Thousands of government scientists have been pushed out of their public service careers since the second Trump administration took office. Some were fired, while others left because their work was targeted for political interference. Nearly 95,000 science employees are no longer in federal service.

This massive loss doesn’t just affect individual scientists or their agencies, but everyone in the country. Federal scientists carry out lifesaving medical research; monitor and help communities prepare for severe weather; protect consumers from foodborne illnesses; study pollution impacts to ensure we have effective public health rules; and do work that helps keep us safe, healthy, and prosperous.

Under the Trump administration, science is under attack like never before. These are just a few of the stories of scientists whose important, public-serving work was callously discarded, and what this means to us and for the relationships the US scientific enterprise has cultivated over decades with institutions and countries around the world.

Tom DiLiberto

Former position: Public affairs specialist/climate scientist/meteorologist, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

Current position: Media director, Climate Central

I’ve known I wanted to be a meteorologist since I was in third grade. For me, there’s meaning in providing information for families and communities that they can use to stay safe. I wanted to help people, and that’s why I went into federal service.

I was working at NOAA when I was fired. It’s a weird experience to see all the work that you did just—poof—disappear within six months. My entire career has been almost completely wiped away. And it’s not just me. It’s the people forecasting your weather, making sure your seafood is safe to eat, anyone doing research on climate.

It took decades to build up some of these programs, and now the people aren’t there to be able to do it. You can’t just stop research and restart it in 5 or 10 years. As taxpayers, we pay for these services, and we’re getting a degraded service. We’ll see the impact of that, which is that people are going to get hurt needlessly.

The United States was lucky last year because we didn’t have too many extreme weather events happen. But we can’t count on that. So, whether we see hurricanes ahead, heat waves, or wildfires, I have less trust that the government can do what it needs to do. The people in government who are still there are going to try their best. But there’s only so much they can do. And that scares me.

Whether that lost expertise can be replaced . . . well, who would want that job now? It’s a lot easier to burn something down than it is to build it up.

Melinda Laituri, PhD

Former position: Jefferson Science Fellow, US Department of State; federal contractor

Current position: Retired

In 2014, I started a yearlong program—the Jefferson Science Fellowship—with the State Department. My division created maps based on both satellite data and community-based information, to help decisionmakers place humanitarian resources and infrastructure where they’re needed. 

As a professor at Colorado State, one important aspect of collaborating with the federal government was what you could bring back to your teaching, your research, the institution—to show young people how issues of policy relate to science. The ability to share what I knew was incredible.

More recently, I was a contractor working with the State Department on the Secondary Cities Initiative, a follow-on from my fellowship. This is a global network of geospatial experts working together to tackle issues like security, resilience, and disaster response. I’ve traveled all over the world for this work. Through this project, I’ve worked with regional environmental officers serving at US embassies. I’ve developed partnerships with people on the ground, including helping cities and universities develop maps. The Secondary Cities Initiative gave rise to an important COVID-19 mapping and mitigation project. The on-the-ground experts I’ve met were amazing people, with local knowledge and expertise, who were able to make the Secondary Cities Project possible.

Our initiative recently submitted a proposal for a grant from USAID, and then USAID went away. Now it’s on hold.

So much of what I did was built on this network and these partnerships. The relationships are strong enough to maintain, but the funding to support that work is gone. I still am in touch with many of the colleagues I worked with around the world. A lot of them are just mystified by what’s happening in the United States.

Aubrey Paris, PhD

Former position: Senior policy advisor for gender, climate change and innovation, the Secretary of State’s Office of Global Women’s Issues

Current position: Director, Parlee Center, Ursinus College

My portfolio with the Office of Global Women’s Issues covered the ways climate change affects women. 

I worked with different State Department bureaus to understand how the “gender-climate nexus” affected their topic or their region, and I coordinated across 14 different federal agencies to develop policy and strategy. I did a lot of travel, meeting with partners in different countries, and training State Department staff through the Foreign Service Institute.

My office created the Innovation Station initiative, helping to identify women—including scientists and entrepreneurs—who were developing solutions to climate and energy challenges in their countries. In many places women are noticing these challenges first and know their community enough to identify and come up with solutions to problems. We helped them share their work locally and build relationships internationally. That’s some of the work I’m proudest of: helping promote these women and expand the impact of their innovations. 

Our work was under attack from Inauguration Day. With little guidance and an overall atmosphere of fear, all of our colleagues proactively self-censored. It seemed like the administration wanted women’s empowerment work to disappear without having to say it explicitly. 

In April 2025, the New York Times leaked the State Department reorganization plan, and we weren’t on it. That’s how we knew it was over.

We’ve lost hundreds of years of expertise, years of hard work, academic and professional expertise in how to effectively advance women’s rights and empowerment in ways that benefit all of society.  

Environmental health researchers like me often think about how exposures to different toxic substances and chemicals impact groups of people differently, including what we call “sensitive populations,” like kids, who may be more susceptible to harm. Kids are not just small adults. Their bodies are different: they grow rapidly, and they breathe faster, eat more food, and drink more water relative to their body weights than adults. They also interact with the world differently, by playing in dirt and dust, and exploring new things by putting them in their mouths. Children also do not get to choose where they live or control their home and school environments.

Taken together, these factors can make children more susceptible to exposure to toxic substances and, as a result, more harm from these exposures. The issues I navigate as a scientist are the same ones I navigate as a parent, while also expecting another child. What is best for my toddler’s and growing baby’s health is a reel constantly running in the back of my mind.

My concern for my children is not unique. Every parent wants to know that the air their child breathes, the water they drink, and the products they are around are safe. That is why we rely on a strong public health system grounded in independent science. When that science is sidelined by the federal government, it becomes harder to identify risks, prevent harm, and protect the families who depend on those safeguards.

President Trump’s empty promises to “Make Our Children Healthy Again”

The White House’s “Make Our Children Healthy Again” (MOCHA) Strategy Report pledges to prioritize children’s health. But the Trump administration’s actions have not only failed to provide substantive actions that safeguard our nation’s kids, but have endangered their health.

In addition to the Trump administration cutting funding for scientific research aimed at understanding and preventing environmental hazards, they also undermined access to and trust in life-saving vaccines, rolled back or delayed environmental protections, and stopped calculating the financial value of the public health benefits of regulations.

For one example, last year the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) weakened screening levels for the neurotoxicant lead in soil, as well as the level above which a site will be cleaned up. This means that kids could potentially be exposed to more lead in soil before the government intervenes. I referenced this guideline for my own home when we were tackling lead remediation. Lead exposure harms children’s brains, and there has not been a safe level of exposure demonstrated. However, it is preventable with the right measures and information.

The Trump administration has also sidelined the only federal advisory committee committed to protecting children’s health at the EPA, the Children’s Health Protection Advisory Committee (CHPAC). It is impossible to imagine how the agency will prioritize kids’ health without this network of scientists to advise it.

Science-informed protections for kids

The EPA’s CHPAC is composed of independent experts, including academics, clinicians, and state and Tribal government officials that advise the agency on science and policy matters related to children’s health. The committee was formed nearly 30 years ago following Executive Order 13045, and has provided science-informed guidance to EPA on matters like childhood lead poisoning prevention, asthma disparities, and prenatal chemical exposures, among much more.

For decades the EPA has issued “charge” questions that the committee must address, investigating scientific and policy issues related to protecting children’s health that they summarize for public input, and for agency scientists and leadership to consider and respond to. For example, in 2009, the EPA convened a “School Siting Task Group” within CHPAC that provided recommendations that were then implemented in the agency’s subsequent school siting guidelines. These guidelines urge consideration of environmental health and safety hazards when siting new schools.

But under the Trump administration, CHPAC is not currently operating.

Trump’s EPA has blocked CHPAC from performing its duties to keep kids safe

Earlier this year, several CHPAC members reached the end of their committee terms. In August 2025—ahead of their terms ending—EPA issued a request for nominations for new members, with a goal of filling vacancies by March 1, 2026. But so far, the positions have not been filled, and the committee has not met since August 2025. CHPAC has also yet to receive a charge related to the MOCHA report, which stated that the EPA administrator would direct the committee to “focus on advancing research and communication recommendations that align with the implementation of the MAHA strategy elements.”

No meetings and no charge means no CHPAC mission. And as a result, the EPA is unable to receive or implement advice from the committee to keep kids safe.

Moreover, last year, CHPAC published a “Plastics and Children’s Health Charge Response Letter” documenting the ways in which exposure to plastic pollution can increase the risk of developmental disabilities, birth defects, cancer, and other health harms in children. A majority of the committee members reached the same conclusions regarding the scientific literature on plastics and children’s health. However, one member, an employee of Bayer Crop Science, did not agree with the group’s conclusions and wrote a dissenting letter that contradicted the scientific conclusions of the first letter. This divergence resulted in an unprecedented decision to publish two separate letters—Letter A and Letter B—despite CHPAC operating procedures that urge the committee to “reach consensus on all recommendations wherever possible.” The EPA has yet to respond to these letters or implement any actions to address the risks of plastic pollution (in fact, EPA has rolled back protections, or punted regulations).

Pattern of attacks on independent science advice

CHPAC is one of hundreds of federal advisory committees that have been terminated or disrupted since President Trump began his second term. As of July of this year, federal agencies had terminated nearly 200 federal advisory committees, most of which were in science agencies like EPA and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Many more, including CHPAC, do not have enough members, have been prevented from meeting, or reconstituted with many members who have financial conflicts of interest. Without these committees, federal agencies—many of which are already operating with far fewer staff and resources—do not have access to rigorous, independent science advice that shapes policies that protect public health and our planet.

How we’re fighting back and how you can, too

Last week, UCS co-led a group of more than 70 children’s health organizations and experts, many of whom are former CHPAC members, in sending a letter to EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin and HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy calling on the EPA to:

• Set a clear timeline for appointing and convening a “scientifically credible, varied and balanced CHPAC.”
• Provide a written response to the aforementioned plastics letter and associated recommendations.
• Convene EPA leadership and health experts to discuss alignment between CHPAC’s goals and the administration’s children’s health priorities.

UCS is working to support and uplift efforts to convene independent advisory committees and shine a light on what is lost when these committees are silenced. The Trump administration is failing the American public—especially kids—and we must hold elected officials accountable to following through on their promises and protect children from exposure to harmful toxic chemicals.

Get involved by checking out our toolkit for convening independent science advisory committees or share our letter to the Trump administration with your Members of Congress, urging them to call for CHPAC to be allowed to meet with its full membership.

This proposal was released alongside the agency’s final repeal of the power plant carbon standards, while earlier this month, the Trump administration also rolled back fuel economy standards. These attacks follow the agency’s repeal of the Endangerment Finding earlier this year, and are part of a series of dozens of key health and climate protection rollbacks by the Trump administration. EPA administrator Lee Zeldin has literally upended the mission of the agency: instead of protecting public health and welfare, based on the best available science, he is intent on boosting the interests of fossil fuel companies and other major polluters.

Here’s what I said in my oral testimony at the public hearing—you can also watch the whole recording below.

Good morning. My name is Rachel Cleetus, and I am the climate program director for the Union of Concerned Scientists.

I am testifying today in strong opposition to EPA’s egregious and dangerous proposal to entirely abandon its authority and responsibility under the Clean Air Act to set limits on the power sector’s global warming pollution. With climate impacts rapidly worsening—in some cases irreversibly—and proliferating data centers driving increases in fossil fuel-fired power plants, this move by EPA administrator Zeldin threatens to greatly exacerbate public health harms.

Coal- and gas-fired power plants are the United States’ largest stationary source of global warming emissions. Globally, the United States is the second-largest contributor of annual heat-trapping emissions, and the largest historical emitter. There is no question that U.S. power plant emissions are a significant contributor to the cumulative emissions that drive fossil-fueled climate change.

This proposal stands in direct contradiction to decades of scientific evidence underscoring the human health harms from heat-trapping emissions. A 2025 report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NAS) that synthesizes the latest science says that “… the evidence for current and future harm to human health and welfare created by human-caused greenhouse gases is beyond scientific dispute.” 

This proposal also contradicts established law, namely the Clean Air Act, a law passed by Congress. EPA’s authority to regulate GHGs under the Clean Air Act was confirmed by the Supreme Court in 2007 and upheld by courts repeatedly since then.

At a time when people across our nation are already experiencing costly and deadly climate-fueled disasters—including extreme heatwaves, floods, drought and wildfires—EPA should be doing everything it can to protect communities, businesses and our economy from the mounting toll. Instead, if this proposal is finalized, it would exacerbate the harms and costs to everyone.  

EPA should not be forcing a false choice between our health and our prosperity. In fact, it is abundantly clear that the economic costs and human toll from climate change are already rapidly escalating. As just one example, we are seeing the consequences in the insurance market where people are facing skyrocketing premiums driven in part by climate-fueled disasters.

Quite simply, the choices we make today about our carbon emissions will have profound consequences for generations to come. With the planet on the verge of breaching 1.5°C of global warming and with the US and the world just experiencing the hottest summer on record, it couldn’t be clearer why the EPA must act urgently to limit heat-trapping emissions. EPA should do its job and stop looking for dubious ways to abdicate its responsibility to protect the public while propping up the interests of fossil fuel polluters. 

I urge you to abandon this harmful proposal to gut EPA’s Clean Air Act authority to regulate power sector heat-trapping emissions and instead please fulfill your obligations to limit health-harming global warming pollution.  

Thank you for the opportunity to speak today.

According to emails obtained through a state open records request, the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) actively recruited sponsors this year for draft legislation that would not only bar future lawsuits against fossil fuel corporations and polluter-pays bills but also nullify ongoing suits representing millions of people harmed by climate change.  

The emails show that ALEC representatives contacted nine Utah lawmakers in May and June 2026 to solicit support for three model bills at the organization’s annual meeting, when bills are discussed and approved for circulation to state lawmakers. ALEC is a lobbying group that brings together state lawmakers and companies to draft model legislation that can be introduced in state legislatures across the country. ALEC claims dedication to “principles of limited government, free markets and federalism,” but in practice provides corporations access to the political system. That ALEC reached out to lawmakers in a state where immunity legislation passed only months earlier shows how far the group is willing to go for big oil. 

The emails also show that past tactics of the fossil fuel industry—a major ALEC supporter—are still in play. A recent Senate report lays out how decades of disinformation and political obstruction by the fossil fuel industry and its political enablers has culminated in the Trump administration’s attacks on climate science and the legal process. As UCS President Gretchen Goldman testified at a congressional “spotlight” hearing on attacks on science, “the administration is delivering on promises it has made to special interests who profit from the suppression of science—and in the case of climate science, that special interest is the fossil fuel industry.” Concerns about fossil fuel industry influence and conflicts of interest extend to the Supreme Court, where Justice Samuel Alito recused himself from Suncor v. Boulder just a week before oral arguments. 

Start in the states: the industry’s current scheme 

The emails were sent by fossil fuel apologists and propagandists including Frank Lasee, a former Wisconsin state senator who now helms an organization called Truth in Energy and Climate. Lasee was briefly president of the Heartland Institute, a climate-denier think tank and beneficiary of oil industry funding, but was reportedly let go after one year for tanking the budget. Lasee names Craig Rucker, co-founder of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), as his partner in supporting the bills for ALEC. Founded in 1985, CFACT was among the groups named in 1998 by a task force of the American Petroleum Institute—the largest US oil and gas trade association—as a potential “fund allocator” for a disinformation strategy that aimed to sow doubt about the science behind climate change. 

Separate emails were sent by Randy Eminger, a longtime coal industry lobbyist with a history of creating front groups claiming to represent the public. Eminger wrote that he was coordinating with other organizations to pass the bill, concluding with a plea to “consider helping the fossil fuel industry.”  

In March, Utah’s governor signed HB222, one of five state bills passed this year preventing litigation against oil and gas companies (bills were also passed in Tennessee, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Iowa). Where HB222 allowed litigation in the case of regulatory violation, ALEC’s supercharged immunity bill deploys a scorched-earth approach. Among other attacks, the Act would prevent state and local governments from suing oil companies or anyone associated with them; prohibit lawsuits based on state laws such as fraud; block climate superfund laws; stop plaintiffs from collecting liabilities; and force those with adverse rulings to pay the industry’s legal fees. It would also retroactively apply to suits filed years ago. 

The two other bills use a similarly punitive strategy. One would prevent any state entity–including cities, counties and schools—from adopting net-zero policies by threatening to withhold their funding. Another would force federal energy regulators and state utilities—including those owned by ratepayers—to adopt pricing schemes benefitting fossil energy companies.  

The link to Suncor v. Boulder 

It’s pertinent that the lawsuit before the Supreme Court  is based on fraud and deception perpetrated by the very groups pushing these measures. The Court is hearing oral arguments in Suncor v. Boulder, a petition by fossil fuel companies named in a 2018 climate accountability lawsuit. That lawsuit, Board of County Commissioners of Boulder County v. Suncor Energy, seeks to hold ExxonMobil and Suncor Energy accountable for concealing and misleading the public about the climate harms of their fossil fuel products while continuing to produce them.  

The Colorado Supreme Court ruled in May 2025 that Boulder’s case could move to discovery and proceed toward trial, but defendants asked the US Supreme Court to review that decision. Big Oil has fought for years to keep climate accountability lawsuits from being heard on their merits and unearthing more of its dirty secrets. Those lawsuits are numerous: Climate accountability suits filed by eleven U.S. states, the District of Columbia, two Tribal governments, and dozens of municipal governments are currently making their way through the courts, representing one-fourth of people in the United States.  

An amicus brief filed in the Boulder case by UCS and other experts states that defendants “directed substantial financial support to organizations that publicly questioned or rejected the scientific consensus regarding anthropogenic climate change.” For example, ExxonMobil provided at least $37 million to dozens of climate-denial organizations between 1998 and 2019 according to the company’s own grantmaking reports, including CFACT and ALEC (except for Chevron, most major oil companies have left the organization after pressure from investors and advocates). 

The empire strikes back at science 

Fossil-fuel companies and their political proxies have sought to thwart accountability and intimidate advocates with a barrage of Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs), counter-suits, attacks on climate science and scientists, and legislation like Utah’s that would provide blanket immunity from legal accountability—unheard of for such a large industry. The American Petroleum Institute named immunity as a top 2026 priority, and a ProPublica investigation revealed that immunity bills introduced in a handful of Republican-controlled state houses across the country have stemmed from a network of groups connected to prominent right-wing operative Leonard Leo, including ALEC. At the federal level, Representative Harriet Hageman and Senator Ted Cruz introduced a bill earlier this year essentially immunizing the fossil fuel industry from liability in an attempt to subvert the legal system. 

These machinations show the fear that accountability strikes in the fossil fuel industry. Recent polling shows nearly two-thirds of voters oppose shielding oil and gas companies from being held accountable for climate damages, a figure that will likely increase as climate damages mount.  

The Supreme Court, Congress, and state legislatures must resist Big Oil’s full-court press to avoid accountability and give Boulder—and others harmed by climate change—their day in court. 

UCS has documented the wide range of negative ecological impacts associated with artificial intelligence, as well as the financial burdens placed-on ratepayers. These factors, coupled with health impacts, can feel overwhelming. But, cumulative impacts analysis, a framework used for evaluating all the way the decisions may affect the local environment and health, could help. Data-center-specific cumulative impacts analyses could give decision makers a more complete understanding of the plethora of potential health impacts from a proposed center. Ultimately, this could help us avoid, minimize, and mitigate some of these impacts, preventing them from further exacerbating existing inequities. 

Understanding Data Centers’ Public Health Impacts 

One of the most prominent environmental stressors associated with data centers is air pollution. Across the United States, around 60% of data centers’ exorbitant energy demands are met through fossil fuels, emitting massive quantities of particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, and heat-trapping greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide and nitrous oxides. In fact, it was estimated that last year hyperscale data centers were responsible for up to 54 million metric tons of CO2 emissions—as much as 11.7 million cars.  

Many data centers also rely on diesel backup generators, which are even more polluting, releasing 200-600 times as much nitrogen oxide, for example, than even gas power plants. Air pollutants harm nearly every system in the body and have been linked to atherosclerosis, neurodegenerative disease like Alzheimer’s, decreased intelligence and cognitive processing, and increased stroke and cardiac mortality, among other conditions. 

But data centers are doing more than polluting the air. In fact, we’ve identified over six distinct pathways by which data centers threaten the health of their host communities.  

One of the most overlooked yet potentially deadly environmental health impacts of a data centers is thermal pollution. A preliminary study found hyperscale centers raised surface temperatures up to ten kilometers away by up to 16 degrees Fahrenheit.  For reference, a 16-degree temperature change is the same difference as that between the average US temperatures in July versus October. In Utah, a proposed data center known as the Stratos Project, could release thermal energy equivalent to the heat output of roughly 23 Hiroshima-scale atomic bombs every single day. This excess heat can accelerate already worsening extreme heat resulting in more rapid and frequent heat illnesses (heat stroke or heat exhaustion) on hot days. It would also worsen chronic conditions aggravated by heat including  asthma, acute kidney injury and preterm and still birth rates. 

Between loud cooling systems and brightly lit perimeters, data centers can also be significant source of noise and light pollution. In fact, research suggests a hyperscale data center can emit as much light as a small town. Both noise and light pollution have been linked to a plethora of health challenges as they trigger the body’s stress response which causes inflammation and high blood pressure, the leading contributor to heart disease, stroke, and kidney failure. 

In addition to air, light, noise, and thermal pollution, most data centers rely on toxic “forever” chemicals called PFAS to cool their computers, for fire suppression, and in the computers’ semiconductors. These chemicals can escape data centers as gas or enter waste-water or ground-water. Some PFAS are known carcinogens, and they’ve also been linked to reduced fertility and disrupted fetal neurodevelopment.  

Data centers can also indirectly threaten public health by increasing energy bills, which often forces many to make costly and difficult trade-offs such as keeping their homes at unsafe temperatures or foregoing healthcare to afford energy costs. In addition to contributing to energy insecurity, most hyperscale centers consume millions of gallons of water each day, worsening droughts and contributing to water scarcity  

Addressing and preventing these health harms

Without proper guardrails and regulations, data centers could become a public health nightmare. The limited research on how simultaneous exposure to these environmental health threats will impact communities is of deep concern. We know, for example, that exposure to noise and light pollution have separately been linked to hypertension—but how would exposure to both compound the health impacts?  

While we need more research to better understand how these threats interact simultaneously, communities should take immediate action to address independent impacts. Across the country, we’ve also already started to see data centers harm human and ecological health. Moreover, given the exponential rise in data center demand, we need frameworks for considering and protecting human and ecological health as new data centers are proposed.  

Enter cumulative impacts analyses.   

Cumulative impacts are defined as the totality of exposure to chemical and non-chemical stressors and their effects on health, well-being, and quality of life outcomes. Cumulative impacts analyses (CIAs) are a well-suited framework for addressing the health concerns associated with data centers. CIAs would not only facilitate the consideration of the total burden from the range of chemical (PM2.5, NOx, PFAS) and non-chemical (light, noise, heat) stressors from the proposed data center, but they’d also allow for the consideration of existing burdens such as current pollution levels from other data centers or nearby infrastructure.  

Currently, only a few states have cumulative impacts legislation, and none have data center-specific frameworks. Existing CIA legislation is imperfect and contains loopholes, allowing many data centers to avoid the process entirely. In Massachusetts, a state which already uses cumulative impacts in air quality permitting, residents of the city of Lowell were forced to take a data center to court after the center’s proposal to add eight additional backup generators and new cooling towers was approved without adequate consideration of cumulative impacts.  

In Minnesota, CIAs are only required if projects are proposed in environmental justice (EJ) communities in three of the state’s major cities. While a focus on communities that have already shouldered more than their fair share of impacts makes sense, data center-specific CIA requirements would help ensure that data centers don’t create new overburdened areas.  

Data centers are also often built in rural communities that may not be classified as EJ communities but still are more vulnerable due to limited access to healthcare. These communities have a set of unique considerations, such as being some of the only areas with minimal light pollution, where stars aren’t drowned out by urban lights. Under current CIA frameworks, these considerations often go overlooked.  

What would a Data-Center Specific Cumulative Impact Process Look Like? 

We can draw on existing CIA frameworks to imagine what a data-center-specific process could look like.  

First, a data center developer would be required to outline all potential and estimated chemical and non-chemical stressors based on a predetermined list that includes on-site stressors and stressors released elsewhere, including from secondary sites such as power plants.  

Second, for each category of stressor, the estimated impacts would be compared against current conditions. If the CIA finds there is already a higher density of pollution and health burdens, then that data center could be subject to more stringent regulations. This could help address the problem of multiple data centers compounding to worsen public health, ensure that overburdened communities aren’t further exposed to harm, and that unique ecological and cultural resources aren’t overlooked. Other elements of a community’s risk, including access to healthcare, linguistic barriers, and ecological importance, could also be considered here.  

Surprisingly, simply requiring companies to disclose emissions can motivate them—particularly if publicly traded via shareholder pressure—to minimize pollution. Beyond being publicly available, though, the completed CIA could be used by permitting agencies to deny or “condition” permits. “Conditioning” could mean that agencies approve permits only if data centers take additional specific steps, such as using battery backup options rather than polluting generators to avoid pollution. Conditioning could also mean requiring mitigation strategies, such as heat reuse, where excess thermal energy from data centers is redirected to heat nearby buildings. This could not only mitigate the “data center heat island” effect, but it could also lower community electricity costs. CIAs could also lead to discussions about community benefit agreements (CBAs).

CBAs are agreements between developers and community members that guarantee specific local benefits for the community.For many states, this wouldn’t require a whole new set of laws. States like New Jersey already use CIAs in the permitting process for certain facilities (including major air polluters, landfills, and sewage plants), ensuring that decisionmakers are thoroughly informed. Expanding these requirements to encompass data centers could be a step towards ensuring public health is considered in data center related permitting and decisions.  In states without CIA legislation, the creation of data center CIA laws—inspired by other states’ general CIA frameworks—could catalyze a broader advancement of environmental justice by bringing CIA’s to these states.  

 The unmitigated growth of hyperscale data center development and the associated public health impacts are not inevitable. A data center-specific CIA framework would ensure that decisionmakers and community members are aware of the many, simultaneous exposures associated with a proposed data center. Moreover, it would highlight the severity of potential health impacts by detailing baseline and existing community risk factors that could compound the data centers’ individual impacts.  

Ultimately, such a framework could facilitate the avoidance, minimization, and mitigation of data center pollution, improve public health, and could even foster more sustainable community relationships with industrial developers.  

On top of this record-breaking news, California declared a state of emergency in anticipation of the upcoming El Niño. The declaration directs state agencies “to begin protecting vulnerable communities, prepare roads and critical infrastructure, stage emergency supplies, and help local partners reduce flood, landslide, and coastal risks.”

This Super El Niño will no doubt significantly impact the Southwestern US this winter, with effects from record-high sea levels and coastal erosion to the potential for excessive rainfall and consequent flash flooding throughout the southern half of the country.

And remember, what happens in the ocean doesn’t stay in the ocean: we’re seeing this El Niño impact weather patterns around the world, modifying where precipitation—and lack thereof—occurs, as I’ll discuss below.

Record-breaking El Niño according to ONI

We’re now observing a record El Niño, according to the Oceanic Niño Index (ONI), which measures ocean surface temperature anomaly (with respect to the 30-year average) in the Niño 3.4 region. This record is particularly striking because it’s only September— El Niño doesn’t typically peak until November-January. It would be one thing to observe a record ONI value in December; the fact that it’s happening in September is indicative of an upcoming El Niño that is truly off the historical charts.

But there is a nuance worth mentioning: while ONI does technically remove the effects of background ocean warming from fossil fuel-driven climate change, it does so in a way that can mis-define an El Niño event. ONI is literally the 30-year average ocean temperature (“climatology”) in the Niño 3.4 region subtracted from the values observed today.

However, this climatology is continuously changing due to fossil fuel-driven climate change, so the definition of an El Niño will change based on the climatology used. For example, something that may have been considered an El Niño in the 1950s may not be considered an El Niño in today’s climate merely because of the gradual warming of the oceans due to climate change.

NOAA scientists realized this problem over the last few years as the oceans continued to warm and the climatology increased. In 2024, they introduced the Relative Oceanic Niño Index (RONI). The RONI gives a more accurate picture of the strength of the developing El Niño: it removes the effects of a changing climatology, allowing for El Niños from different decades to be compared more directly. RONI became NOAA-official earlier this year.

Believe it or not, according to the RONI, we’re still near record-breaking territory, meaning that even considering the different climatologies influenced by fossil fuel-driven climate change, we are still seeing a near-unprecedented El Niño (though 2015 and 1982 RONI values still remain more intense).

In other words, putting the different El Niños (1982, 2015, and 2026) on the same playing field by removing any background influence of climate change or climatological bias, puts the 2026 El Niño as the third strongest for any time of year in recorded history. It’s also the strongest El Niño for where we are now in early October, which is no doubt manifesting in the lack of hurricane season in the Atlantic, and the record hurricane season in the East Pacific.

A reason for this is that, as I mentioned in my April blog on the developing Super El Niño, there is evidence that, while El Niño is part of a natural cycle in our climate system, climate change produces more intense El Niño events. We also see this in a paleoclimate study looking at El Niños from the past thousand years.

How El Niño impacts global weather patterns

There’s a lot of talk of record-breaking El Niño, but why does this matter for you? This is what I mean by “what happens in the ocean doesn’t stay in the ocean,” and why it’s particularly true in the Tropical Pacific right now.

Believe it or not, the location of storms and precipitation in the Pacific actually follows the warmest ocean surface temperatures. When the area of warmest ocean surface temperatures moves, so too does the main development region of storms and precipitation.

Storms in the Tropical Pacific are powerful beasts: they send up an incredible amount of energy from around the equator to the midlatitudes—the area of the Earth between the equator and the North or South Pole—which directly impacts where weather sets up here in the US.

Check out these two schematics below. In the first figure, the “1.” indicates warm ocean surface temperatures over surrounding Indonesia and Oceania, which is a typical setup. In response to this warmth, storms and precipitation develop right over Indonesia and surrounding countries (denoted by clouds). These storms then send a wave of energy (the “2.”) to the midlatitudes (in this case, I’m just showing the northern midlatitudes). The energy then affects the position of the jet stream, basically a river of fast-moving air in the upper atmosphere, that guides our weather systems.

The second figure shows what an El Niño does: it shifts the area of warm ocean surface temperatures to the Central or Eastern Pacific (“1.”). This then shifts the area of storms and precipitation, and therefore the energy being communicated to the midlatitudes (“2.”). The jet stream also shifts (“3.”), allowing for more moisture to be transported inland and more rainfall to be observed in southern parts of the US.

And the shifts shown in the second schematic don’t just stay in the Pacific and the US. They’re communicated around the world. We often see drought in Indonesia, Caribbean, southern Brazil, Mozambique, and Botswana; a delayed monsoon in India and Southeast Asia; and increased precipitation in Uruguay and Argentina.

Regional weather impacts this winter

So, since El Niño can impact global weather patterns through a shift in how energy is sent to the midlatitudes from the tropics, what does this mean for the US? As is hinted in the schematic, the forecast for California and the Southwest US reflects this shift in precipitation patterns: the current seasonal forecast for California and the rest of the Southwest is above average precipitation expected this winter.

However, just because there’s an El Niño doesn’t mean we’ll observe more precipitation than usual in California. For example, during the last Super El Niño in 2015-2016, California saw a slightly drier-than-usual winter. Yes, El Niño shifts weather patterns, but it doesn’t always do it in anticipated or predictable ways.

For this year, seasonal weather model forecasts are generally in agreement and calling for a rainy winter, which could bring some significant drought relief to the Southwest. There is, however, a point where too much rain can fall. As the California State of Emergency notes, there is a significant threat for floods and landslides similar to those experienced during the Super El Niño of 1998.

And then there’s the threat of sea level rise. Sea levels have already risen off the California coast about 8 inches in some areas due to fossil fuel-driven climate change due to heat expansion. During an El Niño, a giant “wave” of water, called a “Kelvin wave,” typically raises sea levels in California. In fact, sea levels could rise by a foot in the next few days.

On top of the thermal expansion from climate change and the Kelvin wave, tides are expected to peak around Thanksgiving and Christmas. Throw a few storm systems on top of that, and you get significant sea level rise in California. The Kelvin wave alone could add another 6 inches of coastal sea level rise.

Across the world, a threat to human food systems

Earlier in August, the World Food Programme released an analysis highlighting how this El Niño will affect global food systems. Tens of millions of additional people could face food insecurity over the next year as regions deal with drought, including Central America, the Caribbean, and eastern and southern African countries. El Niño is also expected to significantly impact global food prices over the next year.

Furthermore, this Super El Niño will release a significant amount of heat from the oceans into the atmosphere, allowing for global heat temperature records to be shattered over the next year. In fact, a new study from University of Chicago’s Climate Impact Lab suggests there could be over 451,000 excess deaths this year due to heat.

The reality of the world we live in

As a climate scientist, I find it harder and harder to share this reality and close on a high note or, frankly, even on a call to action. This Super El Niño is a global force of nature, wildly exacerbated by human-caused climate change, and nothing we do today is going to contain it. But we can prepare far better than we are preparing today.

That includes making sure FEMA and NOAA are fully funded for emergency preparation/response and weather and climate forecasting, respectively. As always, it’s important to hold the bad actors accountable who have been spreading misinformation around climate change for decades —the fossil fuel industry. Check out my colleague’s blog on three ways scientists can hold Big Oil accountable.

The Supreme Court will be considering the question of fossil fuel industry accountability for climate deception and its resulting harms on Monday, October 5, in oral arguments for the case Suncor v Boulder. I’ll be speaking at the People vs Big Oil rally outside the Supreme Court that morning in support of justice for the people of Boulder, Colorado, and all of us whose health, safety, and livable environment are at risk because of the decades of deception perpetrated by the fossil fuel industry.

The testimony the other witnesses and I provided at this hearing powerfully illustrates why Congress must reject a liability shield for Big Oil. Send a message to your legislators now urging them not to give these companies immunity.

Ranking Member Whitehouse, Members of the Environment and Public Works Committee: My name is Dr. Gretchen Goldman, and I am president and CEO of the Union of Concerned Scientists, a science advocacy organization with more than 600,000 supporters nationwide—including scientists, engineers, and concerned citizens from all backgrounds.

Rigorous, independent science has long been a cornerstone of US leadership in research, technology, medicine, innovation and security. Federal funding seeded early research into the internet, Doppler radar, MRI technology, and sequencing the human genome, just to name a few examples.

And beyond research, federal scientists do critical work through evidence-based policy decisions, regulation, and communications that keeps us all healthier and safer, whether we realize it or not:

• Scientists at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and at the Food and Drug Administration work quickly to identify and contain food-borne illness and infectious disease outbreaks;
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration scientists protect our local communities from deadly severe weather; and
• The US Environmental Protection Agency experts have saved thousands of lives through cleaner air and water for decades.

These science agencies work on behalf of the American people, are paid for by American tax dollars, and are staffed by dedicated public servants.

Or at least they used to be.

The Trump administration has engaged in an all-out assault on these and other science agencies and programs across the federal government, harming the American people and enriching the powerful and polluting.

The Union of Concerned Scientists has identified more than 600 such attacks on science in just the first 18 months of the current administration.

From weakening health guidance and pollution standards, to gutting scientific infrastructure and censoring data, these attacks on science jeopardize people’s health and safety; risk America’s long-term investments in security and innovation; and threaten our standing as a world leader.

Attacks on federal scientists

Since inauguration day in 2025, nearly 95,000 science employees, including 10,000 PhDs, have left their jobs, resulting in centuries of lost scientific expertise and institutional memory.

NOAA lost more than 1800 employees during the first six months of the administration, amounting to the departure of more than 27,000 years of experience.

In addition to NOAA, the CDC, the EPA, the National Institutes of Health, and National Science Foundation all lost significant numbers of scientific staff, threatening their ability to carry out their missions.

Attacks on science-based regulations

The administration has singled out climate science in their attacks, adopting fossil fuel industry talking points and going after policies informed by the best available science—all while putting people’s lives and health at risk, as the impacts of climate change rapidly worsen.

Among the most egregious examples of this is the EPA’s recent repeal of the 2009 Endangerment Finding, a science-based legal finding which affirmed the agency’s statutory obligation, under the Clean Air Act, to regulate health-harming heat-trapping emissions.

As the National Academies highlighted in their own recent report, the scientific evidence for current and future public health harms from human-caused greenhouse gas emissions is beyond scientific dispute and has only grown stronger since 2009. The administration is now using this repeal as a justification to overturn standards to limit global warming pollution from vehicles and power plants.

The Trump administration has also targeted the regulations and safeguards that keep politics out of what should be science-based decisions.

They have gutted federal scientific integrity infrastructure.

They have demolished Congressionally mandated climate activities, like the US Global Change Research Program.

They have destroyed funding based on keyword searches for research with at-risk populations.

And they have admitted to canceling scientific funding in states the President did not win.

The role of the fossil fuel industry

The motivation for such a coordinated and sustained assault on the federal scientific enterprise is part of an extreme anti-science agenda, but goes beyond that.

The administration is delivering on promises it has made to special interests who profit from the suppression of science—and in the case of climate science, that special interest is the fossil fuel industry.

At the direction of the industry, the Trump administration is leveraging the full power of the federal government to attack science to protect industry profits and evade accountability—all at the expense of the American people and the planet.

Attribution science, which identifies and quantifies the contributions of climate change to long-term trends and extreme events, is a robust scientific discipline that has been cited by consensus scientific reports like those from the IPCC and our own National Climate Assessment.

Given its centrality in legal efforts to hold the fossil fuel industry accountable, attribution research has become a lightning rod for attacks by government leaders and industry allies.

Industry is so scared of this growing scientific evidence that it is seeking legislation from this Congress to provide legal immunity to the fossil fuel industry for the harm they know they have caused.

Coordinated attacks on FEMA, NOAA, EPA, NSF, NCAR and other agencies and programs are all part of a coordinated campaign to try to bury the evidence of climate change—even as people experience its harsh impacts—all to protect the profit margins of fossil fuel companies.

Closing

Independent science, access to scientific expertise, and strong support of scientific inquiry are critical pillars of a strong democracy.

Attacks on inconvenient scientific findings showcase the corporate capture and corruption that have come to define the second Trump administration, and it is people across the US and the world who will suffer the consequences. Thank you.

Backup generators support critical services in the case of power outages. Hospitals, fire stations, folks with medical needs, and others rely on backup generation to keep the power running for important and lifesaving purposes.

Another entity that also heavily relies on backup generation is data centers. A common refrain in the industry is 99.999% uptime meaning data centers are essentially expected to always be running. In the case of power outages, data centers rely on backup generators to supply their power.

The majority of backup generation for data centers is powered by diesel, which is the industry norm despite being highly polluting. That is increasingly concerning as the rapid growth in data centers is similarly producing a growing backup generation fleet. Luckily, backup generation technology is evolving and cleaner alternatives to diesel are available. These cleaner solutions need to become more common as the backup power option for data centers.

All diesel is bad, some diesel is slightly less bad

Diesel-fueled generators are the primary technology for backup generation at data centers. There are benefits to using diesel – it has high power density, the technology is mature and considered cost-effective, and fuel can be stored onsite.

But surrounding communities bear a steep burden—diesel combustion emits extremely harmful pollutants, such as nitrogen oxides and particulate matter, which are linked to respiratory and cardiovascular problems. These pollutants tend to linger locally and since data centers are often geographically clustered, they can have health impacts on nearby residents that worsen with time. Multiple studies have raised concerns about emissions from diesel backup generators at data centers and their health impacts on local communities. Incidences such as diesel spills are also raising environmental concerns and the need for stronger oversight of diesel backup generation at data centers.

The health impacts of diesel pollutants are well known and there have been efforts to regulate emissions and improve technology. The Environmental Protection Agency has defined four tiers of diesel generators with Tier 4 being the least polluting. The difference is quite big with Tier 4 having over 90% lower emissions limits than Tier 2 for certain pollutants. While Tier 4 is generally the standard when diesel generators are running as the main source of power, the lower tiers are still often allowed for backup generation. Some states and local governments have set stricter limits for backup generation as well, such as California’s Bay Area Air District which as of 2024 requires Tier 4 for all new emergency backup generation applications, although this practice is still very limited across the country.

While backup generators run relatively little, between the testing, maintenance, and emergency operations, emissions from backup generators are still quite concerning given how polluting diesel is. There have also been instances in the mid-Atlantic region of the US and in California where diesel backup generators were allowed to run during times of grid stress, such as potential power outages, overriding emissions regulations. If the data center buildout continues at its projected rate, relying on diesel backup generation and especially earlier tiers (very few states require Tier 4 for backup generation) raises notable emissions and public health concerns.

Cleaner solutions for backup generation are here

While the vast majority of data centers use diesel backup generators, cleaner solutions do exist and are gaining traction.

Battery energy storage systems have proven themselves critical for a clean and reliable grid, and can be a clean solution for backup generation as well. They don’t produce emissions and have additional local benefits such as reduced noise. From a usage perspective, batteries do not need fuel and generally require less maintenance. Data centers have begun deploying batteries as backup power, especially as battery technology continues to improve and becomes more economical.

Batteries have the added benefit of supporting the grid when their backup services are not needed. They can charge during times of excess renewable generation or when electricity demand is low, and then be used to power the data center when electricity demand is peaking to help reduce demand. Batteries can also be used to mitigate rapid power fluctuations from data centers which stress the grid, potentially leading to outages.

Hydrogen fuel cells are another potential avenue for cleaner backup generation, although this depends largely on how the hydrogen gas is produced – some of it is much cleaner than others. Hydrogen fuel cells use hydrogen gas to produce electricity in a chemical reaction that only produces water and heat as byproducts. It’s a cleaner solution that also has potential for prolonged outages and is being tested by tech companies like Microsoft and Google.

These cleaner solutions are promising even though they do still have barriers to widespread deployment. Battery systems are often shorter duration, require a large footprint that may be difficult in urban areas, and lithium-ion batteries can have a fire risk. Hydrogen fuel is expensive and distribution infrastructure is limited. But these technologies do have the significant advantage over diesel generation in that they do not emit pollutants that harm the health of local communities or contribute to climate change.

Methane gas generators are still problematic

Methane gas as backup generation is still limited in its deployment at data centers although it is being touted as a cleaner alternative to diesel generators. That doesn’t mean methane gas doesn’t have major drawbacks, it’s still quite problematic in terms of its emissions that contribute to climate change and public health concerns.

At a high level, switching to gas backup generators risks locking in more polluting fossil fuel infrastructure, a concerning direction for the clean energy transition. Even from a practical standpoint as backup generation, there are issues with using gas generation. Fuel for these generators is supplied through gas utilities and the gas system can be unreliable in extreme weather events shuttering services when backup generation is most needed.

Diesel should not be the norm for data center backup generation

The number of data centers is projected to grow significantly across the country, and the associated wave of diesel-fueled backup generators is deeply concerning for air quality and public health of nearby communities. This is especially notable in urban settings, where data centers are often concentrated and where backup generators would fire up simultaneously in the event of a power outage.

Cleaner technologies to diesel exist, and continued innovation can increase the scale at which they are deployed. For example, batteries increasingly have longer duration storage abilities, and improvements in technology and management of battery systems can reduce fire risk. There are also increasingly creative battery systems, such as new battery technologies, using recycled electric vehicle batteries, and pairing batteries with other resources such as solar and hydrogen, that could better suit the needs of data centers.

Policy incentives for these clean solutions will be critical for speeding up the transition away from polluting diesel and minimizing air quality and health impacts. For data centers with diesel backup generation, increasing scrutiny of when these data centers are allowed to run their backup generation is important. Instances where data centers have switched to backup generation during non-emergencies, such as grid disturbances and not actual outages, reveal major gaps in data center regulations.

It’s alarming how quickly the development of data centers is moving forward unchecked. While states have started passing legislation around data centers such as reporting requirements, these have not included policies on diesel backup generation. One of the consequences of this buildout could be a large fleet of highly-polluting diesel backup generators with serious air quality and public health impacts. There are cleaner solutions for backup generation at data centers and now is the time to incentivize and continue innovating these new technologies.

International scientists have long been an essential part of the US scientific enterprise. Scientists and technical experts from around the world come here to study, conduct research, collaborate, and, in many cases, stay and join the US workforce. That exchange has helped make American science what it is today. Cultivating diversity in American science isn’t just about adding people to labs and institutions: scientists from different backgrounds contribute their varied experiences and ways of thinking to expand perspectives and provide new possibilities for problem-solving.

International scientists are a significant part of the US scientific workforce. In 2024, temporary visa holders earned nearly 40 percent of all science and engineering doctorates awarded by US universities. In fields like engineering, mathematics, and computer science, they earned more than half. Nearly half of US science and engineering workers with doctoral degrees were born outside the United States.

But more recently, changes to US immigration policy have created uncertainty for international students and researchers. Expanded immigration screening, travel restrictions, visa delays, and changing rules around student and skilled-worker visas are forcing some scientists to make decisions that have little to do with the science they came here to do. For example: Do I travel home to see my family if I’m not sure I’ll be able to return? Do I accept a position in the United States if my visa could delay my start date? Do I build a career here at all?

When uncertainty changes the plan

For many international scientists, these policies are already changing how they think about their careers.

One PhD student from India came to the United States because she believed there were opportunities for researchers that she couldn’t find anywhere else. She planned to stay after finishing her degree, and already had a postdoctoral fellowship lined up. But while she was back in India, new requirements for renewing her visa (including making her social media accounts public for government review) kept her away from her lab for two months during a critical point in finishing her doctoral program.

Her visa was eventually approved. But by then, she had already changed her mind.

Instead of staying for her postdoc, she decided to return to India for a job in biotechnology. As she told STAT News, the process was simply no longer worth the uncertainty. And with scientific opportunities growing elsewhere, staying in the United States was no longer the obvious choice.

She isn’t the only scientist reconsidering her plans. In a 2026 survey of nearly 1,000 NIH-supported researchers, 14 percent said changes in immigration policy had caused scientists, students, or postdocs to turn down positions in their labs. Researchers also reported receiving fewer applications from international scientists and seeing trainees consider leaving the United States altogether.

But leaving isn’t the only way this uncertainty is showing up.

A Vietnamese PhD student studying in Louisiana canceled a trip to visit research collaborators in Europe because he was afraid he might not be able to return to the United States. Although he was legally studying here, his visa had expired, and traveling would have required him to apply for a new one before returning. Rather than take the risk, he stayed. He has also made plans to earn a master’s degree along the way so that if something interrupts his ability to finish his PhD, he’ll at least leave with a completed degree.

Scientists are reconsidering where to build their careers. They’re avoiding international travel and collaborations. They’re making backup plans in case they can’t finish their degrees. Some labs are becoming more hesitant to offer positions to researchers who need visas because they can’t risk having positions sit vacant during long processing delays.

Institutions are changing their behavior, too; part of the ripple effect. When institutions are worried about running afoul of changing immigration rules, they may become more cautious too—and students ultimately feel the consequences.

This summer, US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) issued new guidance narrowing when universities can authorize Curricular Practical Training (CPT), which allows F-1 international students to participate in internships and other practical training related to their studies. The guidance warned that institutions could risk losing their ability to enroll international students if they fail to comply. In response, universities including UCLA and UC Berkeley paused or restricted some of their applications while they reviewed the new requirements.

There are signs that more early-career scientists are looking elsewhere. Among international students who earned US physics PhDs in 2025, 29 percent left the United States, a 30-year high. Immigration isn’t the only factor shaping those decisions: funding, research opportunities, and other conditions matter, too. But taken alongside reports of declining applications, rejected positions, and growing visa uncertainty, the trend is worth paying attention to.

What does this mean for US scientific progress?

International scientists aren’t just people who happen to study or work here. They are our classmates, colleagues, mentors, lab partners, and collaborators. Foreign-born workers make up nearly 30 percent of the college-educated US science and engineering workforce. Science itself has become increasingly international, with US researchers contributing to nearly 240,000 papers coauthored with researchers in other countries in 2024 alone.

Some of the biggest problems we’re trying to solve don’t care about borders: e.g., climate change; stopping the spread of infectious diseases. We’re better equipped to take on these problems when the people trying to solve them bring different expertise, experiences, and perspectives to the table.

There are economic consequences, too. Research has found that immigrant inventors make outsized contributions to US patents and innovation, including through the ideas and knowledge they share with their U.S.-born collaborators.

So what happens if fewer young scientists see the United States as a place where they can build their future?

The concern isn’t that scientific talent will suddenly disappear. Scientific talent is global. Researchers who decide not to come here may build successful careers in India, Germany, Canada, Nigeria, China, and elsewhere. Other countries are investing heavily in their own scientific enterprises, and the United States doesn’t (and absolutely shouldn’t) have a monopoly on good ideas. A scientist choosing to build a career somewhere other than the United States isn’t a loss for science. But the United States has benefited tremendously from being a place where scientists from around the world wanted to come, exchange ideas, collaborate, and sometimes stay. We shouldn’t assume that will always be the case.

If we make it increasingly difficult or unpredictable for people to comfortably study here, work here, travel, collaborate, or simply plan their lives, people have other options. And honestly, can we blame them for considering those options?

So: what can we do?

In my last post, I wrote about finding your lane in advocacy. I’ll say it again here because I think it’s really important. If you have more security (whether because of your citizenship, immigration status, position, or institution) you may also have more room to speak up when your colleagues can’t. Ask your university, professional society, or employer what it’s doing to support international students and researchers. Pay attention when policies affecting your international colleagues change, and don’t leave it entirely to the people most affected to raise the alarm.

If you work at a university or research institution, push for clear information and meaningful support for international students and staff. That can mean access to immigration resources, flexibility when visa delays interrupt research or travel, and making sure institutional responses to changing federal policies don’t create unnecessary barriers of their own.

And keep building relationships across borders. Collaborate. Share opportunities. Invite international colleagues into the room. Support early-career scientists wherever they’re building their careers.

Most importantly, listen to the international scientists around you. Ask what they need!  Their experiences aren’t all the same, and we shouldn’t assume we already know the answer.

I also said in my last post that there isn’t one way to advocate for science. That applies here, too. Maybe your lane is speaking up within your institution. Maybe it’s contacting decisionmakers. Maybe it’s making sure your international colleagues know what resources and support are available at your institution, and advocating for better ones when they’re not enough. Maybe it’s simply paying attention and refusing to let these changes happen quietly.

Science has always depended on people sharing ideas across institutions, disciplines, communities, and borders.

Protecting the people who make that exchange possible is part of protecting science, too.

This very thing happened in February 2010, when transportation funding lapsed for five days due to a filibuster by Senator Jim Bunning from Kentucky. Over 2,000 federal transportation workers were furloughed, state agencies were left out to dry without hundreds of millions of dollars of regularly distributed formula funds, and 41 highway projects were stalled across 17 states as federal inspectors and construction workers stopped work.

While the stakes are high, there’s a way out if Congress has yet to negotiate a new full multi-year surface transportation reauthorization— an extension. This has been used around 30 times since 1997 and is very much an expected part of the process, given how difficult it is to come to a full agreement. Congress usually holds funding levels constant to the last agreed reauthorization, pushing the deadline out by anywhere from a couple of days to a whole extra year.

The current surface transportation reauthorization, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), expires on September 30, 2026. Extension proposals have followed the coattails of bigger budget proposals like the one that passed to extend transportation funding to December 11, 2026. Unfortunately, this proposal breaks from precedent and does not hold funding levels constant, cutting enacted transportation funding by 25% in total, breaking down to a 20% cut to transit investment and an 82% cut in rail from previous levels.

No matter how you slice it, a cut is a cut.

What were the programs subject to cuts? One of them is the funding for new transit rail lines and bus corridors, known as the Capital Investment Grant program, which would be cut roughly in half. This would further hinder projects that were already stonewalled by the Trump Administration, from improvements to the Green Line in Boston, MA, to the North-South Bus Rapid Transit corridor in Chapel Hill, NC, crucial investments that will offer alternatives to the high costs of car ownership. Hardest hit will be funding that is dedicated to rail, which has seen unprecedented investment in the past five years, ranging from record ridership in 2025 to the opening of new lines like the Mardi Gras line between New Orleans, LA and Mobile, AL, to the steady deployment of the new NextGen Acela trains, to the long-awaited Frederick Douglass Tunnel  in Maryland to alleviate one of the biggest bottlenecks on Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor.

Road funding isn’t spared either – despite an over $40 billion annual maintenance backlog, bridge funding will be cut significantly without any measures to prioritize roadway maintenance over expensive expansions. The federal electric vehicle charging program will be gutted, just in time to stymie progress after Pennsylvania celebrated installing its 50^th charging station funded by the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure program. Safe Streets for All funding was gutted as well – which provides key funding for projects like sidewalks near schools, speed humps, Americans with Disabilities Act compliance, and bicycle lanes that in the end keep our streets safe for everyone (e.g., Kalamazoo and Detroit, MI).

Why did Congress single out transit and rail spending?

Congress has known about these potential impacts – in May, Senator Cantwell outlined the stakes of such cuts in a series of reports for freight infrastructure, investments in Main Streets, and rail. Yet, they still chose to go through with them.

Congress’ rationale comes from the fact that IIJA used a funding mechanism to provide nearly 30% of USDOT spending called advance appropriations, in the bipartisan deal with 11 Republican and 10 Democratic Senators in 2021. How we fund our transportation system has long been convoluted and wonky – my colleague Dave Cooke dedicated a whole blog series to explaining it.

Since the building of the Interstate Highway System started in 1956, federal transportation funding has enjoyed relative certainty and loose budgetary rules, especially compared to other federal funding for education, housing, or the environment that goes through the yearly toils of appropriations.

This mainly comes from the user-pay myth – where for decades, transportation has paid for itself via fuel taxes. In 2008, a new trend started, where Congress bailed out the Highway Trust Fund (HTF) using General Funds to stay solvent. Despite the Interstate Highway System’s official completion in 1992, the main spigot for highway funding was kept open, without the necessary changes to meet demand for more transportation options or meet highway maintenance goals.

The programs funded by advance appropriations – funding for electric vehicle charging, reconnecting communities, rail investment, transit maintenance and expansion, and much more – were secured with the same multi-year certainty as other HTF-funded programs and similarly draw from General Funds to do so. And in the end, they also are protected from certain budgetary restrictions and had an overwhelming bipartisan consensus.

Yet, while this funding has propelled these areas of transportation forward, a sudden funding cliff (the largest since 1956, according to the highway lobby) threatens all of this progress. It risks a blow to the resurgent rail industry and pipeline of projects, the growth of electric vehicle charging already under attack by the Trump administration, and the much needed maintenance to transit vehicles and facilities and services for older adults and people with disabilities.

Regardless of budgetary mechanisms, in the end, a cut is a cut. Communities across the country will feel this in the coming months, amid tight budgets, high gas prices, and strained transit services. For over a third of the folks in the country who do not drive, cuts to funding for safe streets, transit, and rail hit extra hard.

Making up for this funding is possible.

The inclusion or exclusion of programs previously funded by advance appropriations is mostly a matter of political will. While there are some complications with this funding’s emergency designation and its impacts on discretionary spending caps, Congressional appropriators have the choice of whether to include the funds.

Sens. Collins (R-ME), Murkowski (R-AK), Moran (R-KS), Rounds (R-SD), Coons (D-DE), and Shaheen (D-NH) were part of the bipartisan group that negotiated for the advance appropriations funds in the first place. In addition, 46 Senators have called on the appropriations committee to adequately fund transit and rail programs funded by advance appropriations (Feb 12, Feb 27, May 12), and the bipartisan House Problem Solvers Caucus has also decried the impacts of the substantial funding cuts. Ultimately, appropriators let the funding falter in the most recent continuing resolution, H.R.6500, signed on September 2, and decided to defend funding dedicated to highways at its expense.

Meanwhile, in the full reauthorization proposal in the House, the BUILD America 250 Act, this same advance appropriations funding was also excluded. In that proposal, the House committee agreed to make up for some lost advance appropriations funding by finding the money from another source – including over $36 billion for bridge investments and $4.7 billion for transit maintenance. In short, legislators are well aware of the ways to fund programs previously funded by advance appropriations; they just need the extra push to prioritize them.

What can we expect next?

While the current extension goes until December 11, 2026, there will likely be more through the rest of the year and in the future, with transitions to a new Congress and a crisis over the debt limit that will add more challenges to transportation negotiations. However, the current continuing resolution sets a dangerous precedent – and if future extensions follow the same trend, these cuts might become enshrined for longer than a couple of months. Any future extension needs to revert to true FY26 funding levels for advanced appropriations programs.

We’ll be following the process – and you can stay up to date as we continue to push for a surface transportation reauthorization that works for all.

I haven’t repeated the lie here. You may already know it. If you don’t, I’m not going to help it reach you. Not knowing more might make you feel curious, and that curiosity is exactly what those who generate disinformation intend to target. Disinformation targets all of us: around elections, extreme weather, and other events when we’re paying attention. Our attention is valuable. It can generate profit, shape public opinion, and swing votes. With the 2026 midterms approaching, we’re all targets. And we can all prepare.

We know when disinformation is coming 

Climate disinformation is my beat, and extreme weather has taught us something useful: disinformation is easier to fight when we prepare for it.

Earlier this year, I wrote about an anti-disinformation “safety chain” for Danger Season, the months when North America experiences its worst climate impacts. We know Danger Season is coming. We know people will be urgently seeking information. And we know bad actors will try to exploit their attention.

My colleague Jennie King has just published an excellent toolkit for information resilience amid disasters that takes this idea much further. Jennie tells us: Don’t wait until a crisis hits and then chase lies around the internet. Build trusted networks. Make reliable information easy to find. Anticipate the ways people are likely to be manipulated.

I’ve also written about what to do—and what not to do—when you encounter disinformation. Don’t repeat false claims. Don’t send them more traffic. Do look at who is spreading them, who benefits, and what they want you to do.

Prepare before someone wants your attention

1. Warn people before the lies arrive 

Start now. Share this post—or other reliable sources about election disinformation—with your friends, family, colleagues, and communities. Tell people what to expect: between now and November, people will deliberately try to capture their attention, provoke strong emotions, deepen divisions, and influence their votes. 

This is called “prebunking”: warning people about disinformation and the techniques used to spread it before they encounter them. Research suggests that advance warnings can help people recognize and resist manipulation when they see it. 

I won’t be limiting my warnings to lies about voting. Election disinformation can come at us sideways, through subjects people already care deeply about: immigration, LGBTQ+ rights, climate change, extreme weather, public health. The point may be to make us angry or afraid, to erode our trust in institutions or other people, to make money from our attention—or to affect what we do with our votes.

2. Choose your sources before you need them 

If we see a frightening claim about voting on Election Day, that’s a bad time to start figuring out whom to trust.  

Instead, we can find our state and local election officials now and use their official websites and published election information as primary sources for rules, deadlines, and procedures. Bookmark reliable local news sources. Do the same for other subjects where bad information can cause real harm: for instance, extreme weather; civil, LGBTQ+ and reproductive rights, public health, immigration. We can build ourselves a short list of places to check when something alarming appears in our feeds. 

Remember that expertise is specific. The person we trust for hurricane forecasts may know nothing about election administration. The person who understands election law may be a terrible source on climate science. Trustworthy information depends not just on who is speaking, but on whether they have a reliable way of knowing what they’re telling us. 

3. Learn the tricks, not the lies 

We don’t need to imagine every false claim we might encounter. We couldn’t if we tried. 

Instead, we can learn to notice how information is being manipulated. Sometimes evidence is fabricated. Sometimes real photographs, statistics, or events are stripped of context or given a false explanation. A genuine problem may be presented without the safeguards or remedies designed to address it. A small incident may be exaggerated into evidence of widespread failure. Intent may be invented and assigned to someone without evidence. 

And we don’t have to let spectacular AI deepfakes distract us from much cheaper tricks. A deceptively edited video, an old photograph with a new caption, or a real event presented as evidence of something it doesn’t show can work perfectly well.

4. Don’t help disinformation travel 

If something makes us instantly furious, frightened, or triumphant, let’s not immediately give it a larger audience. 

Repeating a false claim—even to debunk or ridicule it—can make it more familiar. Linking to it can send it traffic. Sharing it can expose people to a lie they hadn’t encountered before. Check first. When we do need to correct false information, lead with what is true and send people toward reliable sources.  

Remember when I didn’t tell you the lie about the Haitian immigrants? This is why I didn’t. 

The people who create disinformation don’t have to distribute every copy themselves, if they can get the rest of us to do some of the work for them.

5. Follow the money—and the power 

Your attention has value. That’s why we talk about an “attention economy,” and why corporations and political actors work so hard to capture it. 

Advertising helps finance the online information systems through which disinformation travels. In a new UN issue brief on advertising, artificial intelligence, and information integrity, my colleagues Harriet Kingaby, Charlotte Scaddan, and their coauthors point out that global advertising spending now exceeds $1 trillion a year. Advertisers’ decisions help determine what gets produced, amplified, and monetized online. AI is making it cheaper and easier to generate content at an enormous scale while becoming increasingly embedded in the systems that decide which content reaches us. 

Who makes money when we keep scrolling? Who benefits when we’re angry or afraid? Who paid to put something in front of us? Who designed the system that decided we should see it? Is what’s best for them good for us?

6. Know where the levers are 

Harriet and Charlotte make another important point: advertisers aren’t powerless passengers in this system. Their money gives them leverage. They can demand transparency from technology companies, support high-quality journalism and information, and insist on safeguards as AI becomes part of the advertising ecosystem. And we can demand the same thing of advertisers, social media platforms, and search engines. 

We have leverage too, but it looks different. We can support independent journalism, choose platforms and services with better practices where meaningful alternatives exist, pressure advertisers not to fund harmful content, and demand more transparency from the companies deciding what reaches us. 

We can also see that politicians, nations, and the fossil fuel industry work together to fund disinformation, promote authoritarianism, and fuel the climate crisis. Their lies do harm. The system that keeps producing and rewarding them harms us more. Please support UCS as we work to change that system. 

Science is—and always has been—the foundation for responsible public lands management and effective conservation. While many people recognize attacks on public lands when they see a mining, drilling, or development project, fewer see the attacks on the science and scientific workforce that help manage these lands.  

We at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) have been documenting the second Trump administration’s attacks on science, which are inextricably linked with its attacks on our beloved public lands. Of the 609 attacks on science that UCS has documented, at least 43 of them directly affect the US Department of the Interior, which oversees nearly 250 million acres of public lands including national parks, wildlife refuges, and cultural heritage sites, as well as the US Forest Service. 

September is National Public Lands Month, which we should all be celebrating by visiting a national park to learn about the site’s cultural and natural heritage, hiking our national forests, or hunting and fishing in national wildlife refuges. Instead, these treasured landscapes and pastimes are at risk under an administration dead set on selling our public lands for industrial development. That’s why we continue to call out the administration’s weakening of the science and safeguards that protect America’s cultural and natural heritage.

Forest Service, but without the service and science

The Forest Service has a long history of depending on science to meet its mission. A recent Forest Service news article celebrates how the agency has shaped America’s public lands for over 121 years, describing how integral science is to Forest Service’s past and present. When forestry science was still in its infancy, the Forest Service set up scientific explorations, experiments, and studies to better understand forest ecosystems. Even months into this administration’s so-called Forest Service re-organization, the drip-drip of news calls out the dismantling and its severe harm to the scientific enterprise. These cuts have hobbled agency efficiency and performance and delayed critical services to the public, according to a Partnership for Public Service analysis.

Earlier this year, I called out the Trump administration for dismantling the world’s premier wildfire research organization—US Forest Service Research and Development (R&D)—under the guise of “reorganization.” If I had more hours in a day, week, or even year, I could tell more stories of Forest Service scientists doing critical research on wildfires and climate change, fire and smoke modeling, long-term ecological monitoring, as well as adaptation and resilience to extreme weather, and more. Their work has had an impact. And thankfully, some of this research has been spared.

Still, the Trump administration’s cuts to the Forest Service have critical implications for future wildfire preparedness and resilience. As I wrote in May, President Trump’s plan to diminish our knowledge about wildfires—especially in a super El Niño year with significant drought risk when wildfire risk, climate impacts, and economic losses are accelerating—isn’t smart.

Trump’s cuts have also impacted mandated research like the Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) program. FIA is the “only comprehensive, long-term, field-based inventory of forests and trees across all ownerships in the United States,” according to the Forest Service itself, and the program has been a world leader in national-scale forest inventories for almost a century. FIA data—derived from more than 300,000 plots nationally—is used to look at long-term trends in forest health and productivity, land cover and land use change, and changing demographics of forest landowners.

The Trump administration’s staffing cuts don’t just negatively affect the FIA program, they also hurt its own goals on timber production. That’s because, when scientific capacity is weakened, land managers lose the information they need to make good science-informed decisions about severe wildfires, water quality, and unchecked pests and diseases. Ultimately, local communities lose because direct collaboration between scientists and managers is key to reducing the aforementioned risks.

Bureau of Land Management, but without the land management

Another casualty of the administration’s attack on federal lands is the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) Assessment, Inventory, and Monitoring (AIM) program, which conducts science-based monitoring of hundreds of millions of acres of federal rangelands. This program, which has monitored these lands for 15 years, provides critical data on land health, invasive species, and native plant communities across entire states and regions. Its data, which has shown a 19% reduction in lands classified as healthy between 2022 and 2024 according to Public Employees for Federal Responsibility (PEER), are essential for detecting trends, planning adaptive management, and evaluating grazed lands. But the program may be cut back after the Trump administration cut BLM staff by 20% over the past year, reducing the scientific and technical capacity for effective monitoring and analysis of rangeland health.

Halting the collection of critical land health data during a period of decline violates the Public Rangelands Improvement Act, which calls for an inventory of rangeland conditions and trends given that degraded rangelands pose harm to livestock industries, as well as environmental risks such as soil loss, desertification, and undesirable climatic conditions.

Likewise, cutting AIM’s rangeland monitoring efforts conflicts with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)—also under attack by the Trump administration—which requires federal agencies to integrate science into land-use planning and environmental reviews to ensure decisions are grounded in credible evidence. Without the collection of new data, it’s unclear how good public land decisions can be made without relevant ecological, biological, or physical information. As a former BLM scientist who worked at headquarters as recently as 2024, it’s personally upsetting to me to see this program possibly gutted.

In yet another blow, the BLM rescinded the Conservation and Landscape Health Rule (better known as the Public Lands Rule) in May. The rule not only ensured conservation was on equal footing with other uses of public lands like grazing and energy extraction but also put forth a core management principle to use science and data, including Indigenous Knowledge, as a “foundation for management decisions.” It is ironic that the rescission claimed that the BLM can continue monitoring through the AIM program mentioned above (which has been understaffed and undervalued). Yet again, this administration berates critical scientific and monitoring programs as burdens on effective land management, while also paradoxically leaning on the very same programs to deliver on their extractive priorities.

The Trump administration’s land legacy: extraction and destruction

The administration isn’t just taking a chainsaw to our forests and rangelands, but also treasured landscapes with unique historic, cultural, and natural resources. Bears Ears and Grand Staircase Escalante National Monuments are two notable examples that are hard to stomach.

Bears Ears National Monument protected more than 8,000 recorded archaeological sites, and possibly more than 100,000 sites, when it was designated by President Obama in 2016. In July of this year, President Trump shrank Bears Ears by 91%—which amounts to nearly 1.3 million acres. He also disbanded the Bears Ears Commission, which was established to ensure Tribes would have a role in managing their ancestral lands. Trump later outlined a plan to open the lands to mining minerals critical to “national security.”

But reducing public lands to their extractive value ignores their broader public value. Bears Ears is a national treasure that holds ecological, cultural, and scientific significance, as much as some national parks. It is one of the best landscapes in the west to protect fragile ecosystems and sensitive habitat and preserve environmental assets.

Just next door in Southern Utah, Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument (also known as the ‘science monument’) was the first BLM monument to prioritize conservation of cultural, ecological, and scientific values. The core of the monument’s creation was the critical scientific research and paleontological artifacts, including the rich ancient fossils, extensive archaeological remains from Ancestral Puebloans and Fremont peoples, and 1400-year-old piñon-juniper forests.

This was an opportunity to learn from the past that we seem doomed to repeat with the Trump administration shrinking this protected landscape (again). In 2018, UCS highlighted this monument with the first Trump administration’s efforts to cut the size of this national monument. As a unique living record of geologic time, the monument plays a critical role in scientific research to better understand how wildlife and plant communities have remained resilient over time. Ignoring the monument’s important scientific and historical value deprives people across the nation of experiencing our collective natural and cultural heritage at Grand Staircase.

Last month, the Trump administration proposed rescinding the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Roadless Rule), removing critical protections for millions of acres of pristine wilderness, and potentially opening them up for roads, logging, mining, and drilling. Human activity is responsible for 84% of all wildfires in the continental US, suggesting that rescinding this rule could increase the likelihood of human ignited fires in these areas. President Trump’s proposal to end the Roadless Rule on top of the Forest Service R&D cuts are real threats given future drier and hotter conditions and increasing severity of wildfires.

In another harmful move, the Trump administration last week fast-tracked oil and gas exploration while reducing environmental review requirements for Alaska’s North Slope, an area comprising the state’s entire Arctic coastal plain with coastal tundra. The BLM issued a proposal to quickly approve oil and gas drilling in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska (NPRA). The Trump administration in December had reopened more than 80% of the reserve to drilling, reversing previous administrations’ attempts to protect it. The emissions produced by these projects in Alaska only further exacerbate the impacts of fossil fuel-driven climate change. Drilling at the NPRA, which was set aside as an emergency oil supply for the Navy in 1923, also raises concerns about wildlife protection.

Also known as the “Heathrow at the top of the world,” the NPRA is a global hub for millions of birds that migrate here to nest, mate, lay eggs, and raise chicks. Beyond wildlife, the North Slope is home to brilliant (and more often than not, pristine) Alaskan landscapes like the Gates of the Arctic National Park, Arctic National Wildfire Refuge, and Noatak National Preserve (home to the last remaining complete river system untouched by human activity).

Public lands need science

Throughout my career, I have worked alongside federal scientists, foresters, land managers, ranchers, farmers, and local communities who rely on science to make difficult decisions. The public rarely sees the monitoring plots, weather stations, water gauges, and research programs behind those decisions. But when those systems disappear, we all feel the consequences.

America’s public lands are among our nation’s greatest treasures. Protecting them requires more than celebrating them. It requires defending the science, scientific workforce, and public institutions that make stewardship possible. And that is what we are doing here at UCS.

We are suing the Trump administration for censoring science and US history at our national parks.

We are tracking the egregious attacks on science and potential scientific integrity violations, including at the Department of the Interior.

We are sounding the alarm on the critical wildfire and forestry research that may be lost in the Forest Service reorganization.

If you also love our public lands, we invite you to take action too:

Tell Congress to protect the US Forest Service.

Speak out on the Forest Service proposed rescission of the Roadless Rule that would remove critical wilderness protections and may increase wildfire ignitions.

Join our Science Network, a community of more than 26,000 fellow scientists, economists, engineers, and other technical experts.

This National Public Lands Month, let’s remember that protecting public lands means protecting the science that helps us understand, conserve, and pass them on to future generations.

On the line was my boss at the time, Paul Leventhal, president of the Nuclear Control Institute, a tiny DC nonprofit focused on preventing nuclear and radiological terrorism. “Turn on the TV,” he said. Video of United Airlines Flight 175 crashing into the South Tower of the World Trade Center—the second tower to be attacked—filled the screen.  

The first crash could merely have been a terrible accident. But the second left little doubt. It was an act of terrorism that sent a chilling message: Anyone or anything could be a target. Without hesitation, Leventhal declared “It’s bin Laden.” Leventhal had long feared that nuclear power plants were vulnerable to terrorist sabotage that could cause a Chernobyl-like catastrophe on American soil, and he was an early (and lonely) advocate for strengthening NRC’s security requirements at a time when the nuclear industry and most security analysts dismissed the threat.  

Before 9/11, the biggest concerns for nuclear plant security were vehicle bombs, such as the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, and the al Qaeda 1998 East African embassy attacks, or a paramilitary land assault by heavily armed groups. The 9/11 attacks, however, immediately made apparent a previously unforeseen threat scenario: hijacked jet aircraft turned into missiles—a terrifying possibility for which there are no practical protective measures.   

Leventhal—never one to hold back in a time of crisis—picked up the phone and cold-called Richard Meserve, the Chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). Remarkably, Chairman Meserve took his call. Leventhal urged him to impose emergency measures to bolster protection of the nation’s nuclear plants. Soon afterward, Leventhal and Dan Hirsch, the president of the California-based Committee to Bridge the Gap, wrote to Chairman Meserve to ask the Pentagon to deploy anti-aircraft weapons at nuclear plants, to improve vetting of nuclear workers, and to request that National Guard troops be dispatched to supplement inadequately staffed security forces. He responded with a non-answer, assuring that the NRC immediately “took a number of responsive actions” after the attacks, and was “evaluating current requirements and statutory authority related to acts or threats of terrorism, including but not limited to those that you presented in your letter.” 

And so began the long journey of the NRC coming to terms with the reality that the requirements it had in place for protecting US nuclear power plants from terrorists had not kept pace with the magnitude of the actual threat, leaving the fleet dangerously exposed. As we now know from the 9/11 Commission Report, al Qaeda operatives had considered targeting a nuclear plant near New York on 9/11 (presumably Indian Point), but fortunately, they decided against it in part because they thought that the airspace around it would be protected. Subsequent events quickly revealed that assumption was incorrect. 

In 9/11’s aftermath, the NRC ultimately did ratchet up its standards for protection of nuclear plants—for example, by increasing the assumed size of the attacking force that plant security would have to defend against—and for a few years, nuclear plants became somewhat better prepared to withstand terrorist ground assaults. (The agency never did require defenses against air attacks by jets or drones). But the nuclear industry, objecting to the cost of meeting stronger requirements, fought the NRC all the way. And over the last decade, the NRC has made a steady stream of changes, in response to industry pressure, that undid some of the post-9/11 improvements. 

After I joined UCS in 2003, my former colleague Dave Lochbaum and I continued to engage the NRC on this critical issue, pushing back against industry proposals to weaken reactor security. In 2016, the year of the fifteenth 9/11 anniversary, I chronicled our concerns about the changes that had been proposed up to that time. Today, unfortunately, the NRC’s undoing of its strengthened security framework is all but total, as the no-longer-independent agency caves in to Trump administration directives and slashes its security oversight to a level not seen since September 10, 2001.  

The checkered history of force-on-force evaluations 

When al Qaeda struck on 9/11, the only NRC program that directly tested the capabilities of nuclear power plant security forces to protect against terrorist attacks, the Operational Safeguards Response Evaluation (OSRE), had been in disarray for over three years. OSRE utilized live “force-on-force” exercises with mock adversary teams staging violent assaults at reactors—essentially a sophisticated version of laser tag. The goal of the protective force was to stop the adversary team from simulating the destruction of enough safety equipment to disrupt cooling of the reactor cores, which in a real attack would cause overheating and significant damage to the highly radioactive fuel. By 1998, 57 of the 68 nuclear plants then operating had been tested, and 27 had been unable to prevent the mock attackers from achieving their objective of causing a meltdown—a failure rate of 47 percent—even though the plant owners had beefed up their security measures in advance of the tests. The industry was embarrassed by the results and, instead of working to fix its security problems, it pushed the NRC to shut the program down—which it finally did in the summer of 1998.  

Captain David Orrik, a former Navy Seal and the OSRE team lead, objected to the program’s cancellation and filed an internal “Differing Professional View” in August 1998, which was endorsed by a number of other NRC staff. However, NRC senior managers refused to reverse the decision. The dissenters, alarmed by the state of security at the nation’s nuclear plants at a time when terrorist threats were increasing, leaked their concerns to the press. Once the conflict came into public view, the NRC was forced to reinstate the program, but also initiated a review of its implementation, and decided to promulgate new regulations for the future performance evaluation program.  

The nuclear reactor owners and their lobbying group, the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), offered their own vision: a self-assessment in which nuclear plants would conduct their own force-on-force exercises, and the NRC would be relegated to a mere observer. This differed in important ways from OSRE, in which the NRC provided the mock adversary force, chose the attack scenarios (based on intelligence information), and was assisted by US Special Forces contractors with vast experience in paramilitary tactics. This approach maintained the independence of the evaluating agency from the plants being evaluated and avoided conflicts of interest. But the industry proposal offered too many opportunities to tilt the playing field so that the “good guys” would win, and Captain Orrik, in a second dissenting opinion, derided it as a “meaningless NRC rubber-stamping of whatever the industry decided it could afford.” (I got to know Captain Orrik at the time and greatly respected his expertise.) 

Dismissing Captain Orrik’s concerns, the NRC was on track to adopt the industry’s proposal— until 9/11 changed the playing field by making efforts to weaken security politically unpopular. Through the advocacy of then-Representative (and now-Senator) Edward Markey of Massachusetts, Congress enshrined NRC-run triennial force-on-force inspections in the law by enacting a provision in the 2005 Energy Policy Act that amended the Atomic Energy Act. Since then, there have been seven complete force-on-force inspection cycles (with some disruptions during COVID). The security performance of nuclear plants has improved significantly since the OSRE era, although about five to ten percent of plants still fail the test each year, showing the importance of maintaining vigilance through a robust testing and inspection regime.  

Throughout this entire period, the NEI never stopped pushing the NRC to weaken its force-on-force inspections—or even terminate them again, despite the 2005 Energy Policy Act provision. Although the NRC has arguably pursued a “death by a thousand cuts” approach to its force-on-force program, as recently as 2018 the commissioners instructed the staff not to get rid of it altogether. 

What’s Past is Prologue 

The NEI finally got the upper hand after the Trump administration’s takeover of the NRC in 2025. In April of 2026, the NRC commissioners reversed course and issued a decision to grant the NEI’s legally dubious request to replace NRC-run force-on-force inspections with observation of licensee-conducted exercises by 2028—even though the NRC staff did not even provide such an option to the Commission. 

The NRC has also made other major cuts to its security oversight, including slashing resources for routine physical and cyber security inspections by over fifty percent in some cases; transferring some inspection duties to already overwhelmed resident inspectors who do not have specialized security training; allowing new reactor owners to take credit for local law enforcement response in lieu of providing their own security forces; and even eliminating the Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response, established after 9/11 to elevate the agency’s security oversight mission.  

The agency also recently released a proposed rule that further weakens security requirements across the board, including redefining its standards so that even if a nuclear plant security force were helpless to prevent terrorists from deliberately causing a meltdown as severe as the 1979 Three Mile Island disaster, the agency would not consider it radiological sabotage because the projected radiation doses to the public would be within “acceptable” limits.  Nothing to see here! 

The cumulative effect of all these changes is hard to predict. But there is little doubt that the NRC is dangerously undermining nuclear plant security at a time when the convergence of rapidly emerging technologies—from drones with advanced military capabilities to artificial intelligence-boosted cyber attacks—are amplifying the threat landscape in even more profound ways than did the jet attacks of 9/11. 

In a 2014 interview, co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton warned about the dangers of complacency setting in as the horrific events of that day become a distant memory. The NRC should heed this warning. The nuclear industry, supported by the Trump administration, has ambitious plans to build scores of small modular reactors around the country, in more diverse locations and closer to populated areas. A “nuclear 9/11” would imperil the health and safety of millions of Americans and derail the industry’s hoped-for nuclear revival for generations to come.   

The study of these interactions, and how they can accumulate, is known as cumulative impacts analysis. And the US government only recently began working to update its guidance about exposure to pollution based on cumulative impacts.

In late 2024, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released a document designed to help EPA incorporate a cumulative impacts approach into its science and policymaking. To give the public appropriate and meaningful input, EPA solicited public comments on this framework, getting opinions from experts and advocates on using cumulative impacts analysis to improve public health and the environment. Unfortunately, when President Trump appointed Lee Zeldin as the new administrator of EPA, this process came to a halt. EPA has not responded to any of the public comments nor made any moves to implement or even finalize this framework.

Since then, the Union of Concerned Scientists has worked with government, environmental justice, and public health experts to review and analyze public comments and get a better understanding of how cumulative impacts analysis can be put to work to improve people’s lives. Those findings were released in a new report, Unfinished Business.

Dr. Kristie Ellickson of the Center for Science and Democracy at UCS was the lead author on this new report. A longtime cumulative impacts researcher, she says that in the absence of federal action, states, community advocates, and scientists alike have an opportunity to put the lessons of cumulative impacts to work to improve people’s lives.

AAS: First things first: what is cumulative impacts analysis?

Kristie Ellickson: “Cumulative impacts” is both a concept and a tool—fundamentally, it means matching environmental protections with the way people actually experience pollution. Too often, the rules for different pollutants—or for different kinds of exposures, like in the workplace and the home—don’t “talk to” each other. You can’t look at a single pollutant in a vacuum. You need to bring in other factors, to look at people’s living conditions and what kinds of other pollution they’re exposed to. You need to understand things like access to health care, access to food, the effects of racial discrimination. To do that, you need to connect different kinds of information and the work of different agencies, so you can make more holistic decisions.

This could look like an environmental agency using data from a health agency to find out about hospitalization rates in a community. It could look like a permitting agency consulting a map to see what other facilities or pollution sources are located close to the facility applying for a permit. The overarching concept is that you need to look at multiple kinds of information to make good decisions.

AAS: What’s your background with this topic? How have you used cumulative impacts analysis in your work?

KE: I worked for 14 years as a staff scientist for the state of Minnesota. In 2008, Minnesota passed a law requiring a cumulative impacts approach for an environmental justice area in Minneapolis. For decisions about air permits, the state needed to examine not just the proposed facility’s pollution, but also existing pollution, health data like emergency room visits due to asthma attacks, as well as social conditions like poverty rates and historical racial discrimination. As a staff scientist, I was tasked with getting input from the affected communities and incorporating it into our analysis. And as a result of that new requirement, I saw real reductions in the amount of pollution that was allowed in these permits.

There’s a lot of really interesting science here. I love to work with maps and data sets, and I have seen the value of cumulative impacts analysis in action. This isn’t just research for research’s sake—these assessments should be connected to decisions, and the information used to make sure those decisions get us to a real-world outcome. The science is there to support this approach if decisionmakers choose or are required to use it.

For the last four years, I’ve worked at UCS, starting as a fellow with a two-year project to create a Community Guide to Cumulative Impacts. We’ve worked collaboratively with community partners and a range of experts to help people understand what cumulative impacts analysis is and how to use it. It’s so crucial that we match environmental protection efforts with how people actually experience pollution, and that those communities are a central part of the process of designing these assessments and making policies. The words and wisdom of people who live and breathe environmental justice issues were incorporated into the guide.

I also co-chaired a working group of the EPA’s National Environmental Justice Advisory Council (NEJAC) to write up cumulative impact guidance for the federal government. A goal of the NEJAC was to bring a variety of perspectives to the table, including regionally. The United States is big and geographically diverse, with a wide range of ecosystems and climates, and you can’t design good policies based on a single set of assumptions. We also looked closely at racial disparities—the goal is to reduce pollution overall, but also to reduce how disproportionate pollution exposures are in our country.

One important part of this is pairing different kinds of expertise. There’s quantitative work—measuring the lead levels in soil, counting children with high lead levels in their blood—but you have to consider people’s lived experience as well. You can’t understand, or solve, environmental issues without that context, combining the stories and expertise from people who live in affected communities with more traditional quantitative data. As a UCS fellow, I co-authored a peer-reviewed study on these “mixed method” approaches for the journal Environmental Justice in 2024.

AAS: How did the EPA get involved with cumulative impacts analysis?

KE: Community groups have been advocating for a cumulative impacts approach for decades—and this call has also been put forth by major advisory groups, including NEJAC in 2003 and 2004, the National Research Council in 2009, and the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine last year. At the end of the Biden administration, EPA published this document, the Interim Framework, to lay out how the agency could understand cumulative impacts and put these tools to work, as a response to this long-running effort. Then, they opened a 90-day period for public comment. That period straddled two administrations, and when President Trump was inaugurated, the federal government took a hard turn away from this approach. The Trump administration (and the new EPA administrator Lee Zeldin) eliminated the two offices in EPA that did the most to produce the framework: the Office of Research and Development and the Office of Environmental Justice and Civil Rights. They also eliminated the NEJAC and other advisory boards. And they simply did not respond to any of the comments or even acknowledge them. So the framework and all the comments on it were sitting in the public register. That’s incredibly valuable data, and that motivated us to look at and preserve these comments, which the Trump administration was largely ignoring.

AAS: How did you approach the framework and the comments?

KE: UCS partnered with some independent researchers, including people who formerly worked for or advised the EPA. We did a rigorous analysis of these comments to find the common themes and input on how to make cumulative impact assessment effective. This, too, was a mixed-methods process, in which we looked at the comments themselves but also spoke with people who wrote comments, people who served on those disbanded advisory committees, and people who have been doing education and organizing around cumulative impacts. We held four different convenings to talk about the framework and the comments.

One thing that really came through was the importance of accountability. You can’t set up effective policies without measures for enforcement. The law tells you what you should do, the rules tell you how you do it, but you also need integrated accountability and enforcement so those rules actually work in practice to benefit people.

Another aspect is the value of a public health perspective that incorporates the experience of health practitioners, and a labor perspective that accounts for people’s experience in the workplace.

One thing that was very helpful to understand was: people are surprised that cumulative impact analysis isn’t already the default approach. It’s common sense to people, and they’re surprised to learn that policies and permitting decisions don’t take existing pollution and stressors into account.  

Another striking thing is how the people we invited to these convenings really showed up engaged and ready to work hard to keep making progress. While we do a lot of work at UCS on existing harms and impacts and the attacks on science that are happening right now, cumulative impacts is a way of looking forward to the future, to make environmental protections that are really protective in the long term.

AAS: What are the next steps for this work? What do you hope happens with this report and the conversations you’ve had around it?

KE: As a courtesy, we sent the report to everyone who included their contact information in their comment. We’ve also sent our report to the EPA, so that it’s on the record, and they know we’re watching. But the White House and their EPA appointees are so explicitly hostile to science, to environmental justice considerations, to environmental protection in general that we know there won’t be much progress on this at the federal level under this administration. But that doesn’t mean the effort is over.

At least seven states have cumulative impacts laws or regulations, and there are a number of city and local ordinances as well, mostly aimed at air pollution permitting. We can expand these policies, and more states and communities can adopt them, and we hope this report offers useful information about what people with both academic and lived expertise want to see. We could see cumulative impacts used as a lens for county-level zoning and planning processes, for example. This is a resource that people all around the country can use to find ways to implement a cumulative impacts approach. For UCS, the next step is to broaden our conversations to bring in different kinds of expertise and experience, and to convene people to create policy roadmaps that state or local governments can adopt going forward.

Instead, it often emerges through a series of actions that may seem disconnected on the surface: attacks on scientists who tell inconvenient truths, efforts to restrict voting access, attempts to punish nonprofit organizations, political interference in government decisionmaking, or rhetoric that encourages us to see fellow Americans as enemies rather than neighbors.

When viewed individually, these incidents can appear narrow, technical, or temporary. But when viewed together, they reveal something larger: a challenge to the democratic principles that allow people, communities, and science to thrive.

Authoritarian movements often rely on disinformation, historical revisionism, and attacks on independent sources of evidence because informed citizens are better equipped to recognize abuses of power and hold leaders accountable. When facts become negotiable and history is rewritten to serve political objectives, it becomes harder for communities to understand what is happening now, learn from the past, and make informed decisions about the future.

Over the last year, I’ve written about how authoritarian movements attack facts, suppress dissent, target vulnerable communities, and undermine democratic institutions. These developments show a pattern that threatens the foundations of an inclusive, participatory democracy. As I argued in What Authoritarian Regimes Do and later in Divide and Destroy, authoritarianism advances by weakening the institutions and democratic norms that allow people to participate fully in public life and hold leaders accountable for their actions.

At a moment when Americans are deeply divided on many public policy questions, we must recognize and champion the shared democratic principles that continue to inspire across the political spectrum, even when they feel less present—as they have at times throughout my career, and particularly in the past year, as I’ve worked on these issues, I have had the opportunity to connect with different constituencies, industries, faith traditions, communities, and political perspectives. And it is clear that while we disagree on many important issues – from different views on climate policy, taxation, healthcare, immigration, education, and more – we nevertheless agree that democracy itself is worth protecting. In a healthy democracy, that diversity of viewpoints is not a weakness, it is a strength.

It is also important to acknowledge that democracy in the United States has not always worked equally well for everyone. Throughout our history, many communities have been excluded from full participation, denied representation, or faced barriers to exercising their rights. Defending democracy should not mean preserving those inequities. It should mean strengthening democratic institutions so they become more inclusive, representative, and responsive to all people. A commitment to democracy requires both protecting what is valuable and recognizing and improving what has too often fallen short.

As concerns about the health of American democracy grow, now is the time for folks from different political traditions, industries, communities, and issue areas to come together around a minimum set of commitments essential to democratic self-government. These  are not a political platform, nor do they require us to agree on every issue facing the country. Instead, they establish a common foundation and minimum points of unity that allow democratic disagreement to continue.

Without the rule of law, free and fair elections, a free civil society, and a commitment to resolving conflict peacefully, our ability to address any issue becomes compromised. These four principles are foundational to a functional and healthy democracy. The loss of any one of these means the functional loss of our democracy as we know it.

Commitment to the Rule of Law

The rule of law is one of democracy’s most important protections because it ensures that power remains accountable. It means that no person, political party, or institution is above, or beneath, the law. Constitutional rights apply to everyone. People are entitled to due process, equal treatment, and protection from arbitrary government action. Public officials are accountable when they abuse their authority, and institutions such as courts, Congress, state governments, inspectors general, journalists, watchdog organizations, and the public can continue to serve as checks to prevent the abuse of power.

For those of us who care about science and evidence-based policymaking, the rule of law has practical consequences. Scientific integrity depends on institutions that operate according to established laws, standards, and procedures rather than political loyalty. Public health protections, environmental safeguards, and scientific research programs all rely on transparent processes that constrain politicized decisionmaking.

 When leaders attempt to weaken oversight, disregard legal limits, replace expertise with loyalty, or ignore evidence that conflicts with political objectives, they are not merely changing policy. They are weakening the systems that allow government to remain accountable to the people it serves. They are eroding trust that allows us to work together.

The rule of law is not a left, center or right principle. It is a democratic principle. Regardless of our political views, we all benefit from a system in which rights are protected, laws are applied fairly, and those entrusted with public authority remain accountable for how they use it.

Commitment  to Free, Safe, and Fair Elections

Democracy depends on the ability of voters to choose their leaders and hold them accountable. Every eligible voter should be able to participate freely, safely, and without intimidation. Elections should be administered fairly, and election results should be respected.

These commitments may sound basic, but they are foundational, and they must be fought for. Elections are one of the most direct means by which people exercise power in a democracy. They are how communities communicate priorities, evaluate leaders’ performance, and influence the direction of public policy.

The Center for Science and Democracy has long emphasized that a healthy democracy reflects the will of the people and creates opportunities for broad participation and fair representation. Our research in election science has helped identify evidence-based approaches to increasing voter access, improving election administration, strengthening public confidence, and ensuring that people have meaningful opportunities to participate in democratic life.

Yet many communities continue to face barriers to participation. Restrictive voting laws, threats to election workers, attacks on the legitimacy of election outcomes, and extreme partisan gerrymandering all undermine democratic accountability. These barriers often fall disproportionately on communities that have historically faced exclusion from political power.

At a time of heightened political polarization, it is especially important to reaffirm a simple principle: political power comes from the people. Protecting free, safe, and fair elections protects every other democratic right.

Commitment to a Free Civil Society

Democracy is sustained not only through elections and government institutions but through the countless organizations and communities that make up civil society. Scientists, journalists, faith communities, educators, businesses, labor organizations, artists, nonprofits, advocacy groups, and local civic organizations all help create a society in which people can participate, organize, solve problems collectively, and hold leaders accountable.

These institutions provide independent sources of information, expertise, and community leadership. They create opportunities for people to engage beyond the ballot box and help ensure that public decisions are informed by a broad range of experiences and perspectives.

Throughout history, authoritarian movements have sought to weaken civil society because independent organizations create alternative centers of power and accountability. Efforts to intimidate critics, suppress dissent, attack universities, politicize research, undermine journalism, or pressure organizations to conform to a government’s political ideology are often aimed at limiting the public’s ability to organize and challenge those in power. As I wrote earlier this year, democracy depends on people’s ability to access reliable information and make informed decisions about public affairs. A shared commitment to independent facts and knowledge is essential for democratic decisionmaking and public accountability.

This is one reason UCS has spent so much time documenting attacks on science. When scientists are silenced, data are removed from public access, research is politicized, or independent expertise is sidelined, the consequences extend beyond science itself. These actions weaken independent sources of facts and make it harder for the public to evaluate government decisions and hold leaders accountable.

A free civil society is not an obstacle to democracy. It is one of democracy’s greatest strengths.

Commitment to Resolving Conflict Peacefully

Democracy does not eliminate conflict. It provides a framework for managing conflict peacefully.

People will always disagree about political priorities, public policies, and the future of the country. Those disagreements are not evidence that democracy is failing. In many respects, they are evidence that democracy is working. Citizens have the right to advocate for their beliefs, challenge government actions, protest injustice, and organize for change.

What democracy cannot survive is the replacement of political competition with intimidation, coercion, or violence.

Free speech is essential to democratic life, but so is a commitment to rejecting political violence and rhetoric that encourages violence against perceived opponents. Democratic societies depend on our willingness to regard one another as fellow citizens even when we strongly disagree.

One of the recurring themes in my writing on authoritarianism has been the danger of efforts to divide society into “us” and “them”. Throughout history, authoritarian movements have used fear, scapegoating, dehumanization, and disinformation to isolate vulnerable communities and consolidate power. These tactics weaken public trust, fracture communities, and make accountability more difficult.

Political opponents are not enemies. They are fellow participants in a shared democratic project. Preserving that understanding is essential if democracy is to endure.

We Must Unite Around Democracy, Not Agreement on Policy

Democracy is not a spectator sport, nor is it an individual endeavor. It is a collective exercise in self-government that depends on people working together across differences to solve problems, hold leaders accountable, and shape the future of their communities. The ability to cooperate despite disagreements is one of democracy’s greatest strengths and one reason movements and coalitions remain so important during periods of democratic stress. The significance of pro-democracy movements is not that everybody agrees on everything. The significance is that we do not.

It’s important to recognize that we can embrace the foundational tenets of democracy even as we disagree about many public policy questions. Some of us will advocate different solutions to the same problems. Others will continue to compete vigorously in the marketplace of ideas or argue for different priorities. None of that changes when we all unite behind these core principles of a healthy democracy. These principles therefore represent a floor, not a ceiling. They are minimum commitments that allow all of us with different interests and perspectives to work together in defense of democracy without requiring anyone to abandon their values or priorities.

For UCS, these commitments reinforce something we have long understood: science and democracy rise and fall together. Democracy creates the conditions that allow evidence to be gathered, debated, challenged, and applied in service of the public good. Science helps people understand complex problems, evaluate competing claims, and hold decisionmakers accountable. Both depend on transparency, participation, and freedom from political coercion.

From Principles to Action

A commitment to principles matters only if people act on it and history demonstrates that democratic institutions are not protected by individuals acting alone. They are defended through collective action. Communities organizing together, people showing up for one another, coalitions working across differences, and movements demanding accountability have repeatedly helped democracies withstand authoritarian pressure. This illustrates a  simple lesson: concern is not enough. Defending democracy requires collective action.

We all have a role to play in protecting the democratic values that make science, accountability, and public participation possible. That work can take many forms, but some of the most important actions include:

• Defend facts, evidence, and independent science. Speak up when facts are distorted, research is politicized, or scientific expertise is sidelined. Reliable information is essential for both science and democracy.
• Protect free, safe, and fair elections. Support efforts that expand participation, protect voters from intimidation, and ensure that election results are respected. Democracy works only when everyone has a meaningful opportunity to participate.
• Stand with communities and institutions under attack. Civil society remains strongest when people support journalists, educators, scientists, nonprofit organizations, faith communities, and others who are speaking out in defense of democratic values.
• Reject efforts to divide us through fear and scapegoating. Authoritarian movements often seek to turn neighbors against one another. Building solidarity across communities is one of the most powerful ways to resist those tactics.
• Take action when opportunities arise. Whether that means contacting elected officials, participating in community meetings, joining a local organization, attending a public event, providing mutual aid for others, or supporting UCS campaigns, democracy depends on people who choose to engage rather than look away.

The future of our democracy will not be determined by a single election, a single court decision, or a single political figure. It will be shaped by whether people continue to defend the institutions, rights, freedoms, and democratic norms that make self-government possible. As I argued in Scientists Must Act, one of the greatest dangers in authoritarian moments is the belief that ordinary people have no power to influence events. History suggests otherwise. Democratic institutions are strongest when people show up to defend them. We are the ones we have been waiting for.

As of August 27, 2026, the US government banned export of black mass from the United States for one year to increase the recovery of critical minerals. Black mass is a powder substance from lithium-ion batteries that contains critical minerals such as cobalt, lithium, manganese, and nickel. While the ban can help build up the United States black mass recycling industry in the long term, our research demonstrates that there is currently an undercapacity. Without reconsidering this timeline and pairing it with complementary recycling requirements, this ban doesn’t do much to increase domestic recovery of minerals from our waste stream.  

Lithium-ion battery recycling capacity in North America 

Published in the Journal of Resource, Conservation, and Recycling, our research explores those questions. The research estimates lithium-ion battery recycling capacity in North America and whether this is enough to process batteries from our products in circulation, such as electronic devices, electric vehicles, and stationary storage, as well as from manufacturing losses. This is an important exploration when planning for the emission-reducing transition to electric vehicles and a renewable energy grid. Utilizing minerals from our recycling system has a much lower impact than newly mined ones but requires expansion.  

Recycling of the critical minerals in these batteries can be split into two steps, with capacity allocated between them: pre-processing and black mass refining.  

Pre-processing consists of breaking down the batteries. There are a wide variety of processing methods, but they can be categorized as shredding or smelting. Shredding is the preferred process due to smelting’s high energy consumption, increased emissions, and lithium loss. There is also variation in the shredding process used to separate the black mass. Some companies use pyrometallurgical processes, such as calcination or pyrolysis, to burn graphite and the binder, while others use chemical processes to separate the foils from the black mass. This pre-processing can be done in a separate facility from the black mass refining.  

Black mass refining is also carried out using various processes, yielding different products. All these processes involve dissolving black mass in a reductant (typically hydrogen peroxide), then combining it with an acid (typically sulfuric acid) to recover the constituent minerals or recovering them in a combined form that can be used in battery cathode (electrolyte) manufacturing.  

Our research demonstrates that North America’s current and planned capacity results in an overcapacity of pre-processing infrastructure but an undercapacity of black mass refining (see the figure below). The refining capacity isn’t large enough to handle the black mass inputs until 2030 and is estimated to be slightly over capacity until 2033. As of 2026, we estimate about 7,000 metric tons of black mass refining capacity, with 65,000 metric tons of black mass feedstock to be processed. The refining capacity is not public knowledge but was gathered from NaatBatt, Bloomberg, and other sources, with the remaining capacities estimated.  

This forecast demonstrates that the export ban that went into effect for one year is not a realistic timeline for the industry to meet. While this order signals the US government’s ambition to increase recovery of critical minerals from batteries retired from use, the short implementation timeline doesn’t take into account that the United States = doesn’t yet have adequate infrastructure for this recovery, and this may dissuade real mineral recovery, which is not yet a requirement for lithium-ion batteries.  

The companies that do have limited black mass refining capacity in the United States are likely to be in high demand and to charge a premium for black mass refining. While that may bring in additional funds to support current processing capacity, the ban is guaranteed for only one year and is therefore unlikely to spur increased outside investment and competition. The pre-processing companies that are unable to find a domestic processor for the black mass are left with the option of storing until the ban expires in a year (storage time limits vary based on whether it is a large or small processor), requesting an exception or adjustment from the Bureau of Industry and Security, or sending the materials to hazardous waste landfills.  

Policy to build a domestic recycling industry 

This type of export ban could be effective if set for several years in the future, allowing automakers and recyclers to plan and build US capacity for black mass processing. But this policy isn’t enough and 1) doesn’t consider that recycling of these batteries isn’t a requirement and 2) the black mass refined in the US doesn’t have to recover high rates of the critical minerals.  

To effectively create a domestic recycling industry that increases US production of lithium-ion battery minerals, these other areas need to be addressed. The following policies are necessary inclusions. 

Required recycling: Policy should require batteries to be recycled. Extended producer responsibility, such as the recently passed policy in Colorado or policy implemented in the European Union, requires the manufacturer of the product to ensure it is recycled and plan accordingly. In addition, for the export ban to be effective, the pre-processing must also be required to occur domestically.  

Recovery rates: Recycling is only effective at promoting the reuse of minerals if the minerals are recovered. Mineral recovery from black mass currently depends on market prices, therefore, it is not undertaken if there is no profit. For example, while graphite is technologically viable to recover, it isn’t due to low market value. Lithium prices are also variable and therefore aren’t always recovered. Setting high recovery rates, as the European Union does, will ensure that the specified minerals are actually recovered.  

Prioritizing domestic production: Domestic recovery can ensure that minerals aren’t processed and pollute in countries with lower environmental standards. As domestic recovery is prioritized, emissions from these facilities need to be monitored and reduced. The batteries contain PFAS, which can be released into the air, water, or product outputs. PFAS exposure is known to cause liver disease, kidney disease, reproductive issues, and cancer. PFAS is found throughout many products in our economy and, at this time, is not sufficiently controlled.  

A better path forward 

As we transition to an electric transportation system and a renewable energy grid, it is important to consider mineral sources and how we can reduce system-wide impacts. Recycling of lithium-ion batteries has the potential to create a domestic, lower-impact source of minerals. At this time, the US is attempting to build up this industry through grants, loans, and export bans. This is a partial solution that complements battery recycling requirements, mineral recovery requirements, and increased environmental controls. These solutions are modeled in the European Union and China. Further, states are taking on this issue with Colorado passing legislation earlier this year and efforts are ongoing in California. Without their implementation in the United States, we are likely to see minerals wasted and batteries improperly disposed of.   

Like so many others, I spent late July choking on smoke as wildfires, worsened by fossil-fueled climate change, raged across Canada and the United States, as well as France, Greece, Spain and Turkey. People, including firefighters, lost their lives.

Hundreds of thousands of people were forced to flee their homes, with many losing everything. And millions of people across the United States, many living hundreds of miles from the wildfires, experienced dangerous levels of pollution from wildfire smoke.

The undeniable fingerprints of climate change are all over recent extreme wildfire seasons. Across the world, unusually hot, dry weather, punctuated by extreme heatwaves, has dried out ecosystems, priming them for fire. In the United States, the burned area in 2026 is currently 168 percent of the 10-year average, while many fires continue to burn out of control.

Globally, burned area is decreasing, but not all fires are equal. Most of the reduction in global burned area comes from savannahs and grasslands, as changes in agricultural practice and land use reduce intentional fires and burned area.

In contrast, fire activity and burned area in North America’s forests continues to intensify, burning large areas with growing severity. These fires can burn so severely that they scorch the soil deeply, and some forests cannot regrow. In Canada’s boreal forests, wildfires also generate huge amounts of heat-trapping emissions, combusting soil that took decades or centuries to accumulate. In 2023, Canada’s record-smashing fire season emitted more carbon than every country in the world except China, India and the United States.

Wildfires in forests of the western United States are some of the most well-studied, and the effects of climate change are glaring across almost every metric scientists use to characterize wildfire. Relative to the mid-1980s, more wildfires are burning larger areas, at higher severity, growing faster, at higher elevations, over longer fire seasons, and under more extreme fire weather conditions. Wildfires also are burning later into the night and ramping up earlier in the morning, meaning less rest for the wildland firefighters who put their lives on the line to protect us.

Attribution science, which isolates and quantifies the contribution of climate change to observed trends, makes this point even more clearly, showing that climate-driven increases in dryness led to a near doubling of burned area in forests of western North America between 1984 and 2015.

Climate change also limits options to use existing, science-supported tools to reduce wildfire risks, like prescribed fire, by shortening the very narrow window in which these controlled burns can safely occur. While forest management can mitigate some effects, climate-driven extreme fire behavior can overwhelm these interventions.

Climate change further drives conditions conducive to wildfire beyond changes to forests, with reductions in snowpack and earlier melt providing more time for vegetation to dry out.

These climate-fueled changes have devastated communities, destroying homes, claiming lives and ending ways of life. The damage of these wildfires is escalating too — last year’s wildfires in Los Angeles killed at least 30 people and produced estimated losses of $140 billion, while property insurance skyrocketed, if it remained accessible at all. As global temperatures continue to rise, this destruction will keep mounting.

It didn’t have to be this way.

The dangers of burning fossil fuels, the primary driver of climate change, have been well known for decades, including by fossil fuel companies that publicly denied what their own research showed and deceived the public to protect their profits.

Research from the Union of Concerned Scientists has quantified how heat-trapping emissions traced to the largest fossil fuel producers and cement manufacturers, including ExxonMobil, BP, Chevron and Shell, have worsened these hot, dry and fire-prone conditions. From 1986 to 2021, nearly 40 percent of the area burned in forests of western North America can be attributed to their emissions. Our newest study finds that across the western United States, emissions traced to these entities reduced annual snowpack and stream flow by 15 percent and 6 percent, respectively, equivalent to nearly six times the annual water use of all California’s cities.

Wildfires have many contributing factors. Dismissing the role of fossil-fueled climate change in driving extreme wildfires is at odds with the best available science and only serves the interests of the fossil fuel industry. Instead, communities, firefighters and first responders need policymakers to advance real solutions­ — including measures to stop corporate deception, advance a phaseout of fossil fuels, and make polluters pay their fair share — to address this wicked problem.

But this year, it would be disingenuous to celebrate without also acknowledging the uncertainty many early-career experts are facing. Over the past year and a half, thousands of federally funded research grants have been terminated or frozen, some universities have reduced or paused some Ph.D. admissions, some labs have undergone indefinite hiring freezes, and research in politically targeted areas has faced increased restriction and scrutiny. The National Science Foundation is on track to award its fewest research grants in over 40 years. This is limiting opportunities for early-career scientists especially.

This isn’t normal

The scientific enterprise once seemed unstoppable. The past several decades have shown consistent growth and discovery across medicine, technology, climate science, public health, space exploration, and countless other fields. We’ve been able to map the human genome, develop vaccines in record time, dramatically improve weather forecasting, and build technologies that once only belonged in science fiction. None of this progress happened overnight: it was made possible by generations of scientists and technical experts, sustained public investment, strong and well-resourced scientific institutions, and a scientific ecosystem that allowed new experts to learn, experiment, and eventually, lead.

For an expert who is already established in their field, these disruptions can be devastating. For an early-career expert trying to enter their field, these disruptions can change whether the opportunity exists at all. When we dismantle the systems that make scientific progress possible, we aren’t just cutting today’s research, we’re disrupting how tomorrow’s experts become experts.

Science can’t afford to lose its next generation

Unfortunately, we’re already seeing signs of what that disruption could mean. A study published over the summer examining how early-career researchers are responding to federal science funding disruptions found widespread concern about what comes next. Among the 30 researchers that were surveyed, 90% of them were concerned about long-term job prospects, more than 50% of them were considering leaving academic research, and about 60% were considering pursuing research opportunities outside of the United States. They described interrupted research, uncertainty about completing their work, and concerns about whether the careers they had spent so many years training for would still exist in the near future.

While this was a small study and isn’t representative of all early-career researchers, the experiences captured illustrate a bigger risk: a funding cut that happens today doesn’t just affect what research gets done today. It can shape who stays in science, who leaves, and who gets the chance to become one of the experts we depend on years from now.

Stay with me—this isn’t meant to be a grim piece. Science and scientists have faced political interference, funding threats, censorship, and efforts to sideline scientific evidence before. But scientists and technical experts haven’t simply stood by and watched it happen. They have organized with their colleagues, spoken publicly, worked alongside communities, engaged decisionmakers, defended threatened programs and institutions, and used their expertise to push for change.

These efforts don’t always produce immediate wins, and they haven’t made every threat disappear. But history gives us plenty of reminders that the trajectory of science isn’t always predetermined. Policies can change. Funding can be restored. And when scientists join their expertise with collective action, they can help shape what happens next.

We don’t have to look too far for examples

We’ve seen what progress we can make when scientists and experts act together. In 2025, more than 3,300 scientists and experts signed a UCS-organized letter calling for NOAA’s staffing, funding, and scientific independence to be protected. After sustained pressure from UCS and other groups, the Trump administration backed away from threats to close NOAA’s regional climate centers.

We have seen scientists turn communication into action, too. Last year, about 200 scientists (including grad students, senior professors, broadcast meteorologists, and UCS Climate Fellow Dr. Marc Alessi) participated in a 100-hour livestream explaining what weather and climate scientists do and why federal funding for their work matters. More than 180,000 people tuned into the livestream, generating more than 15,000 calls to Congress.

Direct pressure on decisionmakers can also be an effective strategy. In July 2025, as the administration slowed the disbursement of congressionally appropriated NIH funding, a group of 14 senators urged the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to release the funds. Days later, OMB directed NIH to pause the issuing of research grants, contracts, and training awards. After pushback from members of Congress and patient advocacy groups, the administration reversed the pause later that same day.

So, what does this moment call for?

Political priorities can change. Harmful policies can be challenged, delayed, reversed, or replaced. Funding can return. Institutions can recover. But waiting for better conditions isn’t the strategy to get us there. Some of the damage being done to science now can outlast the policies that caused it. What we do now matters more than ever.

The is no one right way to advocate, and different moments call for different tactics. Sometimes progress comes through relationships with decisionmakers, educating the public, community engagement, or organizing your fellow experts. Other moments may call for greater urgency and pressure from the public. Peaceful demonstrations, coordinated days of action, and other forms of non-violent direct action can draw attention to an issue, create pressure, and make it harder to ignore what’s at stake. If traditional approaches to advocacy aren’t moving those with the power to act, we shouldn’t be afraid to ask if other forms of collective pressure might.

Of course, not everyone can (or should) take on the same level of risk. For some early-career experts, speaking publicly could have real consequences. You may be trying to protect a new or precarious position, dependent on a particular institution or supervisor for funding, navigating an immigration process, or facing other circumstances that make visibility feel especially risky. Those realities matter. Understand the potential risks, and choose the forms of advocacy that feel right for you.

But that also means those who have more flexibility to speak and act can use it. If your position is relatively secure, you have institutional support, or you simply feel comfortable taking a more visible role, consider where you might stretch beyond what you’ve done before. That could mean speaking publicly, organizing colleagues, attending a demonstration, or participating in peaceful actions when it is strategic and safe to do so.

Find your lane

If you’re early in your career, you may not feel like the most powerful person in your institution or your field. You might not have tenure, a large professional network, or a title that gets you invited into every room where decisions are made. But that doesn’t mean you don’t have power. You have expertise. You have a story about what this moment is doing to the future of your field. You have colleagues, communities, professional networks, and people who care about the same things you do.

The researchers in the 2026 study mentioned above were already finding their own ways to respond. Some contacted their elected representatives. Some participated in protests or organized events. Others focused on educating the public, talking with their professional networks, or simply learning how to become better advocates. The important thing is finding your lane—and knowing you don’t have to stand in it alone.

Early career scientists and experts have a major stake in what that future becomes. You shouldn’t have to spend the beginning of your career fighting to preserve the opportunities that allowed generations before you to build theirs. But you also don’t have to simply watch those opportunities disappear.

Whatever your lane looks like, there is a place for you in shaping what comes next.

The Union of Concerned Scientists recently released Unfinished Business, a report analyzing public comments submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on its 2024 “Interim Framework for Advancing Consideration of Cumulative Impacts.” I participated in this work and co-authored the report.

One lesson from that process stands out: the conversation about cumulative impacts needs to reach beyond the communities and the professionals who have traditionally been part of it.

Two constituencies, in particular, deserve much more attention: labor and public health practitioners. Workers—including unionized and blue-collar workers—experience cumulative exposures in their workplaces, homes, and communities. Public health practitioners, from policy implementers to doulas, see how those exposures translate into health consequences across a person’s life.

Bringing these perspectives into the conversation is not simply about expanding the list of stakeholders. It is about expanding what we are able to see—and, ultimately, what we are able to do.

Cumulative impacts helps us see the whole picture

Cumulative impacts assessment is a way to understand what is happening to people in a particular place over time by looking at multiple sources of burden and harm. After all, people do not experience environmental, health, economic, and social conditions one at a time.

Members of a community may be dealing with air pollution, flooding, heavy truck traffic, inadequate green space, housing instability, displacement, and human health concerns all at the same time . A worker may encounter exposures on the job that are compounded by conditions at home and in the neighborhood where they live.

Through a cumulative impacts approach, we can see these conditions together, and how they influence and compound each other.

That fuller picture helps us answer an important set of questions:

What needs to be done differently? Who needs to act? And how can their actions reinforce one another?

Changing conditions rarely depends on a single agency, program, or decision. It requires a constellation of partners—regulators, community organizations, elected and Tribal officials, public health practitioners, scientists, planners, environmental and justice organizations, labor, industry, philanthropy, academics, and others—to act within their respective authorities while working toward shared outcomes.

In this sense, cumulative impacts is not simply an assessment tool.

It can be a roadmap for coordinated action.

From a government-centered model to a constellation of partners

Much of our policy infrastructure remains government-centered. Agencies identify problems, develop programs, issue permits, enforce requirements, and allocate resources. Those functions remain essential. But many of the conditions that shape people’s lives cannot be changed by government alone. Effective implementation requires a broader constellation of actors, each bringing different knowledge, authority, resources, and experience.

The challenge, therefore, is not simply to explain cumulative impacts to these constituencies. It is to frame this approach in language that connects with what each constituency is trying to accomplish.

• For regulators, the entry point may be better decisions and better implementation of existing legal and policy mandates: Cumulative impacts gives agencies a practical way to translate existing mandates into better-informed decisions.
• For community organizers, the entry point is power, lived experience, and accountability: Cumulative impacts makes visible what communities already know—harms rarely occur one at a time.
• For community members, CI can give them a way to intervene in more specific ways. It says: Your community’s experience is evidence, and it matters.
• For elected officials, CI can help connect seemingly separate issues and make public investments and rules more strategic.
• For Tribal governments, cumulative impacts assessment can support the protection of people, places, resources, and ways of life—but the framework must be grounded in Tribal authority, knowledge, and priorities, rather than treating Tribes simply as another stakeholder.
• For scientists and technical experts, CI provides a framework for integrating quantitative, qualitative, spatial, temporal, and community-generated evidence.
• For public health practitioners, the entry point is prevention and population health: Health is shaped by exposures that accumulate across places and over time.
• For planners and local governments, CI can illuminate how land-use and infrastructure decisions interact—and help avoid adding new burdens to places already carrying disproportionate ones.
• And for industry and regulated entities, understanding cumulative conditions early can improve project planning, reduce conflict, and create a clearer basis for identifying feasible mitigation and community benefits.

Different entry points. Different language.

But one shared objective: better decisions that lead to better outcomes.

Without workers, nothing works

One constituency deserves particular attention: workers and organized labor.

Workers see conditions in ways that may escape the notice of other decision makers. They experience exposures at work, but those exposures do not stop at the workplace gate. Working conditions interact with housing, transportation, environmental exposures, wages, scheduling, job security, and conditions in the communities where workers live.

Cumulative impacts provide a framework for seeing those connections.

That means asking questions such as:

• How do specific workplace exposures interact with broader environmental exposures?
• How do job quality and working conditions affect overall health and resilience?
• How will changes in energy, transportation, climate, and industrial systems affect workers as well as communities?
• Do workers have a meaningful voice in decisions about new technologies, facilities, closures, redevelopment, and environmental protections?
• When an industry changes, what happens to the workers and communities that depend on it?

This is where cumulative impacts connects directly to the idea of a just transition.

We should not ask only whether an industry or facility is environmentally harmful. We should also ask: What happens to workers and communities when we change it—and who participates in designing what comes next?

Workers experience cumulative impacts, too.

Protecting the environment and protecting workers are not competing goals. They are both part of building healthy communities and good jobs.

Public health puts people in the picture

Public health offers another essential entry point. Environmental conditions become health conditions. Exposures accumulate across places and over time, and the consequences may appear differently across populations and across a person’s life course. A cumulative impacts approach can help public health practitioners connect those dots and identify opportunities for prevention.

This matters because public policy is one of the few mechanisms we have for changing the underlying conditions that shape health at a population level. People with greater resources may be better positioned to protect themselves from some risks—to move, purchase cleaner technologies, access better housing, or obtain specialized services. But individual strategies cannot substitute for effective public policy.

Changing the conditions that produce harm requires collective action and implemented policy. And while those harms may fall most quickly and most severely on some communities, the underlying conditions ultimately affect all of us.

From assessment to an integrated package of action

This is why I believe we need to shift the conversation about cumulative impacts from “What is CI?” to “How do we use CI?”

CI should not end with an assessment, a map, a report, or another layer of analysis.

The real test is what happens next.

Suppose an assessment identifies a community experiencing a high and disproportionate burden. The response might include:

• restrictions on new industrial sources;
• zero-emission truck corridors;
• lead abatement and asthma prevention programs;
• expansion of urban tree canopy;
• preservation of affordable housing;
• local hiring and green workforce development; and
• a community oversight board.

These actions may sit in different policy domains and may require different decision makers and sources of funding. But the cumulative impacts assessment can help show why they must be part of the same strategy.

That is the opportunity. Cumulative impacts can become a bridge among environmental protection, public health, housing, infrastructure, economic development, workforce policy, and community power. It can help us move from isolated interventions to integrated strategies. And it can help us move from identifying burdens to actually changing the conditions that produce them.

The next step is implementation

The future of cumulative impacts work should not be defined solely by how sophisticated our assessments become.

It should be defined by whether those assessments help communities, governments, workers, Tribes, public health practitioners, and other partners make different decisions—and whether those decisions produce measurable improvements in people’s lives.

That requires a broader conversation, a broader set of partners, and language that speaks to what each partner can contribute.

Cumulative impacts gives us a way to see the whole picture. The challenge now is to use that picture to act.

America’s global leadership in science has been built over decades through bipartisan investments in research, universities, and a federal workforce of scientists, physicians, and public health experts whose work has led to major medical advances and protection against disease.

This foundation is now being weakened, with thousands of federal scientists and public health professionals having been jettisoned by the Trump administration during the past year and a half, along with reductions in funding and the elimination of vital programs, research grants and clinical trials.

The costs of cutting American science are significant and will result in fewer life-saving treatments, diminished disease surveillance, slower responses to public health emergencies, reduced food and drug safety, and a declining ability to protect Americans from threats we cannot yet foresee.

One of the most alarming consequences that cannot easily be repaired is the loss of scientific talent and expertise that has taken decades to build up—a major brain drain of accumulated experience and leadership that has disappeared.

Between September 2024 and May 2026, the arbitrary workforce cutbacks totaled 21.6% at the National Institutes of Health, 22.2% at the Food and Drug Administration, 28.1% at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 35.3% at the National Science Foundation, and 72.1% at the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, according to analysis of data from the Office of Personnel Management. This loss of staffing includes senior leadership positions at many of these agencies, including the CDC and the NIH, where a majority of the top jobs have no permanent officials.

At the same time, morale at public health agencies has plummeted, with the Partnership’s Public Employee Viewpoint Survey showing that Department of Health and Human Services, where most of the public health agencies are located, registered an employee engagement score of just 20.4 out of 100 last year, placing it among the lowest-scoring large agencies.

This is because the day-to-day of the HHS employee has shifted from working to improve the health of Americans to censoring ideas, excluding already marginalized groups from the benefits of NIH programs, and endangering the American public. For many, whether to stay at the agency has become an impossible choice: abandon their mission and careers or risk degrading their integrity.

In addition, the Partnership analysis of USA spending data shows that project grant funding from public health and disease prevention agencies fell by 11.1% during fiscal year 2025. Even more striking, research and development contract funding from these agencies dropped by 49.4%. And at NIH, accounting changes—a shift to multiyear or forward funding, which puts the full grant amount on the government’s books in year one, instead of year-by-year as in the past—has resulted in NIH funding 24% fewer new research studies in 2025, with fewer scientists receiving project grants compared to 2024. All these NIH cuts also disproportionately affected women and racial, ethnic, and gender minority scientists who were already underrepresented in research.

When federal agencies lose scientists, physicians, epidemiologists, statisticians, and laboratory experts—and when medical research and public health funding is cut—the effects ripple throughout the entire scientific ecosystem.

The loss of this expertise has been accompanied by fewer research projects, fewer partnerships with universities and medical centers, fewer clinical studies, and fewer opportunities for scientific innovation, all of which will take many years and enormous resources to recover from, if recovery is even possible. It also has meant fewer experts monitoring emerging health threats before they become national crises. Another pandemic isn’t a matter of politics, it is just a matter of time.

Science often succeeds quietly. Vaccines prevent illnesses that never occur, food inspections stop outbreaks before families become sick, researchers identify dangerous pathogens before they spread widely, and drug reviewers ensure medicines reaching patients are both safe and effective. When prevention is weakened, the consequences eventually become painfully visible.

The recent outbreaks of cyclosporiasis, the resurgence of measles, the outbreak of hantavirus aboard a cruise ship, as well as the spread of Ebola in Africa remind us of the dangers we face as well as the importance of both having the ability to prevent, identify, and halt infectious disease outbreaks—responsibilities that have become more challenging with reduced staffing and fewer experts.

In the long term, the significant loss of scientific expertise and federal support will be measured in discoveries and medical advances never made, lives that might have been saved, and a nation less prepared for whatever public health challenge comes next.

The declining federal investment in science also will have a major impact on American economic competitiveness and our national security. Discoveries originating in federally supported laboratories have fueled biotechnology, pharmaceutical innovation, and countless medical advances that have improved lives, strengthened the economy and made America the world’s leading destination for scientific talent.

This American leadership is now being undermined, and rebuilding a lost generation of scientific expertise and investment will be far more difficult than dismantling it.

We should be unimpressed. Acting on this promise is overdue. Opportunities have risen, and they have deferred or demurred. The time has come to call their bluffs.    

For starters, these claims to care are just that: words, not promises. No single politician or regulatory agency, neither federal nor state, has the authority to keep all the costs from data centers out of consumers’ electric bills. However, the utilities and the data centers could address this head-on through their actions and protect consumers.  I assure you plenty of opportunities have sailed past without that happening. (It’s been nearly a year since I wrote about this “consensus” of concern, and little has been changed.) But now a case out of Maryland could finally shake the table.  

Pledges on pollution 

Before we get into the dark and murky world of how utility costs work their way into consumer rates and bills, it’s important to consider Big Tech’s push for  dirty energy choices and the obstacles deliberately enacted by data center companies to block informed decision-making. These controversies are capturing public attention, though the near-zero transparency from data centers themselves feels ironic given their branding as “information technologies.”  

Before these promises of consumer protection, companies set carbon goals. Amazon was a founder of the Climate Pledge, but now the headlines are “The Single Largest Pollution Source In The USA Going To Be An Amazon AI Data Center.”  “Net zero” now seems to describe the amount of information, not the carbon, emitted by data centers’ energy plans. 

In 2023, voluntary clean energy pledges were led by Meta, Google, Apple, Microsoft. But now we see Microsoft’s Chief Sustainability Officer explaining that “In 2020, Microsoft leaders referred to our [net-zero carbon] sustainability goals as a moonshot, and nearly five years later, we have had to acknowledge that the moon has gotten further away.” 

Running from climate responsibility makes no sense, given the enormous costs from continued burning of fossil fuels, projections from UCS on long-term cost savings from clean energy, strategies for adding renewables to power data centers, and the actual way Texas has handled rising demand from data centers with wind, solar plus storage.  

Our fights in the state regulatory reviews focus on:  

• Requiring data centers to disclose clean energy plans. 
• Prioritizing data centers with the most robust clean energy plans. 
• Keeping data centers accountable for their commitments. 

Pledges on costs 

While the data center companies and utilities seem to abandon climate goals, they have rolled out a variety of promises under the cover of a “Ratepayer Protection Pledge.” UCS experts dig through regulatory filings, transmission plans, and the arguments written by utilities, data center companies, and power plant owners every day. What are we finding? There are undisclosed deals for data centers and there are half-measures for consumers. We need the regulatory agencies that referee the arguments about who actually pays to call these bluffs. 

We have found, over and over, utilities and data companies arguing that the state regulators should not adjust who pays the costs brought by data center connections and increased need for power plants. For example, Microsoft argued in Illinois they should not be required to sign binding commitments to pay for the costs they cause.  This was after utility ComEd expressed concern about the huge demands from data centers.  

So, ComEd proposed requiring a security deposit from new data centers to ensure they get paid. Since the utility is always going to be paid, this helps recoup the costs caused by data centers that would be passed other ratepayers if the data center business fails. However, this didn’t change the practice of spreading to all customers the costs caused by the new data centers. Thus this is a half-measure, only addressing the risk that new these customers like Microsoft actually pay their bills.  

This safety-net for the utility is a repeating practice, with no actual cost-saving impact for ratepayers. ComEd’s parent company, Exelon, made related requests at the federal level. And yet, in those filings, nothing has changed to the existing practice of putting the transmission costs caused by new data centers into everyone else’s rates. In fact, Exelon says in its agreement with Amazon and other data centers that it will keep pursuing this spreading of costs.  

My work digging through just the grid upgrades to connect data centers in eight states found $4.6 billion in 2024 and $3.1 billion in 2025 committed by utilities, in full knowledge these costs will be paid by all their customers. More transmission costs caused by the same data centers, described below, are being challenged by the Maryland Office of People’s Counsel, the state consumer advocate. 

State regulatory efforts may exacerbate these harms 

The “move fast, break things” culture of Silicon Valley isn’t the approach utilities—or their regulators—take.   The unwillingness of regulators to push back and do more than the utilities’ proposals is extending the problem of costs falling on consumers rather than ending it.  

Perhaps the most egregious utility response is Entergy building 10 new, full-size gas-burning power plants for the data center Meta is building in Louisiana. Entergy relies on overly optimistic assumptions to justify claims that the costs put on consumers will be eventually offset by benefits. When UCS and allies sought relevant information regarding the data center’s energy demand and permanent job creation in Entergy’s proposal, Entergy and Meta refused to answer and fought a subpoena.   

UCS has also tried to get the Wisconsin Public Service Commission to wrangle data center recklessness better. The rules there don’t require real planning to lower costs to supply data centers. The Wisconsin utility We Energies announced delays in the retirement of the Oak Creek coal plant units multiple times.  

The Trump administration is undermining cost-saving measures 

The Trump Administration has been seeking a lot of attention for its data center policies and promises. When it comes to keeping costs lower, some of these are only rhetorical, and some are harmful.  

Three times (so far) this year, the White House has organized large, public events about consumer protections from data center costs. First, there was a statement of principles from the National Energy Dominance Council and 13 state governors in January 2026; the second, an original presidential proclamation of a Ratepayer Protection Pledge in March 2026; and then in July 2026 a new release of “Rate Payer Protection Pledge” with more signatures by company leaders.  

And yet, over the same period, the administration has made it harder to meet these goals by blocking renewable energy projects, reversing offshore wind leases, and cancelling clean energy grants—all of which would contribute more energy supply and help keep costs to consumers stable.  

How this falls on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

There is no mistaking that the federal government’s tools for utility consumer protection are found at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). In a dramatic rollout of supports for data centers, FERC explained: “To fulfill its responsibility, the Commission must act to address the risk of cost shifting among transmission customers for the service to…[data centers].”  

Note that FERC has not taken any of the opportunities previously available to them to stop utilities from raising customers’ rates to pay the costs caused by data centers. FERC agreed to utilities’ requests that there be protections for the utilities, like the one described above for ComEd that requires a data center pays the bills that the utility sends them. That is, for all their bluster about transparency and cost shifting, billions of costs will still go into the rates, and ratepayers will still have rate increases. 

So, after letting the opportunity pass, FERC is changing their tune. They have taken up the battle flag, calling for this exact reform in a series of “Show Cause” orders directed at utilities in the regional power grids from the Great Plains to the Northeast, plus California. However, without explanation, FERC omitted any mention or attention to protecting consumers in the Southeast and most of the West. Also, I see no guidance in the “Show Cause Orders” for what levels of protections FERC expects utilities to enact, and no discussions about upending the old practices.   

In fact, every indication so far from the federal government is that consumer protection is not happening. Fortunately, we have an opportunity to call the bluff. The Maryland Office of People’s Counsel filed a complaint at FERC, calling for them to separate the costs from Virginia, Ohio, and Pennsylvania data centers that have been falling on Maryland’s and other states’ consumers. 

The case Maryland brings 

The Maryland Office of People’s Counsel is the consumer protection agency in Maryland and is active in utility rate-setting cases. This case stems from the costs caused by utilities in neighboring states that committed to data centers in 2022, 2024, and 2025. These utilities’ actions caused commitments totaling “more than $22 billion in transmission capital expenditures for baseline projects, overwhelmingly driven by projected data center load growth.”  Their filing also cites UCS reporting on additional  transmission costs from data centers from 2024 and 2025 that added $7.7 billion more onto customer bills from another utility process. 

This is a pivotal opportunity to assign the costs back to the sources that caused them: data centers. The existing rules would spread the costs across the region make sense where the growth in demand is more evenly spread. That is the assumption that has supported the existing rules, and that assumption needs to be examined.  

This is the same as what FERC said June 18 in the “Show Cause Orders:” “In particular, we are concerned about: (1) transparency regarding the assignment of Network Upgrades, and their associated costs; and 2) [data center] customers are ultimately responsible for costs incurred to provide transmission service, including the cost of Network Upgrades.”  

This is such a rare case and a real chance for change: the murky, hard to find details are actually known, and the needed reforms align perfectly with  the goals the government has announced. 

This should be such an easy decision for the regulatory body to put the costs on the parties that cause them. If FERC took this step, then the state regulators could put these costs on the data centers—and then data centers would actually have to pay for what they need. In fact, state regulators don’t need to wait- each rate case is a fresh opportunity to sort and assign costs previously lumped together. Even quicker, the utilities and data companies could adhere to their pledges, and stop the cost-shifting before it starts. 

The standards it cannot set, the deadlines it cannot hold, the public it cannot consult, the experts it cannot employ, the grants it cannot fund, the enforcement it cannot conduct: for EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin, it has been a relentless pursuit of cannot. Or rather, cannot for the people, in service of can for a select polluting few.  

Nowhere is this clearer than in all the ways EPA is suddenly arguing that it cannot protect the public from a surge in pollution due to the rapid build-out of artificial intelligence (AI)-driven data centers and the increasing amounts of coal, gas, and diesel resources now being relied on to power them. So much so, in fact, that Administrator Zeldin has made slashing safeguards for AI-enabling infrastructure one of the five core pillars of his agency’s entire agenda for President Trump’s second term. 

This ethos of “cannot” is a staggering perversion of EPA’s mission. It is also incredibly consequential. 

Exactly as EPA is attempting to remove itself from the business of protecting the public, the public is being confronted by a massive onslaught of new fossil fuel-fired power plants, alongside an increasing reliance on existing gas and coal plants.  

The consequences for people’s health and the environment are severe: these are heavily polluting sources, yet the administration is frantically working to free them from basic pollution control requirements and shield them from public view. And because of the long lifetime of this infrastructure, if the Trump EPA gets its way, the result will be vastly more pollution today and for decades to come.  

Power sector scene-setting 

Right now, all across the country, tech companies are on the hunt for power. They are seeking enormous amounts of electricity to run energy-intensive new data centers, each equivalent in electricity use to the needs of entire cities. As these data centers rapidly hoover up any remaining surpluses of electricity supply, attention has turned to building out new sources of generation.  

Renewable resources, especially wind and solar generation alongside energy storage, are overwhelmingly the fastest and cheapest resources to deploy. Or at least, they should be.  

However, the Trump administration is actively, often illegally, holding back their deployment and antagonistically increasing their costs, while at the same time heavily pressuring companies to embrace the use of fossil fuels. As a result, while there are still large amounts of renewables and storage being added to the system, there is nowhere near as much as there could or should be—and there is a lot more new gas, both on the grid and, increasingly, off. Moreover, demand for gas plants is now so high, and regulatory accountability around resulting pollution is now so low, that it’s not “just” typical gas plants being built, either: it’s also far less efficient, far heavier polluting jet engines, reciprocating internal combustion engines, and what-should-be-back-up generators running full-out, full-time.  

And here’s what makes this bad situation even worse: the slashing of pollution standards is an entirely worthless dealing away of the public interest.  

Beyond the wrongness in principle, there’s also the wrongness in underlying fact. The thing that energy-seeking Big Tech is constrained by is rapid access to power, not cost of power. Their willingness to pay is incredibly high. If fossil-based power plants were rightly held accountable for their pollution harms, the tech companies would pay for plants employing pollution controls. They’d also, of course, be likelier to avoid more gas to start. And for the Trump administration, that’s the catch. 

It’s not about AI. It’s not about Big Tech. It’s about fossil fuels. More specifically, it’s about making fossil fuels win and renewable resources lose, as much for the benefit of special-interest polluters as for the chance to advance a grievance-born, anti-renewables agenda.  

How the Trump EPA is making it easier for data center-related power plants to pollute 

Here are just a few of the ways that EPA is wielding “cannot” to withdraw from the business of holding tech companies to account for the surging pollution generated by their energy-intensive, increasingly fossil-powered data centers. Staggeringly, these lists are not exhaustive. 

Rolling back regulations. Key regulatory rollbacks include:  

• Attempting to strip EPA’s basic ability to regulate power plant carbon dioxide emissions, not just repeal the standards set to limit those emissions (though the agency also proposed to cut those, too). 
• Dramatically weakening standards limiting emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) from new gas turbines. 
• Fully striking down rules that strengthened the regulation of mercury and other hazardous air pollutants from coal plants. 
• Proposing to significantly weaken regulations covering toxic wastewater discharged from coal plants and required handling of coal ash. 

Introducing new loopholes, delays, and exemptions. Where EPA has not been able to fully strike or weaken regulations—or to do so on as fast a timeline as it would like—it has adopted other approaches to achieve a similar effect, including: 

• Incorporating new loopholes to enable entire tranches of polluters to slip through; in the recent NOx rule, this included certain exemptions such as for temporary turbines and low-use turbines, as well as hard-coding a conditional exemption for an entire class of turbines if the agency lands a triple-bank-shot of a polluter handout.  
• Delaying implementation timelines until the agency can more fully dismantle the underlying regulations, such as for methane standards covering oil and gas operations (meaning the upstream supply of gas for power plants) as well as coal-related regulations.  
• Setting up a plug-and-play process for coal-fired power plants and other toxic polluters to receive a two-year exemption from complying with certain Clean Air Act requirements.  
• Easing restrictions around how and when emergency backup generators can be operated outside of emergency events.  
• Explicitly and proactively declaring that power plants operating in off-grid configurations fall outside of Acid Rain Program coverage.  
• Adopting a position of non-enforcement for regulations that it does not “prioritize,” in alignment with the broader Trump administration’s guidance to this effect. 

Cutting out the public. At the same time as EPA is rolling back regulations and polluter coverage, it is also attempting to make it harder for the public to be in the know and able to participate. This includes by: 

• Proposing to shield polluters from public awareness by removing a federal public notice-and-comment requirement for “minor” New Source Review-related pollution permits—which is frequently how data center-related fossil generation projects are classified, despite there being nothing minor about their overall pollution footprints.  
• Proposing to make it easier for large sources of pollution, including data center-related projects, to be built before the public has a say, by allowing significant facility construction to occur before actually obtaining a permit.  
• Repeatedly working to hide data around the magnitude, and impacts, of health- and climate-harming pollution, including by proposing to repeal requirements for polluters to measure and report carbon emissions; stopping the use of the social cost of carbon, which translates carbon emissions into economic impacts; and stopping the quantification of public health impacts from changing levels of key pollutants of concern, including particulate matter and ozone. 

This is a staggering array of actions—and it’s only a subset of what EPA is doing to further clear the path for polluting data center infrastructure, alongside so many other polluting industries. Furthermore, EPA’s work is only a subset of the broader administration’s pro-polluter, anti-accountability agenda.  

The consequences of these rollbacks will reverberate for decades 

In the absolute best of cases, the data center buildout would be shaped by an unequivocal prioritization of the public interest, intentional and long-range planning, rigorous standards, meaningful transparency, and a wholesale commitment to accountability—and even then, it would pose a massive challenge to navigate responsibly and effectively.  

Suffice it to say: now is not the best of cases. Indeed, across every one of these issues, the Trump administration is instead careening toward the very worst of cases.  

As a result, communities across the country are being asked to bear entirely avoidable harms and costs, in the here and now and for decades to come. This unchecked, fossil-heavy data center bender is on track to leave the country with a staggering hangover, full stop.  

What shameful, profligate waste.  

Yet there’s another implication, too. Even in the best-case scenario, not one of those interventions would begin to contend with addressing the societal risks and harms, nor capturing the potential opportunities, arising from the deployment of AI as enabled by these data centers. Addressing that gap should be one of the nation’s, and the world’s, foremost issues of the day. But because of the actions of the Trump administration, attention and expertise are being diverted to contend with this entirely preventable, entirely self-inflicted catastrophe instead. 

The necessary recourse, the only recourse, is for people to keep pushing back. To push back against disastrously consequential and inequitable regulatory proposals, to push back against lawmakers enabling this pro-polluter agenda, to push back against reckless and unaccountable projects.  

To push back against an EPA that repeatedly asserts it cannot for the American people, and instead demand an EPA that can.  

This scheme keeps huge chunks of clean energy offline, with real consequences. Here’s where things stand, by the numbers: 

• 5 = number of offshore wind developers involved in the “settlements” 
• 12 = number of leases involved 
• $3.9 billion = amount of US taxpayer money being used for the buyouts 
• 21,000 = megawatts (MW) of potential offshore wind capacity lost without the lease areas 
• 6–8 million = approximate number of households the lost offshore wind capacity could have served, at a minimum 

Add to those figures the number of jobs that aren’t being created as a result of the buyouts, and the economic development that evaporates: a single 1000 MW project could generate more than 3,000 jobs and some $9 billion in US economic output. Also lost in these transactions is the potential for offshore wind to help homes and businesses manage or even cut their energy costs with stably priced power for the long term, while displacing dirty fossil fuel generation and improving the resilience of regional power grids in the face of extreme weather. 

Broken leases, broken laws? 

There’s another important figure that should be on the list in considering this woefully misguided push to take offshore wind off the table: the number of laws that the administration has broken in these deals.  

That last number is still to be determined, but some of those potential laws are the basis of suits against the administration that have been, or are about to be, filed by states that are counting on offshore wind to meet their energy and climate needs. One such case is New York et al., filed in June by New York Attorney General (AG) Letitia James and the attorneys general of six other Northeast states in response to the first of these buyouts. That “deal” involved two leases held by TotalEnergies, one off New York and the other off North Carolina. In July, based on two subsequent buyouts, eight states in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic, led by Massachusetts AG Andrea Campbell, filed “Notices of Intent to Sue”. California AG Rob Bonta similarly announced the state’s intent to sue over two of the deals involving leases off its shores. 

The illegality of the buyouts is also the subject of various oversight pushes by members of Congress. Those include communications from the Ranking Member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), and multiple communications from the Ranking Members of the Natural Resources and Judiciary Committees of the House of Representatives, Jared Huffman (D-CA) and Jamie Raskin (D-MD), respectively. Other members of Congress followed on with additional questions about some of the deals. 

Here is a taste of some of these laws—and how they may have been broken.  

Administrative Procedure Act – “Arbitrary and capricious” actions don’t fly 

Congress passed the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) in the mid-20^th century “to improve the administration of justice by prescribing fair administrative procedure.” These buyout deals have failed that test in many ways, according to the AGs and members of Congress. 

In their complaint in New York et al., for example, the attorneys general contend that the TotalEnergies New York lease cancellation “is arbitrary and capricious, is not in accordance with law, and occurred without observance of procedure as required by law.” 

If that “arbitrary and capricious” phrase seems familiar, it’s because it is one that has shown up often in court decisions that have struck down other illegal Trump administration actions. Those include the cases involving the “stop work” orders that the administration issued in December 2025 against the five offshore wind projects under construction at the time. The judges for each of the five cases allowed the projects to get back to work after ruling that the administration had shown no good cause for the stoppages. 

In the New York et al. case, plaintiffs similarly argue that “Defendants failed to (1) provide a reasoned explanation for cancelling the Lease; (2) explain their change in position or account for New York’s reliance interests; (3) address alternative means of achieving their objectives; or (4) provide a genuine justification for their actions.” The filing explains in detail each piece of the administration’s actions that appear arbitrary and capricious, and each piece of the other alleged violations of the APA. 

The letter from Reps. Huffman and Raskin, too, points to the APA, noting that the timing of some of the lease buyout processes suggest that the Department of the Interior (DOI) may have illegally relied on a rationale that they didn’t actually have at the time they made their decision: “DOI’s excuse of national security to cancel offshore wind leases may have been fabricated to justify the deal after it was already sealed,” whereas under the APA, “an agency cannot rely on a justification it did not actually have when it made its decision.” 

National Environmental Policy Act – Impacts and alternatives have to be considered  

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires that “all federal agencies … prepare detailed statements assessing the environmental impact of and alternatives to major federal actions significantly affecting the environment.” The statements can be either environmental assessments (EAs) or, for larger projects, environmental impact statements (EISs). These reviews have to provide the opportunity for public comment and consider alternatives.  

Aas the New York et al. plaintiffs point out, the DOI did not prepare an EA or EIS, did not include opportunities for the public to comment, nor did they give consideration of alternatives to proposed actions. Given that the deal in question involves getting rid of a large quantity of offshore wind energy, with all of the implications for the environment that would entail, plaintiffs suggest it is clearly “a major federal action requiring Interior Defendants to consider the impacts of and alternatives to their action.”  

Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act – Laws don’t stop at the water’s edge  

The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA), which governs how the federal government manages the seabed off our coasts, features prominently in each of these legal and oversight efforts. The plaintiffs in Massachusetts et al., for example, point out that to cancel a lease under OCSLA, the DOI would be required “to hold a hearing and specifically find that continuing the lease would likely cause serious harm to life, property, national security, or the environment, and further determine that the benefits of cancellation outweigh the benefits of allowing the lease to continue.”  

That didn’t happen. 

As the Mass. et al., New York et al., and California AGs each point out, the law also requires coordination with the governor of any state on any action that “has a direct and significant effect on the outer Continental Shelf or its development.”  

That likewise didn’t happen.  

California underscored the importance of OCSLA for ensuring that the state “gets a say in the offshore wind leasing program and prevent corrupt backroom deals.” 

Judgment Fund Act – The settlement fund isn’t a slush fund 

One of the biggest apparent legal deficiencies of the buyout deals is the source of the funds. The Judgment Fund Act provides resources for settlements coming out of lawsuits or likely lawsuits against the United States. 

The New York et al. plaintiffs note that the settlement fund is for use for compromise settlements between “adverse parties”—and that in this case, there hadn’t been any lawsuit against the administration by the offshore wind leaseholder. As Sen. Whitehouse notes, there was “no evidence that Total had filed any claim in any forum against DOI or any other agency of the US government,” and no evidence of any imminent litigation.  

Sen. Whitehouse and others also point out that the judgment fund is usable only in situations where there aren’t options—which appears not to be the case here, given that OCSLA includes provisions for canceling leases and potentially providing compensation. Reps. Huffman and Raskin state that the Total deal “violates federal law because it does not adhere to the congressionally determined formula for calculating compensation for cancelled leases,” and that “OCSLA is the governing statute in this case.” 

Another challenge to the legality of the deals based on the Judgment Fund is the apparent lack of serious Department of Justice (DOJ) involvement, which would be a prerequisite for tapping the Judgment Fund. Per Reps. Huffman and Raskin, the “only public role” in the Total case for DOJ was a quote from then-US Attorney General Pam Bondi in the press release announcing the deal. 

Antideficiency Act – Agencies can’t spend money that’s not theirs  

The money piece of the buyouts also brings in another important law. The Antideficiency Act “prohibits federal agencies from obligating or expending federal funds in advance or in excess of an appropriation.”—ssentially, agencies can’t spend more than they’ve been given. Sen. Whitehouse points out that “no relevant bureau or office within DOI has sufficient funds to pay Total the nearly $1 billion it has been promised.” 

The New York et al. plaintiffs similarly claim that the NY lease buyout is “in excess of statutory authority” because there’s no law that would authorize them to enter into such a “sham settlement agreement to unlawfully cancel an offshore wind lease and redirect the money paid for the lease to a separate, unauthorized use favored by the President”—in these cases, investment in fossil fuel projects. 

On the broader issue of the “settlement” in the absence of a judicial proceeding, and the source and use of the funds, the letter from Reps. Huffman and Raskin further spell out all kinds of ways this approach, if legal, could be used—including supplanting oil leases with renewable energy investments, for example. “The only requirements would be a hypothetical thread, a side agreement, and a check drawn from a permanent, uncapped federal account that Congress never authorized for this purpose.”  

Under those circumstances, they say, the Judgment Fund could become “the ultimate political slush fund.” The Antideficiency Act “exists to prevent exactly this kind of executive waste, fraud, and abuse.” 

And more 

If this recitation of legal impediments makes the likely illegality of the Trump administration’s actions seem readily apparent, that notion may not be lost on the administration either. These agreements include explicit clauses that claim courts can’t review these agreements in most cases.  

Reps. Huffman and Raskin say in their letter to Total’s CEO that including that language is “not only legally ineffective but almost certainly unconstitutional,” and that its inclusion “suggests that DOI and you both knew this deal was indefensible” and “is itself evidence of consciousness of wrongdoing.”  

What’s next 

Despite the apparent illegality of each of the deals, the most recent “settlement” may not be the last of them, given how enamored the administration seems to be with this approach. That makes legal and oversight efforts like these all the more important.  

On the judicial front, New York et al. is likely to be followed by lawsuits from the group led by Massachusetts and from California based on the Intent to Sue notices, once each has passed the 60-day waiting period required by OCSLA. Other suits may follow. Congressional investigations in parallel with those efforts can help draw more attention to everything lost if the Trump transactions stick. Recently introduced legislation could also get those offshore wind leases back into circulation. 

All of the filings and documents point to one thing: a strong suspicion, based in law, that this scheme is yet another example of the Trump administration using a wrecking ball without regard to process or to legality. Or to the workers, households, businesses, and communities hurt by these reckless decisions. And, again: all with US taxpayer money.

President Trump’s strong authoritarian tendencies have hit the US energy sector, as they have other areas of the economy. For offshore wind, establishing which or how many of these various laws his administration is actually breaking in these buyout deals is key to stopping this brazen attempt to cut the legs out from under a key source of clean renewable energy. 

Offshore wind is too powerful a source—of jobs, energy savings and resilience, community development, and clean renewable energy—for it not to be allowed to live up to its potential.  

Thanks to UCS Schneider Clean Energy Fellow Riya Bhatia for the research help for this post.

There is also a general lack of transparency by the industry as a whole; Google, Amazon, Microsoft and other tech companies often work through subsidiaries to build data centers, “masking their presence and revealing little about the resources that the facilities consume.” There is no central database providing information for the numbers of data centers currently in operation, under construction, or in the planning stages. And there is no accountability for data center developers and utilities who may see the current landscape as an opportunity for profit.  

For our own data center analysis, UCS used electricity demand projections developed by Evolved Energy Research (which itself draws from a database of existing data centers from Baxtel), and we supplemented this data with news reports about announced projects and utility filings from both public sources and private databases. Private (read, costly) databases such as S&P Global and BloombergNEF have information about individual projects, but these databases are not complete.

We additionally made assumptions about which proposals might be built using data from an Independent System Operator (ISO) and from data purchased from S&P Global. This was not a straightforward process and was in the end both time consuming and costly. Ultimately the electricity demand projections were in the range of other bottom-up projections from national labs and industry studies. And after all of this effort, our projections quickly became outdated as the data center market is rapidly evolving, underscoring the need for both dedicated and transparent reporting by data center developers.  

Without access to precise information on where data centers may be built and how they are operated, utility planners, grid operators, federal, regional, state and local agencies and researchers end up using their best guess at approximations and projections of how much electricity is required at specific places and times, which could lead to inaccurate conclusions, and risks saddling ratepayers and utilities with unneeded costly fossil fuel plants – not what you want when you are making investment decisions that could last for 30 years or more.  

Inaccurate data about electricity demand leads to poor planning of infrastructure expansion. Over-building leads to higher short-term costs and heat-trapping emissions, while under-building leads to reliability issues. Long-term, both lead to even more costs when the problems must inevitably be fixed. 

Developers are rushing to build data centers and are asking utilities to keep up with their proposed increased power requirements. This is a particular problem in many parts of the country;  in states that UCS studied like Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, Louisiana, and California, state planning for utilities can have additional challenges (such as having no state Integrated Resource Planning (IRP) process, interstate electricity trading that could lead to even more fossil electricity generation, or states that fast tracked electricity infrastructure for data centers with minimal planning).

The lack of transparency and accountability around data centers in these states and others compounds potential problems with poor planning: utilities can over-build infrastructure, delay coal plant retirements, and can unnecessarily invest in fossil gas capacity. This is costly to consumers, increases pollution, and negatively impacts the health of communities. Communities are often either not provided with information on data center energy use, water consumption, and pollution produced or are straight up given misinformation about data center impacts. Some data centers are proposed in communities that already experience high levels of pollution from energy generation, potentially exacerbating already existing problems. But the possibility of billion dollar investments by data center operators in communities and the lack of planning can cause local decisionmakers to overlook very real risks.  

These policies across many states and at the federal level risk setting us up for a future dependent on fossil fuels. Often, states see data centers as a way to promote local economic growth, spur job creation and increase local tax revenues. State and local governments have been offering data center developers tax discounts and other incentives. These tax breaks have led to massive data center growth in states with larger incentives.

But some states are now beginning to pause (or having the appearance of pausing) and rethink data center-related policies. Texas is seeing a huge loss in state revenue: the Texas governor announced a pause on new data centers for the state Public Utility Commission (PUC) and ERCOT to conduct an audit of projects to be approved, but has allowed the giant Meta $10 billion 1 GW, enough to power 750,000 average US households, data center project to move forward. Minnesota rolled back its data center tax incentives, removing the data center electricity exemption from the state sales tax. Wisconsin removed some data center financing incentives from two municipalities. And New York is the first state to impose a temporary moratorium (through July 2027) on building new data centers of 50 MW or larger until the state has had a chance to evaluate the potential impacts.   

It’s encouraging that these states are slowing down data center development to listen to the concerns of communities, but we also need to do more to ensure a clean, affordable, and healthy electricity system for the electricity load that is imminent. Our recent analysis has shown that the US can meet increased demand from data centers primarily with clean energy while simultaneously phasing down fossil fuels. But we need strong policies to support and accelerate a clean energy transition. And we also need best practices and policy and regulatory changes at the federal, state and regional levels to ensure accountability and smart planning around data centers.  

Increase data center transparency and accountability 

State and federal policymakers need to require that data center developers and utilities be transparent in their contract negotiations and eliminate non-disclosure agreements. There should be public proceedings (with enough notice for communities to make informed decisions) for power purchase agreements and grid interconnections between data centers and utilities. Data centers need to publicly report and be held accountable for their electricity needs, water use, land use, onsite and induced emissions, and other data. Data centers need to be held accountable for any hazardous reliability, environmental, or public health impacts. 

There are some moves at the national level to try to improve data center reporting. The North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) is moving to require that data centers become registered entities and is currently drafting reliability standards for data centers.  

The NERC draft standards are to establish modeling data requirements, verification, and reporting procedures by data center owners, to ensure that grid operators and utility planners have the site data and information they need from data center owners to “plan, monitor, and assess the reliable operation” of the power system, and to have “adequate data available” from data center owners to ensure reliability and resource adequacy. These NERC standards are a good first step, but the information the data center owners are providing to meet these standards are confidential to NERC and are only focused on grid reliability. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) is also working to collect energy usage data from data centers. At the state and local level, there are efforts to prohibit lawmakers from signing NDAs and some state public utility commissions/public service commissions are working to not allow (as happened in Michigan) utilities to connect data centers through ex parte processes. These efforts should be widely adopted and become standard practice for all data center proposals. 

Require utilities to conduct transparent long-term planning to include data centers 

States need to require utilities to create long-term integrated resource plans (IRPs) that include transparent reporting of electricity demand from data centers, including any projected demand increases (this should cover any projected increases in load including data centers, population changes, changes due to electrification, etc.). Currently only 27 states are considering legislation to regulate data centers. It is important to conduct detailed modeling and analysis to make investment decisions for electricity generation to meet both electricity demand and any state climate and clean energy policies.

These plans, and the assumptions that went into the analysis for the IRPs, need to be made public. State regulators need to demonstrate to their communities that investments made in electricity generation are well planned, to minimize the risk of over- or underbuilding the electricity system. Data center developers need to be held accountable for the additional costs to the electricity system due to their increased load. There should be requirements around new data center loads to eliminate speculation so that rate payers are not stuck with the costs of over-building.  

There is a lot of uncertainty if the increase in electricity demand due to data centers is going to continue, or if the AI bubble is going to “pop”. Investments in data centers and AI infrastructure has greatly exceeded data center revenue, which is worrying investors. When the AI bubble bursts we will be stuck with way more electricity generating capacity and other data center infrastructure than we need: investments that are “stranded” and beg the question of who pays the bill. As these IRPs are being developed, utilities should be cautious and need to place more emphasis on near-term projects that have already made significant financial commitments.  

The data center boom is currently outpacing our electricity system’s ability to respond, already driving up electricity rates. Our federal, state and local governments need time to evaluate our complex electricity system, with its aging and polluting infrastructure and increasing electricity demand. We need accurate data enforced through standardized reporting requirements to make informed investment decisions for the size and type of new electricity generating capacity to build, where and when to meet this new demand, to keep electricity costs affordable and to limit the impacts of climate change.

This degree of data transparency must also be extended to water use and other environmental impact reporting. We need good data to develop policies to encourage investments in renewable energy and keep electricity costs affordable. Accurate data is essential for developing smart plans and making informed decisions to provide all consumers with clean affordable power. The first step to ensuring clean and affordable energy for consumers is an informed group of decision-makers that keep AI and utilities accountable for their impacts and investments to our grid.