The Erosion of American Climate Science: Trump’s Second Term Assault

For decades, the United States held a position of unparalleled scientific authority, a beacon of innovation and discovery that benefited not only its own citizens but the entire world. Across seven decades and under the guidance of a dozen presidents, American researchers, particularly within universities and federal agencies, achieved breakthroughs that revolutionized weather forecasting, eradicated deadly diseases, and pioneered the monitoring of greenhouse gas emissions. As early as 1990, recognizing the gravity of the situation, Congress directed this formidable scientific capacity towards understanding the burgeoning threat of climate change, acknowledging that human-induced global warming posed a significant risk to "human health, and global economic and social well-being.”

However, this legacy of scientific leadership is now facing an unprecedented challenge. President Donald Trump, in his second term, has seemingly embarked on a mission to dismantle the very infrastructure that propelled America’s scientific dominance. In the first 100 days of his renewed administration, a barrage of executive orders and policy decisions have demonstrably destabilized the nation’s scientific apparatus, especially regarding climate research.

One of the most concerning moves has been the effective termination of the government’s comprehensive National Climate Assessment. This quadrennial report, a crucial resource that provides scientifically validated guidance for communities to prepare for the impacts of a warming planet, has been cast into uncertainty after the administration canceled the contract with the firm responsible for facilitating the research.

Furthermore, leaked memos reviewed by Grist reveal a more far-reaching agenda: a deliberate attempt to drastically slash scientific research at NASA and to eliminate all research at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). NOAA, a cornerstone of American science, is responsible for a wide range of climate, weather, and conservation research that directly impacts the lives of millions.

Adding to this concerning trend, the administration has also frozen over $2 billion in research funding to Harvard University, representing the latest in a series of punitive actions targeting prominent universities that the president alleges are "overrun by ‘woke’ ideology." This politically motivated attack on academic institutions further jeopardizes scientific progress and creates an atmosphere of uncertainty for researchers and students.

Experts fear that this multifaceted assault on science could irrevocably damage the United States’ standing as a global leader in climate research. Since Trump took office, billions of dollars in climate funding and grants to universities have been frozen, severely hindering ongoing research projects and future endeavors. Simultaneously, Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) has reportedly decimated the federal scientific workforce, firing thousands of scientists in a purported effort to cut a trillion dollars in “waste and fraud” from the federal budget. More recently, Musk’s team has begun canceling hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of scientific grants previously distributed by the National Science Foundation (NSF). Secretary of State Marco Rubio has further amplified the concern by shuttering the Office of Global Change, the entity that oversees international climate negotiations.

The implications of these actions are profound. As Max Holmes, director of the Woodwell Climate Research Center in Massachusetts, aptly stated, “One of the things that has made America great and will keep America great is our scientific excellence and world leadership in climate science. Gutting those things will send our country in a different direction.” He warns that while other countries may attempt to fill the void left by the United States, the overall loss of American research and expertise will ultimately affect the entire world.

Historically, one way to gauge a nation’s scientific prowess is by analyzing the number of research papers its scientists publish. For the past quarter-century, American scientists have consistently produced approximately 400,000 studies each year, an unparalleled pace that remained steady across various presidential administrations. However, China’s scientists surpassed this output in 2016, signaling a potential shift in global scientific dominance. This scientific productivity in the United States was largely facilitated by the federal government, which has served as the nation’s largest overall funder of science and research since World War II.

Remarkably, no previous president, including Trump during his first term, has attempted to dismantle this long-standing legacy. For instance, the fourth edition of the National Climate Assessment, a recurring report mandated by Congress under the auspices of the U.S. Global Change Research Program since 1990, was nearing completion when Trump first took office in 2016. Although his administration restricted the report’s publicity upon its release, federal scientists involved in its creation confirmed that its contents remained unaltered.

However, the situation is drastically different this time around. On April 9th, the Trump administration terminated the contract with the consulting firm responsible for running the U.S. Global Change Research Program. This decision represents a potentially fatal blow to the sixth National Climate Assessment, which was scheduled for publication in the coming years.

As Katharine Hayhoe, a leading author of the last four assessments and a climate scientist at Texas Tech University, warns, "For hundreds and even thousands of years, we humans have been making decisions based on conditions of the past. It’s like driving down the road looking in the rearview mirror. But now, thanks entirely to human actions, we are facing a curve in the road greater than we humans have ever confronted."

Beyond the loss of the National Climate Assessment, the termination of the Global Change Research Program carries more immediate consequences. The program’s interagency working groups serve as the primary platform for federal agencies to collaborate on climate-related issues, facilitating the sharing of vital data and expertise on greenhouse gas monitoring and sea level rise. Federal scientists have emphasized the essential role of the program in ensuring efficient communication between agencies and expressed concern that its absence could render these collaborations unsustainable.

Moreover, the program facilitates the United States’ participation in the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a global collaboration involving scientists from nearly 200 countries who work together to produce comprehensive reports on the latest climate science.

Kevin Gurney, an atmospheric scientist at Northern Arizona University and a leading author on several IPCC reports, underscores the importance of the U.S.’s involvement in the IPCC, stating, "The U.S. has long had a profound presence at these reports — we have excellent research capacity. Politics aside, having the best available knowledge on climate change problems is crucial.”

Gurney notes that because the American scientific workforce is so large and possesses a wealth of research, climate models, and data, a diminished U.S. presence deprives other countries of crucial climate information. This retreat could also weaken American input and influence over the contents of the IPCC report, which serves as a foundation for international climate mitigation policies, such as the recently announced international shipping tax aimed at reducing emissions.

“There’s loss in both directions,” Gurney said. “I worry that it’s going to take us years to regain the momentum and capacity that it seems we’re just frivolously letting go of right now.”

In March, Gurney, who is not a federal employee, was one of the few U.S. scientists who attended an IPCC meeting in Japan after the Trump administration barred federal delegates from attending an IPCC planning meeting the previous month. In response to the crumbling government support, a coalition of 10 American research institutions has formed the U.S. Academic Alliance, an initiative dedicated to preserving U.S. participation in the IPCC report. Hosted by the American Geophysical Union, the alliance is stepping in to fill the void left by the federal government by handling nominations for U.S. scientists to contribute to the next IPCC assessment.

Beyond the loss of crucial data on the changing climate, culling science at NOAA will “hurt every aspect of society,” warns Rick Spinrad, who led NOAA under the Biden administration. The data generated by the agency’s research division underpins a wide range of government services, including disaster management and agricultural forecasting. Because the agency’s research capacity, equipment, and expert workforce took decades to build, the losses stemming from these cuts will not be easily recovered.

“The American public needs to understand that you can’t just turn a science switch off and then turn it back on again,” Spinrad emphasized. “This is not like tariffs.” He pointed out that while NOAA’s budget is relatively small, representing approximately 0.01 percent of the federal budget, its impact on American lives is disproportionately large. Moreover, a recent study by the American Meteorological Society found that every dollar invested in the National Weather Service generates $73 in value for the public.

Budget documents also include guidance to reshuffle any surviving parts of NOAA’s research division into other parts of the agency. However, given the interconnectedness of NOAA’s various offices, Spinrad warns that breaking up and reorganizing the agency will disrupt its overall functionality.

“The idea that all of this is predicated on government efficiency is really contradictory,” he said. “The consequences will be risks to lives, property, and economic development. There’s no question of that.”

Over the past weeks, other agencies involved in climate science have also received passback budget memos. The budget proposal for NASA reveals plans to halve the space agency’s science funding, cutting over $3 billion from its 2026 budget. These cuts would likely prevent NOAA and NASA from launching the next generation of Earth-observing satellites, which provide vital data for climate and weather forecasting.

Meanwhile, the Trump administration’s passback memo to the Department of Health and Human Services reportedly proposes slashing $40 billion from its budget. This could impact offices and programs inside the department, including the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Internal documents reviewed by The New York Times and ProPublica suggest that NIH programs and grants for studying the health impacts of climate change will no longer be funded, and the agency’s new policy is “not to prioritize” research related to climate change.

The Trump administration also plans to downsize the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) scientific arm, a move that could result in the layoff of thousands of scientists. On April 15, amid reports that the EPA plans to dismantle its greenhouse gas monitoring program, the U.S. missed the deadline to report its emissions to the United Nations for the first time in three decades.

“Essentially everything that is related to how we understand climate is on the table for being cut,” said a scientist who has worked at NASA and who requested anonymity. “We’ll just be flying blind while the planet is undergoing some of the most significant impacts and changes that have been experienced.”

The funding cuts could also jeopardize climate research outside of government. Many federal agencies, such as NOAA, the NSF, and the NIH, play a critical role in providing universities with grants to support research and fund graduate students. But in recent weeks, the Trump administration has frozen billions of these dollars as part of its investigation into antisemitism at over 60 universities. This has impacted climate research, which has been caught in the broad net.

In 2018, the last year that the Government Accountability Office took stock of federal climate funding, the government was spending over $13 billion on climate change research, with many agencies providing grants to universities or collaborating directly with them. The NIH and the Department of Energy have both revoked large chunks of funding to universities, sparking lawsuits. In mid-April, the National Science Foundation (NSF)—which provided $800 million toward climate research in 2018—froze all grant applications as Elon Musk’s DOGE team began combing through its books. Crowdsourced information from scientists shows that on April 18, DOGE had canceled hundreds of millions of dollars in grant funding. The agency has already been operating cautiously since Trump took office, funding 50 percent fewer grants than this time last year.

And in early April, the Commerce Department announced $4 million of funding from NOAA would be pulled back from Princeton’s Cooperative Institute for Modeling the Earth System, which helps create improved weather forecasts and model water availability. According to reporting in The Washington Post, the Trump administration says the initiatives are “no longer aligned” with the agency’s objectives and that the research contributes to climate anxiety by promoting “exaggerated and implausible climate threats.”

“Climate science is important in tackling a complicated problem, but a lot of this is not about the research,” said David Ackerly, dean of the Rausser College of Natural Resources at the University of California, Berkeley. “The research funding is being used as a political pawn in a battle about something else.”

Ackerly said it’s too soon to know how the broadly applied cuts might reshape climate science done at universities, but expressed concerns that a generation of students could lose confidence in pursuing careers in higher education. International students—who earn roughly half of all graduate degrees in science and technology fields—may forgo coming to study in the U.S. at all. Some schools have already tightened their belts by freezing or restricting their graduate admissions. Because graduate students provide the workforce necessary to conduct scientific studies, run laboratories, help teach classes, and write papers, the slimming of student populations means less climate research can be produced in the United States.

“Our ability to educate the next generation of people to do this work is starting to be cut off,” said Gurney, the IPCC author. “It may take a while and we may not notice it at first, but we will. This is damage that could last for a long time.”

Holmes, of the Woodwell Climate Research Center, said that the escalating cuts signal to the international community that the U.S. is stepping back from leadership in climate research. With so much uncertainty, he said, scientists may begin to seek opportunities in other countries.

It appears the brain drain has already begun. According to a recent analysis from Nature, data from the scientific journal’s job board indicates that American scientists have submitted 32 percent more applications for international jobs during the beginning of this year compared to last year. In March alone, U.S.-based job seekers viewed international job listings 68 percent more than last year. At the same time, applications to U.S. institutions from European researchers fell by 41 percent.

Some European institutions are actively trying to attract American scientific talent, too. In March, France’s Aix-Marseille University said it was “ready to welcome American scientists” and created the Safe Place for Science program to sponsor those working in climate, health, and environmental fields. Germany’s top research institution, the Max Planck Society, announced in early April a new transatlantic program to create collaborative research centers with American institutions. After job applications from the U.S. researchers doubled over last year, the institution’s president said he is planning to tour U.S. cities to speak to Germany’s “new talent pool”. According to Nature, recruiters in China have also been targeting career ads toward fired American scientists.

“Other countries will take the lead if we cede it, because we need leadership in climate solutions and science,” Holmes said. “The sooner we can right the ship, the sooner we can get heading in the right direction again.”

Rachel Cleetus, a senior policy director with the Union of Concerned Scientists, said that nothing should be considered final until Congress approves the federal budget later this year. “Congress needs to push back on these disastrous cuts, because this scientific enterprise has been built up by investments over decades from U.S. taxpayers,” she said. “This is the crown jewel of science and expertise for our nation—even the world.”

Even if the lost funding is restored, Ackerly said the Trump administration’s attacks represent an unprecedented breakdown in the government’s longstanding support of science and research. It is this relationship, he said, that fosters a uniquely robust network of both private and public universities, and has made higher education and science in the United States stand out among other countries for decades. But now, said Ackerly, a new normal is being established.

“This will always be part of a history we live with,” he said. “You can never fully go back to where things were before.”