🔴 Website 👉 https://u-s-news.com/
Telegram 👉 https://t.me/usnewscom_channel
Trump administration slashes $4 million from Princeton’s climate research program, labeling it a promoter of “exaggerated climate threats” while systematically dismantling federal climate initiatives nationwide.
At a Glance
- The Department of Commerce has cut $4 million in funding for Princeton University’s climate research programs, specifically targeting the Cooperative Institute for Modeling the Earth System
- The White House has ended the U.S. Global Change Research Program, a 34-year-old federal climate initiative that produces the National Climate Assessment
- The Trump administration has withdrawn U.S. scientists from United Nations climate assessments and cancelled the government’s contract with climate research firm ICF
- Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick stated the cuts are part of efforts to “streamline and reduce the cost and size of the Federal Government”
Princeton Funding Cut Signals Broader Climate Policy Shift
The Trump administration has cut $4 million in federal funding from Princeton University’s climate research programs, marking a significant step in the administration’s systematic dismantling of federal climate initiatives. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick announced the decision after what he described as “a detailed, careful, and thorough review of the Department’s financial assistance programs against the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) current program objectives.” The funding termination specifically targets the Cooperative Institute for Modeling the Earth System (CIMES), which has been involved in oceanic and atmospheric model development.
In his statement, Lutnick explained that these programs “are no longer aligned with the program objectives of NOAA, a sub-agency of the Department of Commerce, and are no longer in keeping with the Trump administration’s priorities.” The Department of Commerce specifically criticized CIMES for promoting what it called “exaggerated and implausible climate threats” and contributing to “climate anxiety” among the public. This stance aligns with President Trump’s consistent skepticism of climate change alarmism and his administration’s energy policies.
Global Climate Assessment Participation Halted
Beyond domestic funding cuts, the administration has withdrawn U.S. scientists from key United Nations climate change assessments, effectively ending American participation in global climate governance bodies. The U.S. will not be represented at upcoming Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) plenary meetings, marking a complete reversal from previous administrations. This decision aligns with President Trump’s earlier withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement and his reduction of international climate funding commitments.
“The power of the IPCC is that governments, businesses, and global institutions can operate with shared conclusions. The U.S. being completely removed from that process is concerning,” said Delta Merner of the Union of Concerned Scientists.
The absence of American experts, data, and influence in these international forums represents a strategic shift in how the administration approaches climate science on the world stage. Environmental advocates worry this creates a leadership vacuum, while supporters of the administration view it as properly rebalancing American interests against international climate activism that often targets U.S. energy production and economic growth.
Dismantling of U.S. Global Change Research Program
The White House has now moved to completely end the U.S. Global Change Research Program, a federal initiative established by Congress in 1990 that has served as the government’s primary climate change research mechanism. The program, which has received billions in taxpayer dollars over its existence, produces the National Climate Assessment that has guided climate-related policy decisions across multiple federal agencies. By cancelling the program’s contract with consulting firm ICF, the administration has effectively halted its operations.
“ICF has produced assessments riddled with worst-case scenarios, obfuscating the assumptions underlying dire predictions about what the planet will be like in 100 years,” stated an administration source familiar with the decision.
The cancellation follows a detailed investigation by The Daily Wire into the program’s spending practices and its outsized reliance on ICF. According to sources within the administration, ICF’s contract termination has “forever severed” climate change work occurring across federal agencies. One scientist critical of the arrangement noted that “by providing all staff for the USGCRP, a federal agency, the ICF exerts undue influence over the global change narrative and priorities presented by the federal government.” With no future National Climate Assessment now expected, the administration has essentially removed a major cornerstone of federal climate policy infrastructure.
Executive Action Targets State Climate Initiatives
Looking beyond federal programs, President Trump has also signed an executive order directing the Justice Department to challenge state and local climate policies that his administration considers burdensome to American energy production. The order specifically targets laws in states like Michigan, Colorado, and Minnesota that mandate electricity from carbon-free sources, as well as carbon pricing schemes in California, Washington State, and Northeastern states. This represents an unprecedented federal intervention in state-level environmental regulations.
“These State laws and policies are fundamentally irreconcilable with my Administration’s objective to unleash American energy. They should not stand,” stated President Trump when signing the order.
The executive action has already prompted resistance from several state attorneys general who have labeled it “lawless” and vowed to fight federal interference. Colorado Attorney General Philip J. Weiser expressed the sentiment of many state officials when he stated, “We don’t want Washington, D.C., telling us we can’t govern the way we see fit.” The resulting legal battles will likely determine the future relationship between federal and state authority on climate and energy policy, with potentially far-reaching implications for America’s approach to environmental regulation and energy development.