Trump Administration Halts Climate Assessment Funding
In a dramatic turn, the Trump administration has suspended funding for the Global Change Research Program (GCRP) contractor managing the National Climate Assessment (NCA6) and released all its contributing authors. This move raises urgent questions about compliance with the Global Change Research Act of 1990, which mandates a quadrennial assessment of climate science and impacts in the United States.
Background and Legislative Mandate
The Global Change Research Act requires that an updated National Climate Assessment be delivered every four years. Historically, the NCA has been a collaborative effort involving:
- Hundreds of climate scientists, data analysts, and USDA specialists
- High-performance computing centers for running global circulation models (GCMs) and regional downscaling
- A central coordination office under the GCRP that manages peer review, public comment, and interagency sign-off
Past assessments used CMIP5 and CMIP6 model ensembles, with Representative Concentration Pathways (RCP) scenarios ranging from RCP2.6 to RCP8.5, to project changes in temperature, precipitation, extreme events, and sea-level rise through 2100.
Funding Cuts and Author Release
In early April, the administration canceled the contract with an external consulting firm tasked with providing temporary staffing, IT infrastructure support, and project management services for NCA6. Two weeks later, all authors received formal notices stating: “The scope of the NCA6 is currently being reevaluated. We are now releasing all current assessment participants from their roles.”
Technical Aspects of the NCA6 Process
The assessment’s construction relies on several technical components:
- Data Assimilation: Integrating satellite observations (e.g., MODIS, Landsat) and ground-based sensor networks into reanalysis products like ERA5 and MERRA-2.
- Model Resolution: Employing downscaled models at 1–12 km horizontal resolution to assess regional heatwaves, droughts, and flood risk.
- Computational Resources: Utilizing DOE’s supercomputers (e.g., Summit, Frontier) to run multi-decadal ensemble simulations with data volumes exceeding several petabytes.
- Impact Assessment Toolkits: GIS platforms and decision-support systems used by state and local agencies to plan infrastructure resilience measures.
Legal and Timeline Implications
Under federal law, the next NCA must be delivered by 2028. Two scenarios now emerge:
- Non-Compliance: The administration may fail to submit any NCA6, potentially triggering lawsuits from environmental groups, state governments, or members of Congress.
- Revised Assessment: An alternative report could be commissioned that selectively downplays mainstream climate projections, potentially engaging fringe scientists affiliated with climate-skeptical think tanks.
Possible Future Pathways
Expert observers posit three potential outcomes:
- Reinstatement: Congress or the next administration could restore funding and reassemble the author team, preserving scientific integrity.
- Fragmentation: A patchwork of shorter, agency-specific reports could replace a cohesive national document, limiting strategic planning.
- Politicized Rewrite: Ideologically driven contributors might produce a report that undermines established RCP scenarios, risking credibility with stakeholders.
Expert Opinions
Dr. Emily Carter, a climate modeler at a national laboratory, warns that halting the NCA6 disrupts critical analyses used by counties for flood mapping and coastal zone management. Meanwhile, legal scholar Prof. Mark Stanton argues that failure to comply with the 1990 Act may constitute an unlawful abdication of federal obligation, opening the door for judicial injunctions.
As the deadline approaches, the fate of the sixth National Climate Assessment will serve as a barometer for how science and policy intersect at the highest levels of government.