With a swipe of the eraser on the blackboard of science, nearly four hundred American researchers were informed through an email that their contributions were no longer needed. A cold and impersonal message, delivered on a Monday afternoon, brought an end to the work they had been doing for one of the most crucial documents of U.S. environmental policy.
The Trump administration decided to halt the collaboration with hundreds of experts who were contributing to the four-year evaluation of the National Climate Assessment, the government’s main report on the impacts, risks, and responses to climate change in the country, commissioned by Congress. The sixth edition of the report, scheduled for 2027, has been in preparation for months but is now left without the scientific expertise that had formed its backbone.
The decision was communicated by the deputy director of the Global Change Research Program, the federal office responsible for coordinating the document. After thanking the scientists for their commitment, the official announced their removal from the project. According to reports, the scope of the assessment is being revised, with the stated intention of still meeting the legal obligations.
However, the scientific community raises strong concerns: without the support of independent experts, many of whom were working on a voluntary basis, the risk is that the assessment will lose its methodological rigor and international credibility. Steven Hamburg, the chief scientist at Environmental Defense Fund, one of the leading nonprofit environmental organizations in the U.S., emphasized that denying the reality of climate change does not negate its effects nor protect the country from increasingly frequent extreme events like storms, wildfires, and droughts.
The decision appears to align with the guidelines of Project 2025, a strategic plan promoted by the conservative Heritage Foundation, which aims to downsize the role of federal bureaucracies and include more diverse views in the report, including those that question the reality of climate change. Some signs had already been visible: in the previous weeks, numerous federal employees of the USGCRP research program had been laid off, and the contract for outsourcing editorial work related to the NCA had been canceled.
Among the researchers affected by the new policy, there is a mix of disappointment and resignation. According to Robert Kopp, a climate scientist at Rutgers University in New Jersey, it had been clear for some time that this direction was being taken, especially after the reduction in support staff. He added that many authors were still hoping for a new edition of the report based on solid scientific foundations.
The possibility of publishing an alternative NCA, independent from the federal government, remains uncertain. Kopp pointed out that an important independent funding effort would be needed, considering the resources, time, and energy required to coordinate the work of hundreds of scientists.
Mijin Cha, a professor of environmental sustainability at the University of California, claimed that the failure to publish a scientifically rigorous assessment would mark a significant setback for U.S. leadership in research. She also expressed concerns about the possibility of the Republican administration drafting a parallel report, assigning its writing to unqualified or openly denialist figures.
The Global Change Research Act of 1990 still requires the government to produce an assessment by the end of 2027. However, a major question remains: will the final document truly reflect the scientific needs or will it be influenced by political considerations?
