How Trump's assault on science is blinding America to climate change
President Donald Trump long ago decided climate change was a 'hoax.' Now his administration is trying to silence government research that proves him wrong.
Since Trump returned to the White House in January, his administration has fired or let go hundreds of climate and weather scientists — and cut ties to hundreds more who work in academia or the private sector.
His team has eliminated major climate programs, frozen or cut grants for climate research and moved to shutter EPA's greenhouse gas reporting program. The Trump administration has slow-walked climate-related contracts — including one for the upkeep of two polar weather satellites. And it's begun to wall off the United States from international climate cooperation.
Advertisement
That's not all.
Trump's blitzkrieg on federal climate work is only a start — as his budget strategy calls for even deeper cuts in the months and years ahead. That includes billions of dollars in cuts to climate and weather research at NOAA and NASA, widely considered two of the world's top science agencies.
All told, it's an unprecedented assault on humanity's understanding of how global warming is transforming the planet, scientists say. And they warn that Trump's actions will blind the United States and the world to the ways people are rapidly heating the planet by burning fossil fuels.
'They certainly are trying to create lasting damage,' said Andrew Dessler, a climate scientist at Texas A&M University.
The White House has framed the moves as cost-cutting measures designed to shrink the size of government. Trump officials have said too that a retreat from climate science is necessary, as the research underpins regulations that could hinder U.S. production of fossil fuels — a top goal of the administration.
'Climate alarmism has had a terrible impact on human lives and freedom,' Energy Secretary Chris Wright wrote Thursday on the social media site X. 'It belongs in the ash heap of history.'
Wright, who led a fracking services company before joining the administration, added, 'Hydrocarbons are and will continue to be essential to improving the wealth, health, and lives of all human beings.'
The White House echoed that sentiment in response to questions that POLITICO's E&E News sent to NOAA, NASA and the Office of Management and Budget.
'The last Administration wasted billions on 'research' and fake science in Green New Scam and culturally Marxist programs,' OMB spokesperson Rachel Cauley said.
'Under President Trump, our science agencies are actually doing science again,' she added.
But scientists say the Trump team is doing just the opposite by jettisoning climate scientists and abandoning respected climate programs. Among the actions taken so far by administration:
Dismissing hundreds of scientists who were working on the next version of the National Climate Assessment, a congressionally mandated report that is used to prepare U.S. communities for extreme weather and sea-level rise.
Dismantling the U.S. Global Change Research Program, a 35-year-old effort to track global climate change that was established by Congress and signed into law by President George H.W. Bush.
Eliminating the State Department's Office of Global Change, which oversees climate negotiations.
For U.S. climate science, each week of the Trump administration seems to bring new losses, by design.
The National Science Foundation's funding for climate research at universities has now evaporated after severe Trump administration cuts.
Spacecraft in orbit that have cost billions of dollars to launch — and a fraction of the cost to maintain — will be mothballed if they monitor climate change, under Trump's budget proposal.
NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, one of the world's leading space and climate research labs, was kicked out of its longtime building. The scientists who work there now face an uncertain future under a proposed NASA budget that cuts science research nearly in half.
'It's humiliating and it debilitates our standing in the world community,' said Michael Mann, a climate scientist at the University of Pennsylvania and director of its Penn Center for Science, Sustainability and the Media.
Climate science at EPA, the CDC, and the Interior, Agriculture and Energy departments has been proposed for elimination. That includes research that monitors human harms from pollution, climatic conditions that can devastate farmers' crops and the health risks of intense heat waves.
Yet Russ Vought — who leads the White House OMB — wants more.
Vought is attempting to strip away Congress' budget authority and its ability to block some of the proposed cuts to climate science.
Agencies such as NOAA and NASA have been ordered by the White House to freeze billions of dollars in funding — including money that goes toward climate research — before Congress has a chance to act.
And that's just a small sample of the first wave of Trump climate attacks.
'Despite the claims to the contrary, this isn't being done to cut costs,' Mann said. 'It's being done because climate science — and simply measuring our climate — has proven inconvenient to certain special interests who hold sway today in Washington.'
'There will be a lot to rebuild'
Climate denialists, including conservative politicians, foundations and think tanks that oppose regulations, long have pined for a day when the U.S. government stops providing clear evidence that global warming poses a threat to America's economy, national security and way of life.
With Trump, their wishes are on the way to being granted. It's the culmination of decades of funding from the oil, gas and coal industry to tear down climate science.
Weakening scientific research and creating long-term damage is the goal, said Steve Milloy, who was part of Trump's EPA transition team in his first term and has spent decades trying to shatter federal climate science and regulations.
'If Democrats ever get back in power, there will be a lot to rebuild,' he said.
That reconstruction likely will include pillars of the nation's climate research infrastructure.
Take, for example, the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii. Last month, it measured the highest level of atmospheric carbon dioxide recorded in modern human history, at 430.2 parts per million.
For scientists, it's a troubling benchmark. For the Trump administration, it may identify the observatory as another target for cuts — the facility is being considered for closure, and its lease may be canceled.
Other data streams are in danger too. More than a dozen spacecraft or space-based instruments that capture climate data are proposed to be shut down in the White House spending plan.
The Trump administration justifies cost-cutting measures such as these by saying they're intended to stop waste, fraud and abuse.
But eliminating the functions of satellites already in orbit — which represent decades of work and billions of dollars in sunk-cost spending — makes neither financial nor scientific sense, said Rick Spinrad, who served as NOAA chief during the Biden administration.
'So many of the observations that are made in support of understanding climate are also being made to support the more immediate weather and ocean applications,' he said. 'To say 'there's the word climate, shut that down' means the same satellite isn't available to give you an improved four to five day forecast on hurricane landfall.'
And it's not just that valuable data would be lost — whatever federal research remains will be sidelined and blocked from informing government policy and procedure.
Last month, Trump issued an executive order on a new 'gold standard' for scientific research that effectively blocks much of the science on greenhouse gas emissions, human health harms from pollution and environmental degradation from being used by federal agencies.
As part of that process, political appointees would effectively determine which scientific research can be used by the federal government.
In effect, the moves would blind the country to the consequences of the administration's actions to cut pollution regulations and increase the country's reliance on fossil fuels while making it harder to build out clean energy, Texas A&M's Dessler said.
'They hate science because it leads to regulation, so they want to do everything they can to stop science from being used to regulate,' he said.
The plan to eradicate climate science throughout the government is reminiscent of the way Trump and his officials attacked Covid data collection, which clearly showed cases and death rates rising in his first term, said Spinrad, the former NOAA administrator.
'The Trump administration said we can reduce the number of cases by not testing anymore,' Spinrad said. 'That's what is going on here. 'We can reduce the impact of climate change by not monitoring anymore.' That's what they're saying, which is just totally incomprehensible.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Washington Post
16 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Trump calls for special prosecutor to investigate 2020 election, reviving longstanding grievance
WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump on Friday called for the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate the 2020 election won by Democrat Joe Biden, repeating his baseless claim that the contest was marred by widespread fraud. 'Biden was grossly incompetent, and the 2020 election was a total FRAUD!' Trump said in a social media post in which he also sought to favorably contrast his immigration enforcement approach with that of the former president. 'The evidence is MASSIVE and OVERWHELMING. A Special Prosecutor must be appointed. This cannot be allowed to happen again in the United States of America! Let the work begin!'
Medscape
17 minutes ago
- Medscape
Key Abstracts in Early-Stage NSCLC From ASCO 2025
Dr Jonathan Goldman of the University of California, Los Angeles, highlights key abstracts in early-stage NSCLC from ASCO 2025. Dr Goldman begins with updated results from CheckMate 816, comparing neoadjuvant chemotherapy (chemo) vs chemo + nivolumab. Median overall survival (OS) in the nivolumab arm remains unreached vs 73.7 months with chemo alone. Event-free survival (EFS) is durable at 59.6 vs 21.1 months, as evidenced by 5-year EFS of 49% in the combination arm. Next, he reviews the NeoADAURA trial evaluating neoadjuvant osimertinib ± chemo in resectable EGFR-mutated stage II-IIIB NSCLC. Major pathologic response was higher in osimertinib-containing arms (26% and 25%) vs 2% in the chemo arm, although long-term outcomes remain pending. Dr Goldman also discusses the SWOG/NRG S1914 trial of perioperative stereotactic body radiotherapy ± atezolizumab, which did not show improvements in OS or progression-free survival (PFS). He then highlights a prospective, low-dose CT screening study of the Mississippi Delta cohort, which showed a 4.7% lung cancer detection rate overall and 4.5% in patients with incidental pulmonary nodules — underscoring the utility of low-dose CT as a modality in early detection. In closing, he reports on two studies in small cell lung cancer. The IMforte study showed that lurbinectedin + atezolizumab in 1L maintenance improved PFS (HR, 0.54). In the DeLLphi-304 study, second-line tarlatamab improved OS compared to chemo (HR, 0.6), which is a potentially practice-changing update.
Newsweek
18 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Is Donald Trump Considering Tactical Nukes Against Iran? What We Know
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. The Trump administration has not taken anything "off the table," including the use of tactical nuclear weapons, if it decides to take military action against the underground Iranian nuclear facility at Fordow, Fox News reported, citing a White House official. It followed a report in The Guardian that the president "is not considering using a tactical nuclear weapon on Fordow." The Pentagon declined comment to Newsweek, instead referring to a statement by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who said on June 16 that he had directed "the deployment of additional capabilities" to the Middle East. "Protecting U.S. forces is our top priority and these developments are intended to enhance our defensive posture in the region," Hegseth said. President Donald Trump speaks to the press in the Oval Office of the White House on June 18, 2025 (left) and a retired U.S. B61 thermonuclear gravity bomb, a type of tactical nuclear weapon still... President Donald Trump speaks to the press in the Oval Office of the White House on June 18, 2025 (left) and a retired U.S. B61 thermonuclear gravity bomb, a type of tactical nuclear weapon still in service, shown in 2021. More BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI/AFP/Jon G. Fuller/GETTY/AP Why It Matters No nuclear weapon has been deployed in war since the U.S. dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan in 1945, and any use of such weapons against an Iranian facility would be extremely controversial in the U.S. and worldwide. On Thursday, the White House said Trump would decide "within the next two weeks" whether the U.S. will join Israeli military action that began on June 13 against Iranian nuclear sites. Israel claims that Iran is working toward building a nuclear weapon, while Tehran insists its nuclear program is entirely peaceful. What To Know One of Iran's most important nuclear sites is the Fordow nuclear enrichment facility, which is believed to be buried about 80 meters deep into the side of a mountain. Experts have suggested Israel doesn't have any conventional bombs capable of destroying the site, though on Thursday Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that "we have the capability" to "hit all of their nuclear facilities." Unlike Israel, the U.S. possesses 30,000-pound GBU-57s "bunker buster" bombs that are specifically designed to reach targets buried deep beneath the surface and can be deployed by B-2 Spirit heavy bombers. On Wednesday, citing people "familiar with the deliberations," The Guardian reported that Trump "does not appear to be fully convinced" that GBU-57s bombs can reach the Fordow facility. It said the effectiveness of GBU-57s against the Fordow facility was "a topic of deep contention" within the Pentagon, citing two defense officials, with some reportedly believing that only a tactical nuclear weapon could destroy the site. It added that Trump was "not considering" the option and said it hadn't been presented by Hegseth or Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General Dan Caine. Tactical nuclear weapons are smaller than strategic nuclear weapons and are designed to be deployed for limited strikes or on the battlefield, rather than against whole cities. The U.S. maintains a large arsenal of tactical nuclear weapons, though none have ever been used in combat. Fox News senior White House correspondent Jacqui Heinrich said she was told by a White House official that The Guardian report was "false." According to Heinrich, the official "has no doubt about the efficacy of bunker busters in eliminating the site at Fordow" adding they also denied "that any options [including tactical nukes] have been taken off the table." Israel has been attacking Iranian military and nuclear sites since June 13. On Thursday, the Washington-based group Human Rights Activists said that at least 639 people had been killed in the attacks, though the figures have not been independently verified. In response, Iran has fired ballistic missiles at Israel, killing 24 civilians, according to Israeli authorities. On Friday the British, French and German foreign ministers were slated to meet their Iranian counterpart in Geneva, Switzerland, in a bid to resolve the conflict. U.K. Foreign Secretary David Lammy said that "a window now exists within the next two weeks to achieve a diplomatic solution." What People Are Saying Fox News senior White House correspondent Jacqui Heinrich: "There have been a lot of headlines this afternoon including one from The Guardian that claims that the U.S. military has doubts about whether the 'bunker-buster' bombs could get the job done, further claiming only a tactical nuke maybe could finish it and it further stated that the president is not considering a tactical nuke, that it was not one of the options presented to him. "I was just told by a top official here that none of that report is true, that none of the options are off the table and the U.S. military is very confident 'bunker busters' could get the job done at Fordow." Fox News host Jesse Watters, on Thursday: "The Guardian reported Trump was getting cold feet worried about the effectiveness of 'bunker busters' and not willing to use tactical nukes. But the White House tells Fox that's not true, everything's on the table, even tactical nukes." Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov, on Friday, referring to possible U.S. tactical nuke deployment, according to Russia's TASS news agency: "This would be a catastrophic there are so many speculations that, in fact, it's impossible to comment on them." What Happens Next It is not yet known whether the U.S. will launch strikes against Iran and, if so, what weaponry it will use. Deploying a tactical nuclear bomb, the first use of a nuclear weapon since World War II, would be a controversial move.
