The Trump administration made a significant decision on Monday, informing nearly 400 scientists across the United States that their contributions to a major report on climate change, known as the National Climate Assessment, were no longer needed.
The National Climate Assessment is a vital publication produced every four years, summarizing the impacts of climate change in the U.S., and is required by the Global Change Research Act of 1990. The sixth edition of the report is scheduled for publication in 2027, and preparations have been underway for months to meet that deadline.
This report plays a crucial role in helping federal, state, and local governments, as well as private companies, understand climate change impacts, assess future climate risks, and develop strategies for adaptation and mitigation.
However, the decision to dismiss the scientists has raised concerns within the scientific community about how the report will proceed without the involvement of these subject matter experts.
Many of the dismissed scientists were non-federal employees who had volunteered their time and expertise to contribute to this critical government report.
The U.S. Global Change Research Program, which organizes the publication of the report, sent an email to the scientists informing them of the change. The email, from the deputy director of services, stated, “Thank you for your participation in the 6th National Climate Assessment… we are now releasing all current assessment participants from their roles.”
It also mentioned that the “scope” of the assessment is being “reevaluated” in line with the Trump administration’s efforts to comply with the law, a statement that was also confirmed by the White House to CBS News.
Many scientists are concerned that removing the expertise of these individuals will undermine the credibility and accuracy of the report.
Steven Hamburg, chief scientist at the Environmental Defense Fund, commented on the decision, saying, “Refusing to study climate change won’t make it go away – or help us deal with stronger storms, droughts, floods, wildfires and hotter temperatures, or help us stop emitting the pollution that is making it worse.”
The move to dismiss the scientists comes as part of a broader agenda outlined in Project 2025, a policy document put forth by the Heritage Foundation.
The document suggests a reshaping of reports like the National Climate Assessment, pushing for the inclusion of “diverse viewpoints” and limiting the influence of bureaucratic offices like the U.S. Global Change Research Program.
In line with this, many federal employees working for the program were fired a few weeks ago, and the contract for outside work to publish the report was canceled in early April.
While some scientists anticipated this move, many are still disheartened by it. Dr. Robert Kopp, a climate scientist and professor at Rutgers University, said, “I feel bad for the federal leaders who have put a lot of time into this, but to some extent, I think the writing was on the wall when they dismissed the support staff a few weeks ago.”
The future of the National Climate Assessment remains uncertain. Dr. Kopp suggests that an independent report could be published, but it would require significant funding and coordination to gather the resources necessary to support the efforts of hundreds of volunteer scientists.
Dr. Mijin Cha, a professor of climate and environmental justice at the University of California, Santa Cruz, expressed concerns about the potential loss of the U.S.’s status as a leader in climate science. She warned, “We’re losing our status as the premier data and research country.”
There is also fear that the Trump administration may continue with its version of the report, potentially including authors who represent alternative viewpoints on climate change, which many in the scientific community fear could mislead the public and policymakers.
Since the Global Change Research Act mandates the creation of the National Climate Assessment, the Trump administration is legally obligated to produce the sixth edition by the end of 2027.
How the administration proceeds with the report remains to be seen, but concerns about the potential impact on the quality and accuracy of the findings are widespread among the scientific community.
Disclaimer- Our team has thoroughly fact-checked this article to ensure its accuracy and maintain its credibility. We are committed to providing honest and reliable content for our readers.