President Donald Trump’s administration is working to produce a federal report that portrays climate change as beneficial, a move that could help justify rolling back environmental regulations and expanding executive authority.
The administration is exploring ways to undermine climate science, including rewriting the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's endangerment finding, which mandates regulation of greenhouse gas emissions.
Officials may selectively use research to craft a National Climate Assessment that aligns with industry interests and downplays climate risks.
Legal experts say overturning established climate science would be difficult, but a politically motivated report could still influence policy and court rulings.
Key quote:
“What the Trump administration is trying to do amounts to nothing more than trying to pollute the process with ideologically-motivated antiscience. It means that the U.S. federal government is now at war with humanity.”
— Michael Mann, director of the Center for Science, Sustainability and the Media at the University of Pennsylvania
Why this matters:
Efforts to rewrite climate science could weaken environmental protections and delay action on climate change, despite overwhelming evidence of its dangers. A politically-driven report could influence regulations, legal battles, and public understanding of global warming’s risks. Such a shift could influence regulations, legal proceedings, and public understanding of climate change risks, even as scientific consensus remains clear: Human-driven climate change is already exacerbating extreme weather, endangering ecosystems, and threatening public health. If the administration succeeds in reframing the report’s findings, it may erode trust in scientific institutions while reinforcing industries that contribute heavily to greenhouse gas emissions.
This effort is not without precedent. Past administrations have attempted to alter climate assessments, with mixed success. But at a time when global climate policies are under scrutiny and extreme weather events are becoming more frequent, any dilution of climate science in official government reports could have far-reaching implications — both for U.S. policy and for the world’s broader response to the climate crisis.
NASA is eliminating its chief scientist position and several other roles in a workforce reduction ordered by the Trump administration, affecting offices focused on science, technology policy, and diversity.
The cuts include about 19 positions, including NASA's chief scientist, Katherine Calvin, and roles in the Office of Technology, Policy and Strategy.
NASA cited an executive order for the reductions, which will cost an estimated $1.2 million in severance.
Some worry the move signals broader cuts to NASA’s science programs in favor of human spaceflight initiatives.
Key quote:
“This is shortsighted and hugely alarming. Trump’s assault on science continues. If you wanted a playbook on how to lose to China in every technological race, this is it.”
— Zoe Lofgren, ranking member of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology
Why this matters:
NASA’s chief scientist has played a key role in shaping the agency’s climate and space policy. Eliminating the position could weaken NASA’s ability to conduct independent scientific research, particularly on climate change. The restructuring also affects diversity and technology policy efforts, raising concerns about the administration’s priorities; some fear this move could lead to further cuts in science funding, shifting NASA’s focus toward human spaceflight at the expense of research that informs global policy and innovation.
Energy executives and Trump administration officials at this week's CERAWeek conference in Houston are emphasizing fossil fuel production over renewables, reflecting a shift in policy and industry priorities.
The conference highlights how the Biden administration’s climate-focused policies have been replaced by Trump’s push for U.S. "energy dominance," prioritizing oil and gas.
Companies like BP and Shell, once committed to aggressive renewable energy targets, are scaling back investments in clean energy and refocusing on fossil fuels.
Rising energy demand, geopolitical instability, and shareholder pressure for higher returns have reinforced the shift away from emissions reductions.
Key quote:
“Climate change is continuing to bear down on countries and companies around the world. And so the challenge is how to achieve access, affordability and security of energy supply alongside the imperative to decarbonize the energy system?”
— Mark Brownstein, senior vice president of energy with the Environmental Defense Fund
Why this matters:
The shift toward fossil fuels threatens efforts to curb climate change, even as global temperatures and extreme weather events intensify. While the Biden administration pushed for emissions cuts and renewable energy, Trump’s policies favor deregulation and expanded oil and gas production. Industry trends, driven by energy security concerns and investor demands, signal slower progress on decarbonization. Meanwhile, rising power demands from AI and data centers could further entrench fossil fuel reliance.
The Trump administration is dismantling the Environmental Protection Agency’s environmental justice offices, ending efforts to reduce pollution in low-income and minority communities.
The EPA, under Administrator Lee Zeldin, is closing all regional and national offices focused on environmental justice, halting a decades-long initiative to protect communities disproportionately impacted by pollution.
The move follows the administration’s broader push to eliminate programs tied to diversity, equity, and inclusion, with officials dismissing environmental justice as “forced discrimination.”
The decision coincides with the dismissal of a federal lawsuit against a Louisiana petrochemical plant that had been accused of raising cancer risks in a predominantly Black community.
Key quote:
“If anybody needed a clearer sign that this administration gives not a single damn for the people of the United States, this is it.”
— Matthew Tejada, former head of EPA’s environmental justice program
Why this matters:
In a move that feels ripped from an industry lobbyist’s wish list, the Environmental Protection Agency is shutting down every single office dedicated to tackling pollution in low-income and minority communities. For those who don’t have the money or political clout to fight back, environmental protections are disappearing fast.
A group of House Republicans is pushing to preserve clean energy tax credits from the Inflation Reduction Act, arguing they are essential for economic growth and U.S. energy dominance, even as party leaders seek spending cuts.
Twenty-one House Republicans sent a letter opposing efforts to repeal clean energy tax credits, warning their elimination could raise utility bills and disrupt planned investments.
The credits have spurred billions in energy-related investments, particularly in Republican-led districts, complicating the party’s push to cut spending without reducing Medicaid.
While some Republicans support maintaining or modifying the incentives, party leadership is considering a range of options, from phasing them out to full repeal.
Key quote:
"Full repeal right now of energy tax credits would be a disaster for what companies have paid for, for what we’ve already invested in with taxpayer dollars."
— Rep. Andrew Garbarino (R-N.Y.)
Why this matters:
The debate over clean energy tax credits highlights tensions within the Republican Party as lawmakers balance economic interests with ideological opposition to climate policies. The credits have fueled major investments in manufacturing, energy production, and infrastructure, particularly in GOP-led districts, making their removal politically risky. As Congress moves forward, the future of these incentives could play a significant role in shaping U.S. energy policy, consumer costs, and the nation’s ability to meet growing electricity demands.
Federal budget cuts and a pause on $4 billion in water management funds are raising concerns about the future of the Colorado River, a critical water source for 40 million people, as states negotiate long-term conservation agreements.
The Trump administration’s funding freeze on Inflation Reduction Act water projects and staff reductions at the Bureau of Reclamation could disrupt efforts to sustain the drought-stressed river.
Senate Democrats from California, Nevada, and Arizona urged the Interior Department to restore funds, warning that delays could endanger water supplies and future agreements.
Experts worry that workforce cuts and financial uncertainty could undermine conservation programs and long-term water management strategies.
Key quote:
“This broad brush, unfocused purge in furtherance of the stated goal of liberating large corporations from regulation they do not care for will result in attrition of expertise, damage to the American public, and specifically, a more disordered and chaotic Colorado River system.”
— Anne Castle, former Upper Colorado River Commission member
Why this matters:
The Colorado River is the lifeline of the American Southwest, supplying water to major cities, farmers, and tribal communities. Decades of drought, rising temperatures, and increasing demand have left its major reservoirs — Lake Mead and Lake Powell — at historically low levels.
Without strong federal oversight, key conservation agreements between states and tribal nations could stall, further complicating efforts to manage the dwindling supply. Infrastructure projects meant to improve water efficiency may also face setbacks, increasing the risk of severe shortages. This is especially concerning for rural and Indigenous communities that rely on the river for drinking water and agriculture.
As negotiations over water rights continue, the Colorado River remains a stark symbol of the challenges posed by climate change and resource management in an arid and warming world.
IQAir analyzed air quality data from 40,000 monitoring stations in 138 countries and found that Chad, Congo, Bangladesh, Pakistan, and India had the worst air pollution. India had six of the world’s nine most polluted cities.
Many regions lack adequate monitoring, with Africa averaging just one air quality station per 3.7 million people. Efforts are underway to expand monitoring networks.
Long-term exposure to air pollution increases the risk of respiratory illness, cancer, and neurological diseases, contributing to an estimated seven million deaths annually.
Key quote:
“If you have bad water, no water, you can tell people to wait for half an hour a day, the water will come. But if you have bad air, you cannot tell people to pause breathing.”
— Fatimah Ahamad, chief scientist at Sunway Centre for Planetary Health
Why this matters:
Air pollution is a silent killer, linked to heart disease, lung disease, and cognitive decline. It disproportionately affects lower-income regions with limited monitoring and regulation. At the heart of the issue is the burning of fossil fuels — coal, oil, and gas — that not only releases harmful pollutants but also drives climate change. The warming planet intensifies wildfires, which in turn worsen air quality, creating a feedback loop of environmental and public health crises. Meanwhile, regulatory oversight varies widely, with some regions benefiting from strict emissions limits while others lack basic monitoring, leaving millions exposed to dangerously high levels of pollution.
Prisons, jails and detention centers are placed in locations where environmental hazards such as toxic landfills, floods and extreme heat are the norm.
Credit: Carolyn E. Ramírez
