Trump Administration Dismisses All Authors of Flagship U.S. Climate Report, Jeopardizing Future Assessment

In a move that has sent shockwaves through the scientific community and raised alarms among policymakers and the public, the Trump administration has dismissed the hundreds of scientists and experts who were in the process of compiling the federal government’s flagship report on how global warming is affecting the United States.

This action casts serious doubt on the future of the report, officially known as the National Climate Assessment (NCA), which is mandated by Congress and serves as a critical resource for understanding and responding to the impacts of climate change across the nation.

What is the National Climate Assessment?

The National Climate Assessment is a comprehensive, quadrennial report required by the Global Change Research Act of 1990. Its primary purpose is to analyze the effects of global change on the natural environment, agriculture, energy production and use, land and water resources, human health and welfare, human social systems, and biological diversity. It is meant to be the authoritative source of information on climate change impacts and trends in the United States, providing a scientific foundation for decision-making at all levels of government, as well as for businesses and individuals.

The report is compiled by the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), a consortium of 13 federal agencies that conduct research on changes in the global environment and their implications for society. Hundreds of leading scientists, both inside and outside the government, volunteer their time and expertise to author the report's chapters, which cover a wide range of topics from regional impacts to specific sectors like transportation, energy, and health.

Each assessment undergoes extensive review, including by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, as well as multiple rounds of public and government review, ensuring its scientific rigor and credibility. The findings are based on the latest peer-reviewed scientific literature and data.

A History of Informing the Nation

Since its inception, the National Climate Assessment has evolved, becoming increasingly detailed and specific about the risks posed by climate change to different regions and sectors of the U.S. economy and society. The first assessment was published in 2000, followed by reports in 2008, 2014, 2018 (NCA4), and most recently, in 2023 (NCA5).

The last climate assessment, published in 2023, provided a stark picture of the accelerating impacts of climate change already being felt across the country. It detailed how rising temperatures, changing precipitation patterns, more frequent and intense extreme weather events, and sea-level rise are affecting everything from agricultural yields and water availability in the West to coastal infrastructure and public health in the East and South. The report emphasized that these impacts are not abstract future threats but are occurring now and are projected to worsen significantly without substantial reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

These reports are not merely academic exercises. State and local governments rely on the NCA's findings to develop climate adaptation plans, build more resilient infrastructure, and manage natural resources. Businesses use the information to assess risks to supply chains, facilities, and markets. Public health officials use it to prepare for climate-related health threats. The NCA provides the foundational science that underpins countless decisions aimed at preparing the nation for a warmer world.

The Dismissal: An Unprecedented Action

On Monday, researchers across the country who had already begun the foundational work for the sixth National Climate Assessment, which was tentatively planned for release in early 2028, received an email informing them of their dismissal. The email stated that the scope of the report “is currently being re-evaluated” and that, consequently, all current contributors were being released from their roles.

The message, which many recipients described as abrupt and unexpected, offered a brief closing: “As plans develop for the assessment, there may be future opportunities to contribute or engage. Thank you for your service.”

For the hundreds of scientists, academics, and government experts who had committed their valuable time and expertise to this critical national effort, the email was a clear signal that the process had been halted, at least temporarily, and perhaps indefinitely.

Reactions from those involved and from the broader scientific community were swift and largely negative. Many interpreted the move as a direct attempt to impede or control the scientific assessment process, particularly given the Trump administration's history of skepticism towards climate science and efforts to roll back environmental regulations.

Jesse Keenan, a professor at Tulane University specializing in climate adaptation and a co-author on the previous climate assessment, was quoted saying, “This is as close as it gets to a termination of the assessment. If you get rid of all the people involved, nothing’s moving forward.” His sentiment was echoed by many others who saw the dismissal of the author teams as effectively dismantling the infrastructure and momentum necessary to produce a report of the NCA's scale and complexity.

Implications of Halting the Assessment

The dismissal of the author teams has several significant implications:

• **Delay or Termination:** The most immediate consequence is a significant delay, or potentially the outright termination, of the sixth National Climate Assessment. Producing a report of this magnitude requires years of work, involving extensive research, writing, data analysis, and multiple layers of review. Dismissing the author teams means this process must either be restarted or abandoned.
• **Loss of Expertise:** The NCA relies on the voluntary contributions of leading experts from diverse fields and institutions across the country. These individuals bring specialized knowledge about climate impacts on specific sectors and regions. Dismissing them means losing this accumulated expertise and the collaborative networks that facilitate the report's creation. Reassembling a team of comparable caliber and experience would be a challenging and time-consuming task.
• **Political Interference Concerns:** Critics argue that the dismissal is a politically motivated attempt to suppress or alter scientific findings that may conflict with the administration's policy agenda. The NCA's conclusions about the severity and urgency of climate change impacts have often been at odds with the administration's rhetoric and actions regarding fossil fuels and environmental regulations. Halting the report raises concerns about the politicization of science and the integrity of government scientific assessments.
• **Impact on Decision-Making:** Without a current, comprehensive assessment of climate risks, national, state, and local decision-makers will lack the most up-to-date scientific information needed to plan for future climate challenges. This could hinder efforts to build resilience, protect vulnerable communities, and make informed investments in infrastructure and resource management.
• **Undermining Scientific Capacity:** The NCA process helps to build and maintain a network of climate experts and fosters collaboration between government agencies and external researchers. Disrupting this process can weaken the nation's overall capacity to assess and respond to climate change.

Context: The Trump Administration and Climate Science

The dismissal of the NCA authors is consistent with the broader approach to climate science and environmental policy taken by the Trump administration since 2017. Key actions and stances have included:

• Withdrawing the United States from the Paris Agreement on climate change.
• Rolling back numerous environmental regulations aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions and protecting air and water quality.
• Downplaying the severity of climate change and questioning the scientific consensus on its causes and impacts.
• Reducing funding for climate research and related programs across various federal agencies.
• Appointing individuals skeptical of mainstream climate science to key positions in environmental and scientific agencies.

Previous National Climate Assessments, particularly the fourth (NCA4) released in November 2018, were published despite apparent efforts by the administration to downplay or obscure their findings. The NCA4, for instance, was released on the Friday after Thanksgiving, a time typically chosen to minimize media attention. Despite this, its dire warnings about the economic and societal costs of climate change garnered significant attention.

The current action, however, goes beyond attempting to manage the release of a report; it appears to target the production process itself by removing the scientific teams responsible for its creation. This is seen by many as a more direct and potentially more damaging form of interference.

The Path Forward: Uncertainty and Resistance

The future of the sixth National Climate Assessment remains highly uncertain. While the administration's email mentioned potential future opportunities to contribute, the dismissal of all current participants suggests a fundamental rethinking of the report's scope, process, or even its necessity from the administration's perspective.

It is possible that the administration intends to replace the current authors with individuals whose views align more closely with its own, or to significantly narrow the scope of the report to minimize findings on severe impacts. Either approach would likely face strong opposition from the scientific community and potentially from Congress, which mandated the report.

Members of Congress, particularly those concerned about climate change, may pressure the administration to reinstate the authors or explain its plans for fulfilling the statutory requirement for the assessment. Scientific organizations and universities are also likely to voice their concerns and advocate for the integrity and independence of the scientific assessment process.

Some scientists who were dismissed may attempt to continue their work independently or collaborate outside of the official government process, though such efforts would lack the official standing and resources of the congressionally mandated assessment.

Broader Implications for Science and Governance

Beyond the fate of the National Climate Assessment itself, the dismissal of the authors raises broader questions about the role of science in government and the relationship between political administrations and independent scientific inquiry. Critics argue that this action is part of a pattern of sidelining or suppressing scientific information that is deemed politically inconvenient.

The integrity of government scientific reports depends on the independence and expertise of the scientists who produce them and a process free from political manipulation. Actions that undermine this integrity can erode public trust in science and government institutions.

The National Climate Assessment is not just a scientific document; it is a tool for national preparedness and resilience. By providing a clear picture of current and future climate risks, it enables informed decision-making that can save lives, protect property, and strengthen the economy. Disrupting this process jeopardizes the nation's ability to effectively prepare for the challenges posed by a changing climate.

Conclusion

The dismissal of the authors of the sixth National Climate Assessment represents a significant challenge to the continuity and integrity of U.S. climate science and policy. It raises serious questions about the administration's commitment to providing the public and policymakers with comprehensive, independent scientific information on climate change impacts. As the nation faces increasingly severe climate-related challenges, the fate of this crucial report and the process by which it is created will be closely watched by scientists, policymakers, and citizens alike.

The requirement for the National Climate Assessment is embedded in law, meaning the administration cannot simply choose not to produce it without violating the statute. However, the current action suggests a potential attempt to redefine or delay the process in a way that could significantly alter the nature and timing of the next report. The scientific community and other stakeholders are expected to push back against any efforts that compromise the scientific integrity and timely production of this vital assessment.

The coming months will reveal whether this is a temporary disruption, a prelude to a politically influenced restructuring of the assessment, or effectively a quiet termination of the process as it has historically operated. Regardless, the dismissal of the authors has already cast a long shadow over the future of federal climate science assessment in the United States.