To keep climate science alive, researchers are speaking in code

Within the Department of Agriculture’s research division, employees are well aware of a particular word that must be avoided, as noted by Ethan Roberts. This “forbidden C-word” is none other than climate.

For nearly ten years, Roberts has worked as a union president at the National Center for Agricultural Utilization Research in Peoria, Illinois. During this period, he has seen several political administrations, including Donald Trump’s initial term as president. However, he believes the current situation is unprecedented. 

The major shift became evident last March when a memo from the USDA Agricultural Research Service’s upper management advised employees to refrain from using any of over 100 newly banned words and phrases in agreements and contracts. Approximately a third of these were directly linked to climate change, such as “global warming,” “climate science,” and “carbon sequestration.” 

Roberts consulted with his union to devise a strategy in response to the memo. They decided the best approach was to circumvent the banned terms and work to publish their research without them. Across the agency, “climate change” was replaced with milder alternatives like “elevated temperatures,” “soil health,” and “extreme weather.”

This trend is growing. Scientists across federal agencies and academic institutions are increasingly cautious with their language, avoiding previously common terms. Since Trump took office last year—praised coal as “clean” and “beautiful” and dismissed climate change initiatives as a “green scam”—a phenomenon known as “climate hushing” has emerged in the U.S. Businesses, politicians, and media have become more reticent on the topic of global warming. A list of so-called “woke” words discouraged by agencies includes many related to climate change and diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts.

These changes in language are part of broader transformations within the federal government. Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, laid off hundreds of thousands of federal employees last year. Additionally, the Trump administration significantly reduced science funding, cutting tens of billions in grants for environmental and public land projects. Researchers are adapting by finding innovative ways to continue climate research, such as altering their language or seeking alternative funding sources.   

For federal researchers examining issues like weather patterns and soybean diseases, the focus is on reframing studies to align with the Trump administration’s political stance. Roberts noted, “Instead of focusing on the climate, you would focus on the disease itself, saying, ‘This disease behaves this way under these conditions,’ instead of ‘These conditions cause this disease to behave this way.’ It’s about shifting the emphasis.”

The impact on federally funded research is evident in National Science Foundation (NSF) grants, which provide about a quarter of U.S. government funding for universities. An analysis by Grist found that NSF grants mentioning “climate change” in titles or abstracts dropped from 889 in 2023 to 148 last year, a 77% decrease. This decline is partly due to fewer climate-related grants being approved under Trump, but also because researchers are avoiding the phrase in their proposals, as shown by the rise in terms like “extreme weather” that circumvent the charged language.

Trent Ford, Illinois’ state climatologist, has adjusted his grant proposals to include terms like “weather extremes” and “weather variability.” 

“It’s odd, because if we’re researching climate change, not mentioning it feels wrong,” Ford said, who also works as a research scientist at the Illinois State Water Survey at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. However, it’s often a practical choice: “We’ve seen proposals that avoid the term ‘climate change’ but clearly address its impacts get approved without issue.” He only uses the term when absolutely necessary or when avoiding it would seem too obvious to reviewers.

Researchers have always had to align their proposals with funder priorities, in this case, the federal government. Near the end of Joe Biden’s term in 2024, Ford’s team applied for an NSF grant to study climate effects on Midwestern agriculture, including a line about consulting a diverse group of farmers. However, this became problematic after Trump’s return to office.

“By the time the program manager at NSF reviewed it, the language that was required four months prior had become a deal-breaker,” Ford explained. The NSF liked the proposal but requested the removal of the line about consulting diverse agricultural stakeholders, asking instead that they confirm they would speak to “all American farmers.” After revising and resubmitting, the NSF approved it last April.

Not everyone was as fortunate. A scientist at the USDA’s Agricultural Research Service, who wished to remain anonymous due to fear of retaliation, stated that DOGE cut major research programs, eliminating hundreds of thousands in federal funds for a project on soilless plant growth that “wasn’t related to climate change.” The project was labeled as climate research to “align with the previous Biden administration.”

“Anything labeled with ‘CC’ for climate change was cut,” the staffer said. “It backfired during this administration.”   

In less extreme cases, researchers have avoided politically sensitive terms like “climate change” before. During Trump’s first term, Austin Becker, a professor at the University of Rhode Island studying maritime resilience to storms and flooding, avoided the term despite it being central to his research. “Everything ‘climate’ became ‘coastal resilience,’” he said. “We’ve stuck with that since.”

Initially, Ford resisted pressure from colleagues to avoid the phrase when writing grants, but financial necessity led him to comply. “Securing a grant can mean the difference between keeping or losing a graduate student or a full-time university employee,” he noted.

Some researchers are seeking new funding sources as federal support wanes. Dana Fisher, a professor at American University and director of its Center for Environment, Community, and Equity, has secured private funding to explore enhancing communication about climate change in North America. She is also seeking international funding, having succeeded during previous Republican administrations reluctant to fund climate research. During George W. Bush’s presidency, Fisher secured Norwegian Research Council money to study how local climate actions could impact federal policy, raising eyebrows when she mentioned this to Congress interviewees. “They were surprised,” Fisher recalled. “I explained, ‘That’s what happens under a Republican administration.’”

Under Trump, climate-related funding has become scarce, with some topics even more politically sensitive. Ford and other researchers find “equity” and “environmental justice” to be “even dirtier words.” The Trump administration has shut down the Environmental Protection Agency’s environmental justice offices at headquarters and in all 10 regional offices, continuing to lay off EPA staff assisting pollution-affected communities. Analyzing grants shows a similar pattern: mentions of “DEI” (diversity, equity, and inclusion) have disappeared from NSF grants under Trump. Terms like “clean energy” and “pollution” have also declined, though less dramatically than climate change.

The federal government’s push for scientists to alter their language can be seen in various lights. Is it a form of censorship that silences dissent and controls language? Or is it a funder’s prerogative to request research that aligns with its political priorities? Does it influence research outcomes, or merely require language tweaks to allow work to proceed? 

The situation is complex, as Roberts from the USDA explained. Many climate projects within the agency’s research division that have avoided cancellation are stuck in a funding limbo, their future hinging on a politically sensitive word or two. Scientists are adjusting their research to align with White House priorities, striving to equip farmers with knowledge on adapting to a warming world—while ensuring no banned language is used.

“Using clever wording and controlling how research is presented enables scientists to continue their work,” Roberts said. “Thankfully, nobody is actively hunting these researchers down. At least, not yet.”