Drafting a final federal budget involves intense negotiations and lobbying efforts to prioritize different interests. The initial budget proposal from the White House in May is far from being finalized. However, concerns arise regarding proposed cuts in environmental protection, conservation, and climate change initiatives by the Trump administration. The proposed budget recommends reducing funding by over $32 billion for agencies overseeing weather monitoring, conservation lands, and protecting natural resources. These cuts align with previous actions taken by federal agencies and the Department of Government Efficiency under President Trump’s administration.
For instance, the Environmental Protection Agency faces a significant proposed cut of 54.5%, bringing its budget to levels last seen during Ronald Reagan’s presidency. Other environmental-related spending cuts range from 15% to 55% across federal agencies. Critics, including Democrats, former scientists, and advocacy groups, argue that these cuts will hinder efforts to combat climate change, jeopardize environmental satellite programs, and lead to increased pollution.
The White House defends these budget cuts by emphasizing savings in non-military spending and increased allocations for defense and border security. Supporters believe that reducing the deficit through budget cuts is necessary to address the nation’s debt. However, opponents suggest that the proposed cuts could have long-term negative consequences and advocate for alternative approaches to reduce federal spending.
Environmental advocates express concerns that the budget cuts could have far-reaching impacts on conservation efforts and public lands. They criticize the administration for prioritizing efficiency over essential conservation programs. Ranking Democrats in Congress pledge to oppose some aspects of the budget proposal.
In a news release, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, the top Democrat on the Environment and Public Works Committee, criticized Trump’s budget as a disaster primarily benefiting fossil fuel donors. Whitehouse expressed concerns over the detrimental impact of EPA budget cuts, allowing hazardous industries to increase pollution levels and worsen climate-related issues affecting various aspects of daily life.
The proposed budget includes significant cuts to key departments such as the Department of the Interior, with a nearly one-third reduction from $17 billion to $12 billion. National parks face a substantial cut of over $1 billion, leading to concerns about the potential management transfer of smaller parks to states. Additionally, the U.S. Geological Survey could lose $564 million in funding for programs related to climate change and social agendas.
The budget also outlines plans for merging offices within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Fish and Wildlife Service to streamline functions and reduce costs. The creation of a new “Federal Wildland Fire Service” under the Interior Department aims to centralize wildfire management efforts currently dispersed across different agencies.
The Environmental Protection Agency’s budget would significantly decrease from $9.1 billion to $4.2 billion, resulting in the elimination of grant funding for states and programs related to environmental justice and climate research. However, there are proposed increases in funding for drinking water programs and Indigenous tribes to maintain water infrastructure.
At NOAA, various climate-focused research programs and partnerships would be terminated, reducing the budget by $1.3 billion. These cuts raise concerns about the agency’s ability to address climate-related challenges effectively.
NOAA’s current geostationary operational environmental satellites system offers a wide range of public data for weather observation and modeling, along with various earth, atmospheric, and solar data. The proposed replacement aimed to enhance imagery quality and composition, while also adding new instruments for monitoring the atmosphere and ocean. However, the Trump administration’s proposal included canceling unspecified contracts related to what they deemed as “unnecessary climate measurements.”
Craig McLean, a former chief scientist at NOAA, expressed disappointment at the attempts to reduce the instrumentation of the planned satellite system. He emphasized the importance of satellite-based sensors in advancing our understanding of ocean sciences, earth changes, and atmospheric phenomena, beyond just supporting weather-related missions.
The budget proposal also targets the Department of Energy, referencing the “Green New Scam” to reduce funding allocated for renewable energy sources from the 2021 Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. Significant cuts are planned for the office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, as well as the environmental management program overseeing waste cleanup at various sites.
Other proposed spending reductions include cuts to environmental-related expenses in the Department of Agriculture and a reduction in NASA’s Earth science and climate change programs. These cuts would affect climate monitoring satellites and the Landsat Next mission, impacting data collection related to various environmental aspects such as water quality, crop production, and ice dynamics.
Dinah Voyles Pulver, a journalist covering climate change and environmental issues for USA TODAY, provided insights into the implications of the proposed budget cuts on environmental programs.
