Climate Action
5 Ways President Trump is Trying to Dent Reality of Climate Change
September 25, 2025
Climate change is not an opinion. It is not political. It is not a belief. Whether or not we want to believe that it is happening, it is happening. Over 99.9% of active climate scientists agree that human activity, such as burning fossil fuels, are the main contributors to the rise in global temperature. And yes there is overwhelming scientific evidence dictating that the average global temperature is increasing.
Despite this overwhelming consensus, the current administration in the U.S. has been very outspoken about their skepticism towards the reality of climate change and have decided to call it a ‘con’ , a hoax or a ‘lie’.
I believe in clean air. Immaculate air…. But I don’t believe in climate change.
President Donald Trump – Newsweek
Since the 1970s, and the passing of the Clean Air Act and its subsequent amendments, air quality in the U.S. has improved, with air toxins declining 78%. It has been the actions of the Environmental Protection Agency in regulating air pollutants that’s driven these declines in major pollutants including lead, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, and particulate matter.
Even with these gains, health issues caused by burning fossil fuels has been estimated to cost $820 billion annually in the US alone. Yet, President Trump currently aims to roll back more than 125 environmental rules and policies.
As New York Climate Week takes off, we should look at the things we stand to lose if we do not acknowledge climate change and take efforts to mitigate it.
1) US Department of Agriculture and the Roadless Rule
The current administration is moving to axe the 2001 Roadless Rule, which currently protects nearly 45 million acres of national forest land, owned effectively by every American citizen both now and in the future, from deforestation by road-building and logging.
U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Brooke L. Rollins called it “too rigid” and wants to open up areas like Alaska’s Tongass National Forest, where 92% of the land is protected from logging. That’s nearly 9.3 million acres of wild forest now vulnerable to chainsaws.
Supporters claim it would reduce wildfire risk, but scientists argue that logging can actually increase wildfire risk. Removal of the large, older trees might give lots of young trees room to grow, but many of them end up dying and then drying out. Without the canopy, the sun and wind dry the entire area more, making it easier for fires to start and to spread.
Not to mention, logging forests seriously impacts climate change. Trees absorb carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere as they grow and store it in their trunks, branches, leaves, and roots in a process known as carbon sequestration. This carbon can be stored for centuries in healthy, living forests.
But when trees are cut down, much of that carbon is released back into the atmosphere. Once the tree is logged, its organic material starts to decompose, releasing carbon as carbon dioxide. Some carbon is also released immediately when wood is burned. Logging equipment and transport trucks run on fossil fuels, adding even more emissions.
In total, America’s national forests offset about 10-15% of all U.S. carbon emissions each year; so losing this environmental safeguard will have a massive impact on climate change.
This is not all, trees also catch air particulates through their plant pores or when particles stick to their “skin.” Which means trees are actually good for our health too. In fact, people who live around trees are healthier overall. Less trees means a decline in air quality which is linked to asthma, heart disease, and respiratory illnesses. Water pollution caused by deforestation contaminates drinking sources, contributing to the spreading of diseases like cholera and dysentery. Plus, forest loss may increase outbreaks of malaria and other mosquito-borne diseases.
Bottom line: Fewer protections = more logging = more carbon = worse health.
2) Climate Change Satellite
NASA’s Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO-2) is like the Google Maps of greenhouse gases, tracking how carbon dioxide moves through our atmosphere with pinpoint accuracy. It has revolutionized climate science, helping scientists, farmers, and even oil companies understand how CO2 is absorbed or released by forests, crops, and oceans.
But the Trump administration are not fans? They want to burn it up in the atmosphere. Literally.
Despite glowing reviews from NASA, calling OCO-2 the “flagship mission for spaceborne measurements” of carbon dioxide, the Trump White House asked the agency to draft plans to end the mission by incinerating the satellite. Never mind that it cost tax payer’s money $750 million to design, build and launch it, and only costs about $15 million a year to keep running (that’s less than the cost of one F-35 fighter jet tire.)
Even worse, they’re eyeing both OCO satellites, including one still operating from the International Space Station. Losing them would destroy one-of-a-kind data that’s used for tracking droughts, managing crops, and even forest health. Scientists are stunned. One called the satellite a “national asset”, another warning that destroying it would cripple science.
And here’s the kicker: These satellites have enough fuel to keep running for decades, but instead of letting them do their job, President Trump is pushing to kill them off, possibly illegally, by trying to cancel programs already funded by Congress.
Tearing things down doesn’t make [America] great again. It just tears things down.
Dr. David Crisp, former NASA scientist and architect of the OCO missions, LA Times
3) Soft Banning of Climate Research
Fulbright was once the gold standard of academic exchange.
But in 2025, the U.S. State Department quietly added a political ‘review’ to the Fulbright selection process. Projects that mention climate change or anything deemed “woke” are now flagged and often rejected, even if they had already been approved by international panels.
This is not just a U.S. issue; it is a global one. In Norway, seven out of seventeen Fulbright finalists were suddenly cut. Applicants weren’t told why they were rejected. Many only found out later, through leaks and whispers, that their projects were likely caught by a keyword filter run by a Trump appointee – the key words being ‘climate change’. In one case, a proposal about science education was thrown out because it mentioned that boys and girls see climate change differently.
Even current Fulbright participants are being hurt; many Fulbright scholars woke up this year not to their usual stipend payments, but to emails saying their funding had been frozen indefinitely. The Trump administration quietly paused payments for thousands of U.S. and international students in State Department–funded programs, leaving them scrambling to cover rent, food, and basic expenses.
Some are now stranded without the ability to work due to visa restrictions, while others fear going home means giving up their studies. Officially, the freeze was supposed to last 15 days, but that was back in February, 2025. Students have been told not to speak to the media, but behind the scenes, many say they feel abandoned, stuck in academic limbo while the administration conducts vague “reviews” tied to Trump’s anti-DEI executive orders.
Is this an ill-time academic review process or ideological screening? Trump’s State Department isn’t banning climate research outright. But they are quietly burying it, one proposal at a time.
4) Signs in National Parks
National parks are supposed to tell the story of America’s landscapes, but under Trump, that story is being rewritten with a red pen.
In 2025, the Trump administration directed the National Park Service to flag or remove any signs, exhibits, or books that might “disparage Americans”, including signs about climate change, pollution, sea-level rise, and environmental destruction.
At North Carolina’s Cape Hatteras National Seashore, a “The Air We Breathe” sign warning about how humans have caused climate change was flagged for possibly not focusing enough on the “beauty and grandeur” of the landscape. Given humans have caused climate change, by pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere faster than ever before, this seems like an extremely petty move.
The Interior Department says it’s just “reviewing” signs, but internal docs show a plan to remove or cover signage. A project called “Save Our Signs,” has seen the public snapping photos of the original signs before they disappear, in the hope they can be reinstalled by future administrations.
[Removing these signs] limits the ability for our population, especially for the younger generation, to understand these issues that allow them to then take action.
Carlos Martinez, a climate scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists, AP News
5) The Endangerment Finding
In July 2025, Trump’s EPA Administrator, Lee Zeldin, announced plans to “reconsider” one of the most important climate safeguards in U.S. history: the 2009 Endangerment Finding, which gives the EPA the power to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. Take it away, and the EPA can’t regulate climate pollution.
Zeldin declared proudly – “We are driving a dagger through the heart of climate-change religion.”
He claims that the Finding was “unorthodox”(despite being by the book), claims U.S. vehicle emissions weren’t a big enough contributor to matter (in 2022, 29% of greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. came from the transportation sectors, the vast majority of which were from cars and truck emissions), and points to recent Supreme Court decisions, none of which actually overturn the EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases.
Massachusetts v. EPA, the landmark 2007 case that required the EPA to regulate pollution that endangers public health, still stands. Zeldin’s EPA just doesn’t want to follow it.
They also say “new science” justifies reopening the case; but in reality, that science makes climate action more urgent. Not less.
When the real toll of climate change runs into the hundreds of billions and includes countless human lives, a claim that this proposal will save $54 billion in costs annually is not only insufficient, but morally shortsighted.
The reality is you can deny anything but that doesn’t make it go away – if it is real. Climate change is real … .and we need a grown up government that accepts that and stops pandering to the greed of a few fossil fuel CEOs.
Make your voice heard and Vote Earth. You can register to vote here.
This article is available for republishing on your website, newsletter, magazine, newspaper, or blog. The accompanying imagery is cleared for use. Please ensure that the author’s name and their affiliation with EARTHDAY.ORG are credited. Kindly inform us if you republish so we can acknowledge, tag, or repost your content. You may notify us via email at [email protected] or [email protected]. Want more articles? Follow us on substack.
