The Trump administration has reconstituted the U.S. Global Change Research Program, placing Matthew Wielicki, a former University of Alabama geochemist and self-proclaimed “professor in exile,” at its head. Wielicki, known for his social media critiques of climate science, will now oversee the congressionally mandated National Climate Assessment, a comprehensive report detailing climate change's impact on American infrastructure, lives, and the economy.
The White House issued a statement asserting, “For too long, the USGCRP has been used as a vehicle for political agendas instead of sound science,” adding, “We look forward to restoring the USGCRP and ensuring it fulfills its legal mandate.” This move follows the program's gutting last year, a clear effort to redirect its findings away from any conclusions that might threaten accumulated wealth.
Protecting Capital's Profits
The U.S. Global Change Research Program, established 36 years ago under former President George H.W. Bush, coordinates federal climate research across more than a dozen agencies. Its reports are not merely academic exercises; they directly shape environmental rules, legislation, and infrastructure projects. Crucially, the assessment is “frequently cited in climate litigation” and used to justify regulations as well as lawsuits against fossil fuel companies.
White House Budget Director Russ Vought, writing in the Project 2025 conservative policy handbook, has long characterized the program as a source of “climate alarmism.” He advocates for greater White House control over its output, revealing the state's intent to manage information that could challenge corporate interests. Wielicki himself has appeared in conservative media, stating that a “significant portion of the climate science literature is nothing more than stamp collecting” and suggesting climate scientists falsify data.
Last month, deadly heat waves killed over 2,000 people in Europe, the continent climate data shows is warming fastest. Wielicki, however, recently questioned on X, “Does anyone else find it odd that the region with the highest concentration of climate activists, climate policies, climate conferences, climate taxes, and climate emergency declarations is also the place allegedly warming the fastest?” Such statements directly contradict established scientific consensus, serving to sow doubt and prevent collective action.
The State's Distortions
Last year, the Trump administration published a climate report organized by Energy Secretary Chris Wright. This report, written by researchers who downplayed climate change effects, relied on work that dozens of scientists criticized as misleading and error-ridden. These same researchers were invited to participate in the National Climate Assessment process, where they spent time criticizing previous versions of the report.
Wright's hand-picked researchers proposed a new National Climate Assessment emphasizing the "positive aspects of climate change," according to a document from court filings. Judith Curry, one of the scientists selected by Wright, called the last assessment “all but useless” due to its reliance on “extreme emissions scenarios.” She expects the forthcoming report to expand on the DOE report's work and will provide “high-level advice” for its crafting.
In the first Trump administration, a National Climate Assessment was released, which Trump later stated he did not “believe” was accurate. That report, along with all previous versions, was deleted after Trump’s second term began, erasing inconvenient facts from public record. Michael Kuperberg, the program's executive director during Trump’s first term, noted that political appointees then claimed they wouldn't interfere. Now, the administration openly manipulates the process.
Kuperberg warned that cherry-picking a small group of people to produce an inaccurate assessment will degrade public trust in government research. “The real risk here is the loss of integrity of the federal government,” he stated, highlighting how the state's apparatus is being weaponized to protect specific economic interests at the expense of scientific truth and public welfare.