'Trump's Climate Threats Shake Up World's Largest Science Gathering: "Everyone's Demoralized."'
At the American Geophysical Union conference, researchers express concerns that their efforts may be at risk of vanishing if a president who dismisses climate science assumes office.
TroibNews 
Censorship. Funding cuts. Layoffs.
These issues cast a shadow over the world’s largest conference of climate scientists, who anticipate turbulence with President-elect Donald Trump taking office in six weeks. Trump has recently dismissed climate change, labeling it a hoax and joking that rising sea levels would offer more coastal property—views that starkly contrast with the work of the 25,000 researchers attending the American Geophysical Union’s annual meeting in Washington this week.
“Everybody at AGU is nervous,” Jill Brandenberger, climate security program manager at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, said in an interview. “The unknown is what makes people nervous.”
Numerous scientists at the conference expressed apprehension that a second Trump administration could take a more hostile stance toward research that informs federal regulations on climate and environmental health. Employees throughout government agencies—ranging from NOAA and NASA to the Energy Department’s national laboratories—may soon encounter political pressures that could jeopardize their research, obscure their findings, or even lead to job losses, attendees warned.
While some, like Brandenberger, believe government research will persist in some form—similar to during Trump’s first term, when many federal websites removed references to climate change, even while agency operations largely continued—they are preparing for changes. They anticipate a shift from Biden administration priorities that emphasized climate change and public health initiatives aimed at reducing pollution from fossil fuels.
The timing of the conference's location adds a layer of irony. It coincided with Trump's impending return to the White House, amplifying the anxiety that filled the spacious halls of the Washington Convention Center. Although scientists and officials projected optimism to the public, they were bracing for a markedly different political landscape under Trump.
“He won the popular vote, he won every swing state, and almost every county in the United States swung right in this election,” said Caitlin Bergstrom, AGU’s program manager for science policy and government relations. “So it is something to keep in mind as we’re thinking about this kind of work that this wasn’t a fluke.”
Much of the anxiety stems from Project 2025, a conservative policy framework led by the Heritage Foundation advocating for deep budget cuts and significant restructuring of certain agencies. This initiative calls for dismantling NOAA, “downsizing” the EPA by “terminating” staff, and “reshaping” the U.S. Global Change Research Program that coordinates federal environmental research.
While the Trump transition has stated that Project 2025 does not reflect its official views, many of its writers have links to his previous administration, and Trump has appointed some to key positions.
The establishment of Trump’s proposed Department of Government Efficiency has also heightened concerns. Headed by Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, this commission is tasked with reducing government size through budget cuts, leading to fears that federal climate science initiatives may be among the initial targets.
During his first term, Trump’s administration significantly edited federal websites to remove climate-related information and attempted to eliminate NASA's Earth observation research funding. He also promoted individuals skeptical of climate science to prominent roles within the White House and agencies, including the EPA.
However, not all Republicans aligned with Trump on budget cuts, as they opposed some of his more drastic proposals. Will Happer, a Princeton physicist who briefly served as Trump’s science adviser, noted that his suggestion to allow researchers to challenge established climate science was rejected by Trump’s team.
“My most serious problems and resistance to having the review were from the Republicans,” Happer said in an interview. “Trump thought it was a good idea, but many of his advisers did not.”
The Trump transition team declined to comment on these issues.
Yet this time, Trump appears to have selected loyalists for cabinet and advisory positions who may be more inclined to support his directives—including former New York Rep. Lee Zeldin, appointed to lead the EPA, and energy executive Chris Wright, who was named to head the DOE.
Andrew Dessler, a Texas A&M University climate scientist and AGU’s global environmental change section president, expressed concerns that Trump’s officials could once again erase websites, restricting public access to vital research at a crucial moment when the effects of climate change are becoming increasingly apparent.
“People are really kind of exhausted,” he said. “It's not so much that we people have evidence that it's going to be bad. It's just that if you look at what they say, that's clearly what they want to do.”
Throughout the conference, scientists and policy experts raised these worries during crowded panels and town hall meetings, where many researchers sought clarity about their futures under the next administration.
Some found solace in dark humor. Colm Sweeney, associate science director for NOAA's Global Monitoring Laboratory, lightened the atmosphere before a town hall meeting by joking that his remarks would address how to make “the atmosphere great again,” nodding to Trump’s controversial slogan.
The Monday town hall served as an update on the U.S. Global Change Research Program, which culminates in the National Climate Assessment every four years. When Sweeney was asked about the program's future under the new administration, he replied that he “can't comment on political atmosphere.”
Others spoke more candidly about their concerns regarding the potential challenges under Trump’s leadership.
At a packed session focused on the incoming administration's science policy, attendees crowded against walls and filled the aisles. Bergstrom raised the alarm that political appointees could relocate agency offices, drastically reorganize departments, and cut staff.
“There are definitely going to be some bad things happening for science policy, science workers, the scientific enterprise at large,” she said. “We will have tools at our disposal to help stop or delay some of these bad actions, but not everything.”
Federal scientists at the conference—some hesitant to speak freely out of fear for their jobs—mentioned rife speculation within their agencies.
One anonymous NASA scientist expressed anxiety about censorship, funding cuts, and potential changes to remote work policies. Concerns are already circulating that NASA employees might be instructed to avoid directly mentioning climate change in reports and presentations, instead using terms like “extreme weather.”
This type of language restriction is not new. During Trump’s first term, several agencies, including the DOE and the Department of Agriculture, advised employees to avoid terms like “climate change” and “global warming.”
“Everyone’s demoralized,” the NASA scientist said, noting that previous layoffs at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory had only deepened job security worries. The announcement of the Department of Government Efficiency has exacerbated anxiety among federal scientists.
Legal experts at the conference provided guidance to concerned scientists on varied topics, from lobbying laws to the threat of mass layoffs. This latter concern has persisted for years, especially since Trump issued an executive order known as Schedule F towards the end of his first term, aimed at making it easier to fire or replace federal workers. This plan, which many expect Trump to revive, is a cornerstone of Project 2025.
“I had people come in last AGU worried about this,” said Chris Marchesano, a staff attorney with the nonprofit Climate Science Legal Defense Fund. “We’ve been hearing a lot from scientists who are incredibly worried.”
Despite the looming threats, many federal scientists are already plotting ways to safeguard their research and uphold scientific integrity.
NOAA Administrator Rick Spinrad encouraged scientists to advocate for their work rather than retreat, emphasizing that they must illustrate the public benefits derived from taxpayer-funded federal research.
“Rather than thinking about, ‘Gee, how might we make cuts here,’ the argument that’s incumbent on all of us—the scientific community, the federal agencies—is there’s a need for these investments to increase right now,” he stated at a Tuesday press conference.
Brandenberger of Pacific Northwest National Laboratory advised her team to “stay calm and carry on,” but recognized that changes are likely. There are uncertainties about the future of over 100 “climate translators” employed by her office to assist Defense Department engineers in interpreting climate data forecasts.
“We’re gonna weather any changes,” she asserted.
Allen M Lee contributed to this report for TROIB News
These issues cast a shadow over the world’s largest conference of climate scientists, who anticipate turbulence with President-elect Donald Trump taking office in six weeks. Trump has recently dismissed climate change, labeling it a hoax and joking that rising sea levels would offer more coastal property—views that starkly contrast with the work of the 25,000 researchers attending the American Geophysical Union’s annual meeting in Washington this week.
“Everybody at AGU is nervous,” Jill Brandenberger, climate security program manager at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, said in an interview. “The unknown is what makes people nervous.”
Numerous scientists at the conference expressed apprehension that a second Trump administration could take a more hostile stance toward research that informs federal regulations on climate and environmental health. Employees throughout government agencies—ranging from NOAA and NASA to the Energy Department’s national laboratories—may soon encounter political pressures that could jeopardize their research, obscure their findings, or even lead to job losses, attendees warned.
While some, like Brandenberger, believe government research will persist in some form—similar to during Trump’s first term, when many federal websites removed references to climate change, even while agency operations largely continued—they are preparing for changes. They anticipate a shift from Biden administration priorities that emphasized climate change and public health initiatives aimed at reducing pollution from fossil fuels.
The timing of the conference's location adds a layer of irony. It coincided with Trump's impending return to the White House, amplifying the anxiety that filled the spacious halls of the Washington Convention Center. Although scientists and officials projected optimism to the public, they were bracing for a markedly different political landscape under Trump.
“He won the popular vote, he won every swing state, and almost every county in the United States swung right in this election,” said Caitlin Bergstrom, AGU’s program manager for science policy and government relations. “So it is something to keep in mind as we’re thinking about this kind of work that this wasn’t a fluke.”
Much of the anxiety stems from Project 2025, a conservative policy framework led by the Heritage Foundation advocating for deep budget cuts and significant restructuring of certain agencies. This initiative calls for dismantling NOAA, “downsizing” the EPA by “terminating” staff, and “reshaping” the U.S. Global Change Research Program that coordinates federal environmental research.
While the Trump transition has stated that Project 2025 does not reflect its official views, many of its writers have links to his previous administration, and Trump has appointed some to key positions.
The establishment of Trump’s proposed Department of Government Efficiency has also heightened concerns. Headed by Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, this commission is tasked with reducing government size through budget cuts, leading to fears that federal climate science initiatives may be among the initial targets.
During his first term, Trump’s administration significantly edited federal websites to remove climate-related information and attempted to eliminate NASA's Earth observation research funding. He also promoted individuals skeptical of climate science to prominent roles within the White House and agencies, including the EPA.
However, not all Republicans aligned with Trump on budget cuts, as they opposed some of his more drastic proposals. Will Happer, a Princeton physicist who briefly served as Trump’s science adviser, noted that his suggestion to allow researchers to challenge established climate science was rejected by Trump’s team.
“My most serious problems and resistance to having the review were from the Republicans,” Happer said in an interview. “Trump thought it was a good idea, but many of his advisers did not.”
The Trump transition team declined to comment on these issues.
Yet this time, Trump appears to have selected loyalists for cabinet and advisory positions who may be more inclined to support his directives—including former New York Rep. Lee Zeldin, appointed to lead the EPA, and energy executive Chris Wright, who was named to head the DOE.
Andrew Dessler, a Texas A&M University climate scientist and AGU’s global environmental change section president, expressed concerns that Trump’s officials could once again erase websites, restricting public access to vital research at a crucial moment when the effects of climate change are becoming increasingly apparent.
“People are really kind of exhausted,” he said. “It's not so much that we people have evidence that it's going to be bad. It's just that if you look at what they say, that's clearly what they want to do.”
Throughout the conference, scientists and policy experts raised these worries during crowded panels and town hall meetings, where many researchers sought clarity about their futures under the next administration.
Some found solace in dark humor. Colm Sweeney, associate science director for NOAA's Global Monitoring Laboratory, lightened the atmosphere before a town hall meeting by joking that his remarks would address how to make “the atmosphere great again,” nodding to Trump’s controversial slogan.
The Monday town hall served as an update on the U.S. Global Change Research Program, which culminates in the National Climate Assessment every four years. When Sweeney was asked about the program's future under the new administration, he replied that he “can't comment on political atmosphere.”
Others spoke more candidly about their concerns regarding the potential challenges under Trump’s leadership.
At a packed session focused on the incoming administration's science policy, attendees crowded against walls and filled the aisles. Bergstrom raised the alarm that political appointees could relocate agency offices, drastically reorganize departments, and cut staff.
“There are definitely going to be some bad things happening for science policy, science workers, the scientific enterprise at large,” she said. “We will have tools at our disposal to help stop or delay some of these bad actions, but not everything.”
Federal scientists at the conference—some hesitant to speak freely out of fear for their jobs—mentioned rife speculation within their agencies.
One anonymous NASA scientist expressed anxiety about censorship, funding cuts, and potential changes to remote work policies. Concerns are already circulating that NASA employees might be instructed to avoid directly mentioning climate change in reports and presentations, instead using terms like “extreme weather.”
This type of language restriction is not new. During Trump’s first term, several agencies, including the DOE and the Department of Agriculture, advised employees to avoid terms like “climate change” and “global warming.”
“Everyone’s demoralized,” the NASA scientist said, noting that previous layoffs at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory had only deepened job security worries. The announcement of the Department of Government Efficiency has exacerbated anxiety among federal scientists.
Legal experts at the conference provided guidance to concerned scientists on varied topics, from lobbying laws to the threat of mass layoffs. This latter concern has persisted for years, especially since Trump issued an executive order known as Schedule F towards the end of his first term, aimed at making it easier to fire or replace federal workers. This plan, which many expect Trump to revive, is a cornerstone of Project 2025.
“I had people come in last AGU worried about this,” said Chris Marchesano, a staff attorney with the nonprofit Climate Science Legal Defense Fund. “We’ve been hearing a lot from scientists who are incredibly worried.”
Despite the looming threats, many federal scientists are already plotting ways to safeguard their research and uphold scientific integrity.
NOAA Administrator Rick Spinrad encouraged scientists to advocate for their work rather than retreat, emphasizing that they must illustrate the public benefits derived from taxpayer-funded federal research.
“Rather than thinking about, ‘Gee, how might we make cuts here,’ the argument that’s incumbent on all of us—the scientific community, the federal agencies—is there’s a need for these investments to increase right now,” he stated at a Tuesday press conference.
Brandenberger of Pacific Northwest National Laboratory advised her team to “stay calm and carry on,” but recognized that changes are likely. There are uncertainties about the future of over 100 “climate translators” employed by her office to assist Defense Department engineers in interpreting climate data forecasts.
“We’re gonna weather any changes,” she asserted.
Allen M Lee contributed to this report for TROIB News
