Faris Adani
Last year marked a significant turning point as the Trump administration intensified its aggressive stance against climate science, initiating policies and rhetoric that signaled a retreat from environmental protection and scientific integrity. This calculated “war on climate science” has reverberated across federal agencies, but perhaps nowhere has its impact been more acutely felt than at NASA, the very institution tasked with observing and understanding our planet.
In a swift and alarming series of actions during the first two weeks of what would be Trump’s second term, the administration systematically began scrubbing critical environmental resources and datasets from federal agency websites. This move, seen by many as an attempt to erase inconvenient truths, aimed to dismantle the public’s access to vital information on climate trends, pollution, and ecological health. Concurrently, the United States formally withdrew from key international organizations dedicated to combating climate change, including those fostering global cooperation on emissions reductions and climate adaptation. These vital bodies were dismissively labeled a “waste of taxpayer dollars,” undermining decades of diplomatic effort and global scientific collaboration.
President Trump himself has consistently downplayed the severity of the climate crisis, frequently dismissing climate science as “woke” ideology. His rhetoric has been accompanied by a resolute commitment to an “energy dominance” agenda, encapsulated by the repeated vow to “drill, baby, drill” for fossil fuels. This policy direction, prioritizing oil, gas, and coal extraction, stands in stark contrast to the scientific consensus warning of our planet’s accelerating approach to a climate disaster, driven largely by greenhouse gas emissions from these very fuels.
The ramifications of this regressive agenda have profoundly impacted NASA, an agency historically celebrated for its groundbreaking Earth science missions. In a controversial move in July, NASA announced that thousands of employees had accepted a contentious deferred resignation program. This program led to a staggering reduction of roughly 20 percent of its workforce, a significant loss of institutional knowledge, expertise, and scientific talent across various divisions. The departure of seasoned scientists, engineers, and data specialists has raised serious concerns about the agency’s capacity to maintain its ambitious research programs and fulfill its mandate to monitor the Earth’s changing environment.
Further escalating concerns, in August, the Trump administration instructed NASA employees to devise plans for terminating two major missions. Among these was the premature destruction of the Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2 (OCO-2), a vital greenhouse gas-observing space satellite. OCO-2 is not merely operational; it continues to collect “exceptionally high quality” data on atmospheric carbon dioxide levels while orbiting Earth. This data is crucial for understanding global carbon cycles, identifying sources and sinks of CO2, and refining climate models. Its termination would represent a direct assault on the scientific infrastructure essential for tracking and responding to climate change.
Against this backdrop of policy shifts and operational cutbacks, a former NASA staffer, Jon Mikel Walton, has voiced an urgent appeal. According to Walton, a former NASA Earth public engagement lead, these actions collectively signal a profound failure by the agency at a time when Earth’s climate is approaching a devastating point of no return.
In a powerful “plea to NASA administrator Jared Isaacman” posted on LinkedIn, Walton passionately argued for the continued funding of NASA’s Earth Science missions. He emphasized the indispensable role of the agency’s fleet of space-based observatories, including OCO-2, in providing critical data. These missions, he explained, translate “observation into public value like better storm and flood forecasting, stronger disaster readiness, safer water and food planning, and clearer visibility into climate risk.” He underscored their importance, stating, “This critical public infrastructure saves lives, protects the economy, and keeps the United States ahead.” (When queried about the spacecraft’s future, a NASA spokesperson informed Futurism via email that the agency “cannot speculate regarding any programmatic changes,” while simultaneously noting that the agency is seeking ideas for “partnerships to continue operations and data collection of the Earth science mission OCO-3,” a successor mission.)
Walton’s message painted a stark picture of the current state of affairs: “And yet over the past year, budget uncertainty and political pressure have weakened one of the country’s most trusted sources of Earth intelligence.” He lamented the tangible consequences: “Teams were cut, expertise was lost, and NASA’s ability to communicate clearly about climate and environmental risk was silenced — exactly when those risks are accelerating.” The very moment humanity needs clear, authoritative scientific guidance, NASA’s capacity to provide it has been compromised.
Futurism reached out to NASA for an official comment on Walton’s fervent plea, but has yet to receive a response, highlighting the current climate of caution and limited communication within the agency regarding these sensitive topics.
In a demonstration of legislative pushback, lawmakers have actively challenged the administration’s attempts to redefine NASA’s role, particularly concerning climate science. Earlier this month, Congress delivered an eleventh-hour intervention, voting to keep NASA’s budget largely intact for the 2026 fiscal year. This action directly rebuffed the Trump administration’s attempts to deal a devastating blow to its science division, which would have severely curtailed vital research and observation programs.
Walton acknowledged this legislative victory in his plea, writing, “Congress has reaffirmed NASA’s science mission by restoring its funding.” However, he quickly pivoted to the more profound question: “The question now is whether the agency will lead where it matters most: helping the nation — and the world — understand what’s happening to Earth in real time.” He passionately argued for NASA’s unique position to provide “this shared reality: what’s changing, why it’s changing, and what it means for lives, livelihoods, and national resilience.”
His call to action for NASA was clear: “rebuild” its Earth science leadership and “restore its public voice on Earth.” He concluded with an imperative triad: “Fund [NASA’s Earth Science] fleet. Protect the teams. Tell the truth.”
The Trump administration’s influence on NASA’s climate efforts manifests in both overt policy directives and subtle, yet equally damaging, omissions. A stark example emerged earlier this month when the agency released its yearly report on global surface temperatures. The report noted that 2025 was even hotter than 2023, continuing a worrying trend of escalating global heat. Yet, as Agence France-Presse observed, the report conspicuously failed to make a single mention of “climate change,” the “disastrous effects of burning fossil fuels,” “greenhouse gas emissions,” or even the fundamental concept of “global warming.”
For an agency whose science directorate is dedicated to studying the planet, this omission is nothing short of damning. In stark contrast, NASA’s preceding 2024 report was fleshed out with detailed analysis, including illustrative graphics, informative video content, and direct quotes from scientists explicitly citing the role of climate change in rising temperatures. This year’s press release, however, felt like a mere afterthought, limited to just six paragraphs of surface-level analysis, devoid of context or causal explanation. This deliberate downplaying of climate terminology occurred despite 2025 being unequivocally confirmed as one of the hottest years on record by multiple scientific bodies.
While NASA navigates the pressures of an administration seemingly eager to discount the effects of global warming, other experts have chosen to be far less subtle in their assessment and call to action. University of Pennsylvania climatologist Michael Mann offered a scathing critique, telling AFP, “The US government is now, like Russia and Saudi Arabia, a petrostate under Trump and Republican rule, and the actions of all of its agencies and departments can be understood in terms of the agenda of the polluters that are running the show.”
Mann directly linked this political reality to NASA’s recent actions, adding, “It is therefore entirely unsurprising that NASA administrators are attempting to bury findings of its own agency that conflict with its climate denial agenda.” His comments underscore a deep concern within the scientific community that political influence is actively compromising the integrity and mission of federal science agencies.
The unfolding narrative at NASA serves as a critical barometer for the state of climate science under the current administration. From workforce decimation and threatened missions to the sanitization of scientific reports, the efforts to sideline climate research and communication are undeniable. As the planet hurtles towards unprecedented climatic thresholds, the plea from former NASA employees and the alarm bells from leading climatologists highlight an urgent imperative: for NASA to reclaim its voice, uphold its scientific integrity, and lead the charge in providing the indispensable Earth intelligence humanity so desperately needs.
