The Trump administration has reinstated the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), the office that coordinates federal climate research and produces the National Climate Assessment, the quadrennial report commissioned by Congress on how global warming is transforming the U.S. economy and infrastructure. The dismantling took place a year ago, when the White House cut programs deemed out of line with its agenda.
A Skeptic at the Wheel
The office is now headed by Matthew Wielicki, a former geochemist at the University of Alabama who is known on social media for his critical views on climate science. He has described some of the scientific literature on the subject as little more than “stamp collecting” and has insinuated that global temperature data has been manipulated. When contacted by Politico, he said he would only discuss his work with the White House’s permission; the White House did not make him available for an interview but issued a statement saying the office had been used “for political purposes rather than on a sound scientific basis.”
Previous versions of the report, based on hundreds of peer-reviewed studies, have documented rising temperatures and more frequent floods and wildfires, and are used to guide public spending and risk planning. The program dates back to 1990, when it was established under George H.W. Bush: among its early findings was the discovery of the damage caused by ozone depletion, which led to new regulations.
A familiar scenario
This isn’t the first time. During Trump’s first term, the report was published, but the president said he didn’t believe it; during his second term, all previous editions were removed from federal websites. This new direction is part of a broader plan: Energy Secretary Chris Wright has already overseen a climate report criticized by dozens of scientists as misleading, drafted with researchers who later also became involved in the process of the new National Assessment. Among them is Judith Curry, who speaks of “high-level” consultation for the upcoming report and describes the latest edition as “practically useless” because it is based on extreme emissions scenarios.
Michael Kuperberg, the program’s former executive director, points out another risk: selecting researchers who toe the line will not change the overall scientific landscape, but it may erode public trust in federal research. As he told Politico, the risk is a loss of institutional integrity: if one group of experts denies the evidence, who will believe the next one?
