What impact does censoring have on scientists and everyday people?
Global warming’s acceleration over the past decade has contributed to some of the hottest years on record. But as this climate crisis grows more prominent and new data is unearthed, is there anything being done to stop it?
In early January of 2026, a study revealed evidence that parts of Greenland were once ice-free in a prehistoric climate only slightly warmer than today’s. This discovery is just one of many findings that warn of a future in which Earth’s rapidly warming temperatures and ice melt, and rising sea levels drastically increase the risk of harm to the durability of ecosystems, human settlements, and environmental stability.
Despite these global implications, long-term efforts for sustainability research and eco-friendly attitudes may face significant challenges under the second Trump Administration.
Upon returning for his second term in office, President Trump began a withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement—a legally binding global treaty to prevent climate change and limit the effects of global warming. The White House has defended this decision by claiming that Trump has now “prioritized American interests by redirecting focus and resources towards domestic priorities.”
Major policy shifts targeting environmental regulations have also been underway. Rollbacks have been enacted to move away from improvements in air and water pollution and from reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.
These policies may permit more types of construction activities without approval under the Clean Air Act, exempt certain polluting facilities from reporting their greenhouse gas emissions, and eliminate protections for millions of acres of wetlands—in doing so, opening up more than one billion acres of both domestic and offshore lands to oil and gas drilling.
According to the Department of Energy (DOE), opening up this land for drilling provides over 10 million Americans with jobs and “infuses hundreds of billions of dollars into new American manufacturing,” which supports economic growth, opportunity, and new infrastructure. A massive oil and gas supply will also come with lower energy costs, said the DOE.
In addition to this, the DOE has recently been advised to avoid using phrases such as “climate change,” “sustainable,” and “green,” according to an email acquired by the National Public Radio. The DOE denied this when questioned, however, stating that Trump intended to retain “open, honest dialogue about climate science,” said Press Secretary Ben Dietderich.
However, when using personal rhetoric, President Trump has dismissed the notion of climate change altogether. At the United Nations in September 2025, he introduced climate change as a “con job,” and warned that countries would fail if they did not extricate themselves from this “green scam.”
Many scientists and environmentalists warn that this mindset and the policy shifts that accompany such action will impact research crucial to the planet’s future health.
NASA, a well-respected scientific organization, has expressed its own beliefs concerning the validity and dangers of climate change.
“There is unequivocal evidence that Earth is warming at an unprecedented rate,” the organization said on its website. “Data, collected over many years, reveal the signs and patterns of a changing climate.”
Many echo these sentiments, believing that a major deprioritization of climate research will have negative effects.
Josephine Johnson, a senior in high school and active climate advocate of the Minnehaha community, offered her own insights.
“This is the world that we’ve been given. Every time I think about that, I become more disappointed about how we, as humans, treat it. Oftentimes we can ignore [climate change], because it is not something that we can see, not necessarily, but every day it gets a little bit worse… and a little bit too unlivable.”
Johnson also worries about how some world leaders are viewing the future.
“A nuclear power plant might help provide energy to whatever neighbourhood it’s in, or the oil industry opening in Venezuela is going to have a monetary gain for us. But looking to the future, you can’t just close [the industries] down right away. You can’t just reverse the damage,” said Johnson. She wonders if the temporary benefits now are worth the long-term harm to Earth. “[We] have a responsibility to care for the next generations of people.”
Her faith shapes her view of the natural world and how she views God’s creation as sacred and irreplaceable, Johnson said.
Kristin Henderson, an English teacher and advisor of Minnehaha’s Creation Care, shares similar faith-and-future-centered views.
“As a mother, environmental stewardship preserves a habitable planet for my kids and models a value I hope they embody. As a Christian, my faith dictates that I am a diligent ‘caretaker of creation,’ a moral imperative that persists regardless of changing political mandates. Even if formal protections erode, living with intentionality honors my community and my children and upholds what God has entrusted us,” said Henderson.
Whether these policies will remain in effect is somewhat ambiguous. Scientists, politicians, world leaders, and local activists are still deliberating over where money should be spent and what issues should be considered a priority.