The recent years have marked a turbulent period for the scientific community, especially under the Trump administration, where many scientists felt an unprecedented strain from political interference. With echoes of that administration still resonating, many in the scientific realm are voicing concerns about the potential implications of a second Trump term next year, fearing it could lead to even greater censorship and manipulation of scientific research.
At the center of this conversation is Joel Clement, a forest ecologist whose specialization brought him to the U.S. Department of the Interior, where he dedicated nearly seven years to addressing urgent climate issues faced by Alaskan communities. Under his stewardship, Clement worked tirelessly to spotlight the harsh realities of thawing permafrost and rising sea levels—a crisis forcing entire towns to consider relocation, effectively turning American citizens into climate refugees.
“I was very public about saying, ‘Hey, these communities are at risk—the threat is growing,’” Clement recounted in an interview. During the Obama administration, his work, although slow, progressed steadily as officials worked collaboratively to formulate solutions for these endangered populations. But that progress faced a seismic shift following Trump's inauguration in 2017. In a sweeping effort to dismantle climate initiatives, Clement and his fellow professionals were reassigned, with Clement ending up in an office focused on royalty checks from oil and gas drilling—far from his previous role protecting vulnerable communities.
“It was a real threat to Americans’ health and safety,” Clement stated, expressing the frustration many felt under the new regime which significantly stifled climate action. With the helm of scientific dialogue abruptly tilted away from evidence-based practices, Clement made the brave decision to resign rather than compromise his principles. Others, still mindful of their mission, chose a different path, attempting to adapt within the confines of a government resolutely committed to undermining any scientific input.
As the years passed, Clement’s sentiments were echoed by others in the scientific realm, including Lauren Kurtz, the executive director of the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund. During the Trump administration, the Fund received over 300 requests for assistance from scientists facing censorship and vilification just for doing their jobs or speaking out against climate denial. “I think it was very hard to be a scientist during that period, a climate scientist for sure,” she said, reflecting the pervasive challenges faced in advocating for scientific integrity.
Now, as the 2024 election approaches, the specter of another Trump term is rekindling those fears of an even more hostile environment for scientific discourse. Many recall instances from the previous presidency when critical research was censored or manipulated. The Environmental Protection Agency, for example, saw its staff barred from including crucial studies on air pollution which endangers public health in various communities. Additionally, vital information regarding climate change's effects on crops was systematically suppressed. Perhaps most notoriously, Trump misrepresented hurricane forecasts, altering maps to suit his narrative and further sowing confusion around vital meteorological science.
Amid these challenges, many in the scientific community remain on high alert. A report entitled “Project 2025,” developed by former Trump officials and conservative activists, outlines sweeping proposals to overhaul federal agencies, including slashing the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to address pollution affecting marginalized communities. It also signals a willingness to eliminate crucial programs within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), a key agency that provides essential data affecting weather forecasts and climate research.
One particularly chilling aspect of the proposed Project 2025 is the ease with which civil servants could be replaced. This raises the unsettling prospect that those tasked with protecting public health and security through climate science could find their positions and influence under serious threat if a familiar political player rises to power once again. “There is anxiety with a second Trump term,” said Jennifer Orme-Zavaleta, a former high-ranking EPA official. “They will be better prepared than during the first term.”
The sentiments expressed by many in the scientific field lead to one pressing question: how can the voices advocating for evidence-based policies ensure they are heard louder than partisan propaganda? In the past, many scientists remained silent due to fear of political reprisals, but Clement believes that if scientists band together and remain vocal about their commitment to truth and facts, they can collectively push back against any future political intimidation. “Folks will be a little more ready—indeed, a lot more ready—for the scope of this assault on science if, of course, Trump were to be elected,” Clement advised, emphasizing the grassroots mobilization of knowledge and advocacy for one’s scientific duty.
Federal scientists are mobilizing, building communities that share not only their research but also their strategies for coping with potential reshaping of governmental policy. Clement remains hopeful, encouraging young professionals to seek out these roles, stating, “Go into this work. Be ready. Have some energy.” He underscores that the ongoing battles are crucial not just for environmental integrity but for the fundamental reliability of science in policy-making, an all-hands-on-deck moment for those who value truth and transparency.
Moving forward, the stakes are higher than ever as the nation approaches another presidential election cycle. In an era where misinformation threatens to undermine facts, the need for scientists to champion their findings and advocate for scientifically informed policies is crucial. Lessons learned from past administrations highlight the importance of remaining vigilant and persistent in ensuring that science, rather than political narratives, governs decision-making processes.
In a thought-provoking reminder, Clement concluded with a cautionary tale relevant to today’s climate. “Just remember that every disaster movie starts with a politician ignoring a scientist,” he said, alluding to the dire consequences of sidelining expert advice. With the path ahead uncertain, one thing remains clear: vigilance and advocacy from the scientific community will be essential in safeguarding the value of science against political adversities of any ilk.
