Matthew Wielicki, a former University of Alabama geochemist who calls himself a “professor in exile,” now heads the U.S. Global Change Research Program, a federal body the White House claims has been “used as a vehicle for political agendas instead of sound science.” This appointment signals a direct challenge to the established climate narrative that has shaped national policy for decades. Wielicki will oversee the program’s primary product, the congressionally mandated National Climate Assessment, a comprehensive report released every four years detailing climate impacts on American infrastructure, lives, and the economy.
The White House, which did not make Wielicki available for an interview, issued a statement asserting its intent to “restore the USGCRP and ensuring it fulfills its legal mandate.” This follows the administration’s gutting of the program last year. Wielicki has frequently used social media to critique climate science, stating that a “significant portion of the climate science literature is nothing more than stamp collecting.” He has also suggested that climate scientists are faking data to make the world appear hotter, a direct challenge to the prevailing consensus.
Reclaiming National Policy
The U.S. Global Change Research Program, created 36 years ago by a law signed under former President George H.W. Bush, coordinates federal climate research across more than a dozen agencies. Its reports have historically helped shape environmental rules, legislation, and infrastructure projects, detailing everything from land productivity to flooding risks and water resources. Previous versions of the assessment have warned Americans about dangers like rising temperatures and deadly wildfires, drawing on hundreds of peer-reviewed studies. One early success, 36 years ago, was revealing ozone layer harm, which led to regulations.
White House Budget Director Russ Vought has long identified the program as a source of “climate alarmism” that the White House should control. Vought articulated this view in the Project 2025 conservative policy handbook, organized by the Heritage Foundation. This perspective underscores a broader effort to reassert national control over scientific bodies perceived as captured by ideological interests.
The Cost of Alarmism
Wielicki, who stated he left higher education due to diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives, has made multiple appearances in conservative media. He recently questioned the narrative surrounding European warming, writing 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?” This observation came as Europe experienced deadly heat waves last month, killing over 2,000 people, despite climate data showing it as the fastest-warming continent.
Energy Secretary Chris Wright previously organized a climate report last year that downplayed the effects of climate change. That report, written by a group of researchers, relied on work by dozens of scientists who criticized it as misleading and riddled with errors. These same researchers were invited to participate in the National Climate Assessment process and spent time criticizing previous versions. Wright’s hand-picked researchers also proposed a new National Climate Assessment emphasizing positive aspects of climate change, according to a document obtained by POLITICO from court filings. They cautioned that the most recent version of the report “holds immense power” because it is “frequently cited in climate litigation” and used to justify regulations as well as lawsuits against fossil fuel companies, directly impacting the nation's energy sector and working class.
Judith Curry, one of the scientists selected by Wright to author the DOE report, 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's work and will “provide high-level advice” in its crafting. Wright told POLITICO in May he expected to release a broader climate science product in the spring or winter, seeking "public engagement, debates on this."
Challenging the Narrative
The National Climate Assessment was released during the first Trump administration, but Trump later stated he did not “believe” it was accurate. That report, along with all previous versions, was deleted after Trump’s second term began. Michael Kuperberg, the program's executive director during Trump’s first term, noted that political appointees then stated they wouldn't interfere with the program's mission. Kuperberg now warns that the current administration's report won't represent the larger field of science and will "degrade public trust in government research," risking "the loss of integrity of the federal government." He suggests it's easy to find a small group to give an inaccurate assessment. This critique, however, is precisely what the administration is challenging: the integrity of a system it views as politicized.