The Silencing of Science: A Dangerous Federal Turn
It should have been a routine progression: a nation, facing increasingly volatile weather and ecosystem upheaval, preparing its vital National Climate Assessment (NCA)—a project grounded in bipartisan 1990 law and critical for informed policy. Instead, the American scientific community is confronting an unprecedented sidelining of expertise. The Trump administration’s abrupt dismissal of nearly 400 climate scientists, charged with preparing the NCA, has shaken the foundation of evidence-based governance at precisely the moment the stakes are highest.
The NCA isn’t some bureaucratic exercise. Its latest iteration, released in 2023, estimated that extreme weather disasters in the United States have cost taxpayers over $1 billion in a single year—more than ever before. These findings aren’t just academic; they drive infrastructure planning, disaster preparedness, and insurance market decisions. As Harvard environmental historian Naomi Oreskes notes, “Suppressing this kind of research doesn’t erase facts—it just ties leaders’ hands behind their backs.”
Yet, with preliminary budget documents pointing to drastic funding cuts or outright elimination of the NCA’s supporting offices, the administration appears bent on erasing the trail of evidence. Legally, the White House remains obligated under the Global Change Research Act of 1990 to deliver the report. However, the reevaluation of the NCA’s scope and the wholesale removal of its authors make clear that a collision between science and politics is underway—and the cost will be paid in unprepared communities and unmitigated risk.
Resistance from the Laboratory: Science Societies Step Up
What happens when a government abandons its own experts? The answer, this time, is remarkable. Within days of the federal firings, the American Meteorological Society (AMS) and the American Geophysical Union (AGU)—two pillars of US climate science—publicly announced a partnership to coordinate, peer-review, and publish critical research that would have shaped the NCA. In doing so, they’ve declared, in bold terms, that science cannot wait for political permission.
The societies’ initiative will draw on the expertise of thousands, inviting climate scientists to submit research into a “first-of-its-kind” special collection, focused squarely on US climate impacts. According to AGU President Brandon Jones, “We are filling in a gap in the scientific process. It’s more about ensuring that science continues.” Their collection, they clarify, isn’t a substitute for the government-mandated NCA—rather, it aims to inform the public and pressure officials by keeping the brightest scientific spotlight pointed at climate threats sweeping the nation’s cities, fields, and coasts.
This isn’t the first time research communities have mobilized in response to political interference, but the stakes now are considerably higher. Dr. Donald Wuebbles, a climate scientist at the University of Illinois and a veteran author of previous NCAs, expressed alarm to NPR: “Nothing like this has ever happened before. If this effort doesn’t continue, we’re just going to be flying blind.” As climate change accelerates, disrupting farming, supply chains, and even national security—all documented in previous assessments—not having comprehensive and transparent research is not just irresponsible; it undermines the very fabric of democratic deliberation.
“We are filling in a gap in the scientific process. It’s more about ensuring that science continues.” — AGU President Brandon Jones
Why Climate Truth Matters: Democracy, Preparedness, and Hope
The conservative reflex to dismiss climate science is not simply a matter of “political differences.” At its core, it represents a profound abdication of the duty to safeguard the nation’s future for all citizens. History offers a cautionary tale: in the 2000s, when the Bush administration tried to muffle the voices of NASA climate scientists, public faith in government warnings about hurricanes and wildfires waned—a legacy we can ill afford as climate extremes become our new normal.
Robust and independent climate research is the backbone of responsible governance. From farmers adjusting planting strategies to mayors hardening city infrastructure or healthcare systems bracing for disease outbreaks, the NCA’s rigorous projections provide the playbook for adaptation. When those projections vanish, so does the ability to plan for tomorrow’s threats—or seize emerging opportunities in new energy, technology, and jobs.
The irony is that the data Trump’s team tries to sideline isn’t just “liberal science.” It underpins decisions at red and blue statehouses alike. According to a 2023 Pew Research study, three-quarters of Americans now agree that climate change is already harming the country. City planners in Texas and Midwest farmers use NCA data to make billion-dollar investments—not because it’s fashionable, but because their livelihoods depend on it.
Who stands to lose most when science is suppressed? Typically, the most vulnerable: low-income communities and communities of color already on the frontlines of climate hazards. Without solid, accessible data, these groups are left defenseless as heatwaves, floods, and fire seasons become more frequent and intense—a profound injustice that progressive values have long fought to remedy.
The refusal to publish or heed rigorous climate science is not a neutral act. It’s a gamble with lives, livelihoods, and the health of democracy itself. The silver lining: American scientists, unconstrained by political whims, are picking up the torch. Their resilience may yet inspire a national reckoning—a renewed insistence that truth, not ideology, should guide policy when the stakes are this high.
