Scientists are bracing for a dangerous 2025 Atlantic hurricane season, even as the Trump administration pushes steep cuts to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the federal agency responsible for storm forecasting.
Forecasters from Colorado State University and AccuWeather expect an above-average Atlantic hurricane season, driven by unusually warm ocean temperatures, with up to 10 named storms and at least four major hurricanes likely.
The Trump administration, through the Elon Musk-led Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), plans to cut NOAA’s budget by 25% and eliminate its research arm, jeopardizing critical forecasting tools like buoys, weather balloons, and hurricane-hunting aircraft.
Scientists fear these cuts will reduce forecast accuracy and delay warnings, especially during rapid intensification events when hurricanes quickly strengthen, threatening lives and infrastructure.
Key quote:
“Now we are nervous if those data will be provided — and will be provided on time — from NOAA.”
— Xubin Zeng, director of the Climate Dynamics and Hydrometeorology Center at the University of Arizona
Why this matters:
NOAA's data help scientists warn communities about deadly hurricanes, track flooding threats, and prepare emergency responses. In recent years, the Atlantic has grown hotter, fueling stronger and more erratic storms. Hurricanes that rapidly intensify — jumping in strength overnight — are becoming more common and more dangerous. Accurate forecasts don’t just inform storm tracks; they guide evacuations, protect hospitals and nursing homes, and limit economic damage. If NOAA’s capacity is gutted, warning systems could fail at the worst possible moment. Public safety would hinge on outdated models or privatized forecasting that may not reach vulnerable populations. Disabling NOAA’s infrastructure in the face of escalating climate risks could mean the difference between life and death for those in the path of extreme weather.
Get the best positive, solutions-oriented stories we've seen on the intersection of our health and environment, FREE every Tuesday in your inbox. Subscribe here today. Keep the change tomorrow.
The Mississippi River tops this year’s list of America’s most endangered waterways, as environmental groups warn that President Trump’s sweeping deregulation and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) budget cuts are accelerating threats to rivers across the country.
The Mississippi River, which provides the primary source of drinking water to dozens of municipalities and supports nearly 900 species, is now the most endangered U.S. river due to worsening pollution, drought, and government deregulation.
Trump’s proposed dismantling of FEMA, which manages disaster response and flood mitigation, endangers rivers from Louisiana to Appalachia, including areas still recovering from Hurricane Helene’s catastrophic flooding.
Data centers and fossil fuel expansion, heavily incentivized under the Trump administration, are further straining rivers in Virginia and West Virginia, where water shortages and pollution violations are already threatening ecosystems and public health.
Key quote:
“Our water wealth is one of our greatest assets as a nation. But pollution and extreme weather are putting our rivers, clean water, and public safety at risk. When our rivers are sick, our own health and prosperity suffers.”
— Tom Kiernan, president and CEO of American Rivers
Why this matters:
Rivers are lifelines for drinking water, agriculture, biodiversity, and cultural heritage, yet many are in crisis. The Mississippi River, often called the nation’s backbone, faces compounding threats from climate change and deregulation. FEMA, now facing severe cuts, has long played a key role in flood mitigation and rebuilding infrastructure after climate disasters. Without this support, communities face growing risks from flooding, contamination, and habitat loss. Simultaneously, the unchecked growth of water-intensive industries like data centers and fossil fuel operations is drying up aquifers and further polluting waterways. Ignoring the health of these rivers risks a cascading impact on ecosystems and the millions of people who rely on them.
Rice, a staple food for half the world’s population, may become increasingly toxic due to climate change, as new research finds that warming temperatures and rising carbon dioxide levels increase arsenic concentrations in the crop.
A six-year study published in The Lancet Planetary Health shows that rising temperatures and carbon dioxide concentrations lead to higher levels of inorganic arsenic in rice, a known carcinogen.
Scientists simulated future climate conditions in rice fields in the U.S. and China, finding that increased CO2 and temperature together significantly boost arsenic absorption in rice grains.
Populations in high rice-consuming countries such as Bangladesh, India, and Vietnam could see rising disease risks tied to arsenic exposure, particularly in infants and young children.
Key quote:
“Rice has always been a food where arsenic is an issue, and climate change is making it worse.”
— Keeve Nachman, professor at Johns Hopkins University and one of the report's authors
Why this matters:
Rice isn’t just a side dish — it’s a daily necessity for billions, especially across Asia, Africa, and parts of Latin America. But the crop’s reliance on flooded paddies and its porous nature make it uniquely vulnerable to soaking up arsenic, a contaminant that can naturally occur in water or seep in from industrial pollution. Inorganic arsenic, the most harmful form, is linked to cancers, heart disease, and developmental problems in children. Now, climate change may turbocharge this risk. As CO2 levels rise and global temperatures climb, rice plants absorb even more of this toxin from the soil and water. This hidden consequence of climate change adds to a growing list of food safety concerns.
A growing push by fossil fuel companies to gain liability protection echoes the gun industry's successful effort two decades ago to shield itself from lawsuits that seek accountability for public harm.
Oil and gas companies are lobbying Congress for legal immunity against lawsuits brought by states and municipalities over the costs of climate change and alleged corporate deception.
The strategy closely mirrors the gun lobby’s successful 2005 effort to pass the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), which severely restricted legal action against firearms manufacturers and sellers.
Survivors of gun violence and their families say PLCAA stripped them of legal recourse and justice, and legal experts warn that extending similar immunity to fossil fuel companies could leave climate disaster victims without compensation.
Key quote:
“It really has had a chilling effect on lawsuits and has cut off individual access to the court system for these kinds of cases.”
— Betsy Grey, professor of law, Arizona State University
Why this matters:
Legal immunity for industries accused of causing widespread harm can weaken the civil justice system — one of the few remaining tools available to hold powerful corporations accountable, especially when regulatory enforcement is lacking. In the case of the gun industry, the liability shield has blocked many victims from seeking justice, even in extreme circumstances. If the fossil fuel sector receives similar protections, victims of wildfires, floods, and other climate disasters may also be denied a day in court.
These lawsuits often serve a dual purpose: revealing damaging internal communications and shifting public understanding of corporate responsibility. Beyond financial compensation, litigation has historically driven industry reforms — as seen in the opioid and tobacco settlements. Removing this pressure from fossil fuel companies could slow any move toward accountability, even as the climate crisis deepens and damages mount.
Coal-fired power plants may soon face weaker waste regulations, as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency moves to roll back Biden-era rules aimed at preventing toxic groundwater contamination from coal ash.
The Trump administration is considering loosening federal rules on coal ash storage and disposal, including extending cleanup deadlines and reducing enforcement, a sharp turn away from the Biden administration's tighter regulations.
Environmental advocates warn that weakened oversight could leave communities vulnerable to contamination from heavy metals like arsenic and lead, especially near older, unlined coal ash sites.
Industry groups argue the Obama and Biden administrations' regulations were designed to shutter coal plants, and say relaxed rules will ensure grid reliability amid rising electricity demands.
Key quote:
“They are basically just going to rubber-stamp the applications.”
— Gavin Kearney, attorney with Earthjustice
Why this matters:
Coal ash is one of the largest industrial waste streams in the United States, containing toxic elements such as arsenic, mercury, and lead. When stored improperly — especially in unlined ponds near waterways — these heavy metals can seep into groundwater and contaminate drinking supplies. Coal ash pollution has been linked to increased cancer risks and neurological harm. The 2008 spill in Tennessee, which buried homes and poisoned rivers, remains a stark reminder of the danger. More than 100 million tons of coal ash are generated annually, and much of it sits in legacy ponds at aging or shuttered plants — many without adequate safeguards. Rolling back rules aimed at closing these waste sites safely, and handing more control to states with weaker enforcement records, raises concerns of repeat disasters and long-term environmental damage.
The Trump administration has granted over 60 fossil fuel power plants a two-year delay in complying with stricter federal mercury emissions rules, reversing a key piece of environmental policy set to take effect in 2027.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency gave 64 gigawatts of coal-fired capacity — roughly one-third of U.S. coal power — an exemption from tighter mercury and air toxics standards originally scheduled for 2027.
Critics argue the exemptions, issued by executive order, violate the Clean Air Act and expose nearby communities to increased levels of toxic air pollution, including mercury, a potent neurotoxin.
The decision aligns with the Trump administration’s broader efforts to revive coal power and scale back environmental regulations, despite legal challenges and opposition from public health and environmental advocates.
Key quote:
“The Trump administration has created an illegal special exemption by which polluters can go to the president and request a ‘get out of jail free’ card when it comes to the Clean Air Act.”
— Howard Learner, CEO and executive director of the Environmental Law & Policy Center
Why this matters:
Power plants are one of the largest sources of mercury emissions in the U.S., and curbing those emissions has long been a cornerstone of federal air quality standards. Delaying the enforcement of stricter mercury rules means continued exposure for communities, particularly those near aging coal plants, many of which are located in low-income and rural areas already facing disproportionate pollution burdens. Although utilities argue the delay offers operational flexibility and grid reliability, the public health trade-off may be steep. Mercury doesn’t just stay local—it spreads across states and regions, making it a national concern. The exemptions may also weaken momentum for transitioning to cleaner energy sources, reinforcing a dependency on outdated infrastructure with known health consequences.
The Biden-approved Empire Wind project off New York’s coast has been abruptly paused by the Trump administration, putting thousands of jobs and clean energy goals in jeopardy.
Interior Secretary Doug Burgum ordered the Empire Wind project to stop construction, citing concerns over rushed permitting under former President Biden, despite the project already being fully approved and underway.
The offshore wind development, led by Equinor, was set to power 500,000 homes and support New York’s legal targets for renewable energy, including 9,000 megawatts of offshore wind by 2035.
Industry leaders and labor groups condemned the halt, warning it threatens energy investment, job creation, and affordable electricity, especially as national demand continues to climb.
Key quote:
“Doubling back to reconsider permits after projects are under construction sends a chilling signal to all energy investment.”
— Jason Grumet, head of the American Clean Power Association
Why this matters:
As climate-driven demands on the electrical grid surge — from AI data centers to electric vehicles — the need for clean, reliable sources is increasingly urgent. Offshore wind, while slow to launch in the U.S., remains a cornerstone of plans to decarbonize electricity, especially in densely populated coastal regions. New York, for instance, is legally bound to get 70% of its electricity from renewables by 2030. Blocking a project already under construction undermines investor confidence and sends mixed signals about the country’s energy trajectory.
Prisons, jails and detention centers are placed in locations where environmental hazards such as toxic landfills, floods and extreme heat are the norm.
