For over seven decades, the United States has spearheaded global climate change research, a legacy now facing an unprecedented challenge. The current situation isn’t simply about funding cuts or policy reversals; it’s a systematic dismantling of the infrastructure built to understand and respond to one of humanity’s most pressing threats. While headlines proclaim a “war on science,” the reality is far more nuanced – and potentially more damaging – than a simple budgetary dispute. It’s a deliberate reshaping of the relationship between knowledge, power, and public trust, and the implications extend far beyond the scientific community.
The foundation of U.S. climate leadership was laid in the 1950s, with researchers at the University of California first documenting rising carbon dioxide levels and establishing the first long-term monitoring system. Simultaneously, Norman Phillips at the Institute for Advanced Studies pioneered the first computer model of the global climate. This early work quickly blossomed into the creation of three world-leading climate modeling centers – NOAA’s Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (1955), the National Science Foundation’s National Center for Atmospheric Research (1960), and NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (1961). By 1965, a Presidential Science Advisory Committee warned of a “vast geophysical experiment” underway, with potentially “deleterious” consequences. This wasn’t a sudden awakening; it was a gradual, evidence-based realization, culminating in the establishment of the U.S. Global Change Research Program in 1990. Federal investment mirrored the growing urgency, climbing from roughly $1 billion in 1990 to a peak of $4.3 billion in 2023. These investments weren’t abstract expenditures; they translated into tangible benefits, from improved flood protection in cities to informed cropping decisions for farmers and better hurricane preparedness for communities.
This article draws on reporting from newrepublic.com.
However, the past year has witnessed a dramatic reversal. The administration has initiated a series of targeted assaults on climate institutions, framed as part of a broader effort to diminish governmental capacity and challenge established scientific consensus. In February, NASA canceled its contract supporting the technical support unit for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s mitigation working group, effectively isolating the U.S. from a crucial international body. This was followed by the dismissal of all State Department staff involved in international climate diplomacy and, ultimately, a formal announcement in January 2026 of the U.S. government’s withdrawal from both the IPCC and the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change – solidifying a practical disengagement that had already begun.
The dismantling extends beyond international collaborations. The U.S. Global Change Research Program itself has been dissolved, along with its quadrennial National Climate Assessment. Authors selected for the Sixth National Climate Assessment were abruptly dismissed, the program’s website was taken offline, and decades of accumulated research were removed from public access. These actions aren’t simply about reducing spending; they’re about controlling the narrative and suppressing information. The administration’s actions at agencies like the National Weather Service and the Energy Information Administration, through “early-exit incentives” and staffing reductions, further erode the nation’s capacity to monitor and understand environmental changes. Even the Environmental Protection Agency’s Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program, essential for tracking emissions, is slated for termination.
What’s particularly concerning is the parallel effort to discredit and censor the scientific process. Executive orders now require political appointees to approve scientific information and funding announcements, injecting political bias into what was previously a peer-reviewed, objective process. The National Science Foundation, historically a bastion of scientific independence, is undergoing structural changes that reduce its access to expert advice. The eviction of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies from its Columbia University home, a move that yielded no cost savings but disrupted critical research, serves as a symbolic – and financially wasteful – illustration of this broader assault. The proposed dismantling of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, deemed “one of the largest sources of climate alarmism” by OMB Director Russell Vought, underscores the administration’s hostility towards research that challenges its political agenda.
The proposed Fiscal Year 2026 budget amplifies these concerns. Advertised as “ending the Green New Scam,” it proposes drastic cuts to geosciences funding at the NSF (over 40 percent), ocean observations (80 percent), and global change research (97 percent). Similar cuts are proposed for NASA, NOAA, and the U.S. Geological Survey, effectively gutting the agencies responsible for climate research and monitoring. While Congress has historically pushed back against some of the most extreme cuts, the administration’s priorities are likely to shape spending decisions, crippling vital programs. This funding environment is already impacting the next generation of researchers, with graduate programs hesitant to make long-term commitments in the face of such uncertainty.
However, the scientific community isn’t passively accepting these changes. Organizations like the American Geophysical Union are actively mobilizing, forming alliances to support U.S. participation in the IPCC and launching initiatives to preserve climate assessment capabilities. Scientists are also countering misinformation, as demonstrated by the rapid response to a flawed report released by the Department of Energy. These efforts, while commendable, are fighting an uphill battle against a concerted and politically motivated attack. The broader context of growing authoritarianism, with universities facing federal pressure and international researchers deterred from collaborating with U.S. institutions, further complicates the situation.
The challenge now isn’t simply about defending climate research; it’s about defending the principles of scientific integrity, open inquiry, and evidence-based policymaking. The scientific community must recognize that its fate is intertwined with the broader struggle for liberal democracy and stand in solidarity with other communities under attack. A more strategic approach, focused on relatable issues and backed by compelling evidence, is needed to rally public opinion. Will the scientific community successfully forge these alliances and effectively counter the administration’s efforts to control the narrative, or will the U.S. continue its retreat from global climate leadership, leaving future generations to grapple with the consequences? The answer will depend not only on the resilience of the scientific community but also on the willingness of citizens to demand accountability and defend the value of knowledge.
