Proposed Federal Budget Cuts Spark Conservation and Environmental Concerns

The annual unveiling of the federal budget is invariably a scene of intense negotiation and lobbying, and the initial proposal put forth by the White House in early May is no exception. With various stakeholders vying for their priorities, the final budget is always subject to change. However, one area that has drawn significant concern is the proposed cuts to conservation, environmental protection, climate change initiatives, and weather monitoring programs.

According to an analysis by USA TODAY, the Trump administration’s budget proposal outlines more than $32 billion in cuts across agencies responsible for monitoring weather, oceans, and the atmosphere, as well as those tasked with protecting natural and historic resources, parks, and conservation lands. These cuts mirror a series of actions already implemented by federal agencies and the president’s Department of Government Efficiency.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is slated to face a staggering 54.5% budget reduction, effectively bringing its funding levels back to those of the Reagan era. Other environment-related spending across federal agencies is projected to decrease by 15% to 55%.

These proposed cuts have sparked outrage among Democrats, former federal scientists, and advocacy groups, who argue that they will severely hinder the nation’s efforts to combat climate change, leave the country’s environmental satellite programs lagging behind other nations, and lead to increases in pollution and harmful emissions.

In contrast, the White House maintains that its overall budget will "save taxpayers $163 billion in wasteful spending among non-military agencies and provide historic increases for defense and border security." Supporters of the cuts contend that they are necessary to address the nation’s mounting debt.

Diana Furchtgott-Roth, director of the Center for Energy, Climate and Environment at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think-tank that drafted Project 2025, emphasized the importance of shrinking the federal deficit through budget cuts. She argued that the nation’s $36 trillion national debt and $2 trillion deficit necessitate prioritizing fiscal responsibility over spending on renewable energy and social and environmental justice initiatives. While acknowledging that the president could balance the budget by cutting Social Security and Medicare, she noted that he had pledged not to do so during his campaign.

However, a diverse coalition of conservation and environmental advocates argues that the president’s budget could have devastating long-term consequences and that there are more effective ways to reduce federal spending. They point out that the proposed cuts come on the heels of months of staff reductions that have already seen some agencies’ workforces shrink by as much as 20% or more.

Robert Dewey, vice president of government relations at Defenders of Wildlife, a nonprofit animal advocacy group, characterized the budget proposal as "another clear signal of how far this administration is willing to go to demolish the critical infrastructure that supports our cherished public lands and wildlife." He warned that slashing programs and staff in the name of efficiency would be a "disastrous blow" to the agencies charged with conserving imperiled species and habitats.

Ranking Democrats in the House and Senate have vowed to oppose some of the proposed budget reductions. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, the top Democrat on the Environment and Public Works Committee, denounced the budget as "an unmitigated disaster for everyone except the looters and polluters," alleging that it was "bought and paid for by his fossil fuel megadonors." He warned that the cuts to the EPA budget would allow the "most hazardous industries" to spew cancer-causing pollution and greenhouse gases into the air, exacerbating climate-flation on everything from insurance to groceries.

Specific Examples of Proposed Cuts:

• Department of the Interior: The budget for the Department of the Interior, which includes the National Park Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, and Geological Survey, would be cut by almost a third, dropping from $17 billion to $12 billion next year. This cut is particularly concerning given that the department is slated to take on services currently provided by other agencies. National parks advocacy groups have expressed alarm over the more than $1 billion cut to the parks budget, a 25% reduction. The budget also includes a proposal to transfer "many" of the smaller, less visited 433 parks to state management, although it does not specify which parks would be affected.

• U.S. Geological Survey: The budget would eliminate $564 million for university grants and programs that focus on "social agendas" such as climate change, instead prioritizing "achieving dominance in energy and critical minerals."

• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA): The office that oversees protected marine species such as whales and sea turtles would be merged with an office performing similar functions for land and freshwater species at the Fish and Wildlife Service, which is slated for a $37 million cut. The White House claims that the merger is "consistent with the President’s efforts to improve performance and reduce the federal bureaucracy, as well as his deregulatory agenda." A variety of "climate-dominated" research, data, and grant programs would be terminated at NOAA, reducing the budget by $1.3 billion. The cuts also include NOAA’s climate adaptation partnerships. The proposal would scale back the planned replacement for NOAA’s existing geostationary operational environmental satellites, canceling unspecified contracts for what the administration termed "unnecessary climate measurements." Craig McLean, a former chief scientist at NOAA, criticized the efforts to strip back the instrumentation of the planned new satellite system, arguing that it ignores the ability of satellite-based sensors to assist our understanding of ocean sciences and changes in the earth and atmosphere.

• Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): The EPA’s budget would shrink from $9.1 billion to $4.2 billion, ending $1 billion in grant funding to states. Almost $500 million would be eliminated or reduced from three grant programs the administration describes as "radical environmental justice work, woke climate research, and skewed, overly-precautionary modeling that influences regulations." However, the budget does include two additions: $9 million would be added to a budget of more than $100 million for the drinking water program, and $27 million would be added to a grant program for Indigenous Tribes to maintain water and wastewater infrastructure.

• Department of Agriculture: The budget cuts more than $2 billion in environmental-related expenses, such as $754 million for a program that provides technical assistance for property owners who want to conserve and maintain natural resources on their land. The document notes that the budget supports the administration’s efforts to "improve forest management" and increase domestic timber production.

• NASA: The space agency would see a 24.3% cut in its programs related to Earth science and climate change, a reduction from $24.8 billion to $18.8 billion. It would eliminate $1.1 billion for "low-priority climate monitoring satellites" and would restructure the Landsat Next mission. The budget document states that NASA will study "more affordable ways" to maintain Landsat imagery.

The proposed budget cuts have ignited a fierce debate over the balance between fiscal responsibility and environmental protection. As the budget process moves forward, it remains to be seen whether Congress will support the administration’s proposals or push for alternative solutions that prioritize conservation and environmental sustainability.