The dismantling of the U.S. Global Change Research Program by the Trump administration has raised concerns about the future of climate change research in the United States. Established by Congress in 1990 and signed into law by President George H.W. Bush, the program has been a key player in tracking global climate change and providing valuable data to shape regulations and policies across the government.
The recent removal of federal employees from the program and the termination of a government contract with ICF International, a longtime supporter of the National Climate Assessment, signals a shift in the administration’s approach to environmental research. With a focus on rolling back regulations and promoting fossil fuel production, the move to undermine federal climate research has sparked controversy among scientists and policymakers.
The National Climate Assessment, a Congress-mandated report that is released every four years, is one of the program’s most visible products. It provides crucial information on climate science, land productivity, water resources, fisheries, ecosystems, and the atmosphere, which is used to inform decision-making on environmental rules, legislation, and infrastructure projects.
However, the administration’s decision to dismantle the program aligns with the agenda outlined in Project 2025, a conservative blueprint followed closely by President Trump. The goal is to eliminate the program so its research cannot be used to support federal climate regulations in court battles. This strategy, spearheaded by Russ Vought, director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, aims to reshape the program’s role and limit its influence on policy decisions.
Vought’s proposal includes selecting researchers who question humanity’s contributions to climate change and giving equal weight to industry-produced studies in the National Climate Assessment. This approach has been met with criticism from scientists and environmental advocates who argue that it undermines the credibility of the report and puts political interests above scientific integrity.
The potential consequences of shutting down the Global Change Research Program are far-reaching. Climate scientist Katharine Hayhoe warns that the loss of valuable information could hinder efforts to build a more resilient future. Without access to reliable data on climate change impacts, communities may be ill-equipped to address growing challenges such as extreme weather events and sea-level rise.
As the administration explores alternative approaches to climate research, the future of the National Climate Assessment remains uncertain. Scientists like Don Wuebbles, who have contributed to past assessments, emphasize the importance of using scientific data to inform proactive planning and minimize the risks associated with climate change.
In conclusion, the decision to axe a bedrock U.S. climate program raises significant concerns about the future of environmental research and policymaking in the country. By dismantling key programs and undermining scientific integrity, the administration risks weakening efforts to address climate change and protect the planet for future generations.
