their "anti-DEI" agenda.
Secondly, the Python board's actions are worrying. There's no problem with wanting a diverse community, but we WANT many different things. Our wants sometimes conflict and compete with each other. In this case, Python should WANT to increase their security MORE than they want diversity. Specifically, they are valuing racial+gender quotas MORE than automated malware-detection tools for PyPI package uploads. And that, specifically, is wrong.
EndangeredPootisBird - 5 months ago
A system that doesn't hire people based on competency will end up completely dysfunctional.
ken_smon - 5 months ago
If you simply make all hiring merit-based, ANYONE can be included. Anyone at all.
How is that for diversity?
DEI is racist and sexist.
The government agency that was willing to give away taxpayer money said you can't be racist or sexist if you want this money, and no, you can't be those things in ANY part of your org if you want it.
Good.
powerspork - 5 months ago
Are they unable to implement diversity and equality without a department forcing that? These things come from the top and bleed into company culture. Having a "DEI" department is just a checkbox.
RexvimilZuzakzmo - 5 months ago
> Having a "DEI" department is just a checkbox.
Seeing how they rejected government grant, it's clearly more than just that.
RexvimilZuzakzmo - 5 months ago
To misquote a certain alien race: "Fork fork fork fork fork fork fork..."
Sgtkeebler - 5 months ago
Good for Python. It's great to see when organizations can't be bought out by the government to be forced out of their principals and morals.
nofilter - 5 months ago
You people have no f'ing idea what you are talking about. The Board of the Python foundation is ELECTED... open election. This has NOTHING to do with hiring quotas. This would mean that Python Foundation could not support the "Girls who Code" and other groups who are trying to develop their technical skills.
So yeah... great idea, limit education for groups who might be less qualified now so they can never be the best hire for any other company. You are f'ing sheep that believe everything you've been told.
This, pure and simple is not the America I think is great.
RexvimilZuzakzmo - 5 months ago
Firstly: The idea that someone should not benefit from their parents hard work and sacrifices is at best morally dubious (I myself consider it straight evil) on its own.
Then there is a logical consequence if it were to be applied on wider scale, that is disincentivising investments into ones offspring and discouraging INVESTMENTS IN THE: 'FUTURE', GENERALLY. Seem to me quite nihilistic and evil... Synergize nicely with the entire climate change debacle prospects, by the way - brilliant if sinister, dumb if well intended (take your pick)...
Then there is a question whether everyone should be awarded any career, even one they are not suitable for, based on their own whims or central planning directives. Because it didn't happen in the past nor does it happen now, even for people you deem privileged. People make compromises, settle all the time - and in your discriminating mindset you ignore and dismiss it, by either denying it with the magic word "privilege" or by denying them their talent, hard work and sacrifices of people that helped to build them up.
I myself always wanted to be male model and a masseur of my female peers, where are my protests? Why I am to be excluded from inclusion?
Finally, opportunities are there - and if there are being missed, than it happen to higher degree by cultural pressures left is a significant source of (by demeaning attitudes toward people practicing traditional family, educational achievement and heroic virtues/traits). The way I see it you kick the ladder from under people that deserved opportunity, and now are using it as an excuse to power grab by attempting to become the judges of everyone fates...
You can even see it in how so many jobs are being either transferred to India or importing workforce from there - people have a ton of significant disadvantages there, but all of those pale in comparison to cultural damage dispensed in the name of "progress"...
Ps. I worked since I was a kid, skilled, unskilled, dangerous, boring, and in my experience, traditional values like respect, honesty, fairness - moral and legal health of the environment (inside businesses and in countries for businesses) are what offer opportunities, and not shinier badge to play politics with and against sharks while pretending to do the work...