A group of global researchers has created a new guide to help scientists — and anyone who defends facts — push back against rising authoritarian threats in the U.S. and abroad.
The new anti-autocracy handbook gives scientists tools to protect themselves and their work, including how to secure data, resist disinformation, protect scientific integrity, and organize for institutional resilience.
Lead author Stephan Lewandowsky and other experts warn that authoritarian regimes — including recent U.S. administrations — target scientists, journalists, and judges to erase accountability and dismantle democracy.
The handbook includes an interactive Wiki with practical strategies and a breakdown of how to recognize authoritarian behavior, from political violence to suppression of civil liberties.
Key quote:
“This isn’t a joke or a blip and this isn’t normal. This is a concerted, programmatic effort to abolish democracy in the United States.”
— Stephan Lewandowsky, cognitive psychologist, University of Bristol
Why this matters:
Without a functioning democracy, science can't do its job, whether it’s guiding public health or fighting the climate crisis. Stephan Lewandowsky and his co-authors are calling out this threat not just to science, but to the very systems that let science work. Their handbook, backed by an interactive Wiki, gives practical tools for protecting research, securing data, and staying organized when things go off the rails.
Faced with political fallout from the 2024 election and rising affordability concerns, California Democrats are retreating from some of the state’s most ambitious climate policies.
California leaders have paused or diluted key environmental measures, including clean fuel rules, plastic waste regulations, and environmental reviews for new development, citing cost concerns and political pressure.
The shift marks a break from California’s previous position as a national climate leader, especially during Trump’s first term, and reflects broader national trends as Democrats reassess the electoral impact of aggressive climate actions.
Polls now show climate change ranking low among voters' priorities, while issues like gas prices and housing costs dominate, driving the party to scale back policies seen as contributing to those burdens.
Key quote:
“It’s one of the more disappointing turnabouts. We have backed down, and we may not be flying a white handkerchief, but it’s pretty close to white.”
— Jamie Court, president of Consumer Watchdog
Why this matters:
California has long been a bellwether for climate policy, often leading the country with ambitious rules aimed at cutting emissions and curbing fossil fuel dependence. But as housing, fuel, and energy costs rise, even environmentally progressive states are facing resistance from voters and lawmakers. The state’s backpedaling signals a broader national trend where short-term economic pressures are outpacing long-term environmental planning. That has major implications for public health and environmental justice, particularly in communities already vulnerable to pollution and climate impacts.
A recent analysis warns that potential exemptions to air pollution rules under the Trump administration may protect chronic polluters and expose millions to higher cancer risks.
The EPA under President Trump is reviewing the HON rule, which targets emissions from 218 chemical facilities responsible for releasing known carcinogens near vulnerable communities.
These facilities are often located in low-income, predominantly Black and Latino areas and have a documented history of violating clean air laws, with 23% persistently out of compliance.
Ethylene oxide, a key target of the rule, is linked to high cancer risks, especially for children, but industry groups and Texas regulators continue to question U.S. Environmental Protection Agency science and push for looser standards.
Key quote:
“Rolling back the HON Rule is only going to make people sicker.”
— Tracey Woodruff, former EPA scientist and professor at the University of California San Francisco
Why this matters:
Communities near petrochemical plants — especially along the Gulf Coast — face heightened health risks from air pollution, including cancer, respiratory disease, and reproductive issues. Many of these neighborhoods are predominantly Black or Latino, with higher poverty rates and less access to healthcare, making them more vulnerable to industrial toxins. Ethylene oxide, a chemical emitted by these plants, is particularly dangerous; it mutates DNA and is linked to breast and blood cancers. Despite decades of science confirming its risks, political and industry pressure continues to challenge enforcement.
Seventeen states are scrambling to preserve their clean vehicle goals after the Trump administration rescinded California’s power to set stricter tailpipe emissions rules.
California and allied states sued the Trump administration over its rollback of the state's Clean Air Act waiver, which allowed stronger vehicle emissions standards and an electric vehicle sales mandate.
States are expanding EV rebates, building charging infrastructure, and passing clean fuel rules to offset the loss of federal support and regulatory authority.
Policies targeting truck-heavy areas and pollution-intensive facilities are gaining traction, especially in states with high air pollution and warehouse growth.
Key quote:
“The federal government isn’t going to come save us.”
— Alex Ambrose, analyst at New Jersey Policy Perspective
Why this matters:
Transportation is the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States, and tailpipe pollution directly harms public health — especially in communities near highways, ports, and freight hubs. California’s emissions authority under the Clean Air Act had long been a keystone in U.S. climate and air quality policy, with nearly 20 states adopting its tougher rules. Without federal backing, these states now face steep costs and legal uncertainty as they try to maintain momentum toward cleaner vehicles. Meanwhile, the burden of diesel pollution continues to fall heavily on low-income neighborhoods and communities of color. If states cannot enforce aggressive vehicle standards or fund sufficient EV transitions, the U.S. risks backsliding on climate targets and increasing health disparities tied to air pollution.
Vermont’s updated Climate Action Plan outlines major steps to cut carbon emissions, but faces steep financial and political barriers as federal climate funding disappears under the Trump administration.
Vermont’s 2025 Climate Action Plan aims to cut emissions from heating and transportation, weatherize 79,000 homes, and explore a cap-and-invest program to reduce fossil fuel use.
The state is not on track to meet its legally binding 2025 emissions reduction goal and may have fallen up to 39% short, according to an independent analysis.
Deep cuts to federal clean energy funding and climate science programs are straining Vermont’s ability to fund emissions reductions and resilience efforts.
Key quote:
“Specifically, I’m concerned about what it will take to operationalize the plan’s vision. It’s sort of left up to interpretation.”
— Julie Moore, secretary of the Agency of Natural Resources
Why this matters:
Vermont is seeing the real-time effects of a warming world — record floods, higher heat days, and worsening air quality. But the tools it needs to respond are under threat. The Trump administration’s rollback of clean energy investments and suppression of climate data weakens the ability of states like Vermont to meet emission targets or even plan effectively. Climate funding cuts jeopardize projects that help low-income families heat their homes more efficiently, farmers reduce emissions, or towns prepare for floods. At the same time, without federal support for solar, wind, or electric vehicles, Americans may be pushed back toward fossil fuels. This could increase pollution, raise costs, and widen health disparities tied to air quality and heat exposure.
More than half of Americans believe extreme weather is growing worse, and nearly a third fear they’ll be directly affected, according to a new national poll.
A USA TODAY/Ipsos poll found 58% of Americans think extreme weather is worsening, with 30% reporting recent personal experience of events like floods or severe storms.
While most Americans believe climate change is reversible, 56% think people aren’t willing to make the necessary changes; only 18% believe progress is being made.
Political divides persist, with 84% of Democrats and 38% of Republicans expecting more frequent extreme weather, though concern is rising among all groups.
Key quote:
"Record-breaking heat waves on land and in the ocean, drenching rains, severe floods, years-long droughts, extreme wildfires, and widespread flooding during hurricanes are all becoming more frequent and more intense."
— NASA report
Why this matters:
As the planet warms, scientists warn that what once were rare weather events are becoming regular threats. Flash floods, prolonged droughts, and searing heat waves can devastate infrastructure, disrupt food and water systems, and endanger human health—especially for low-income communities and people with chronic illness. The public’s growing fear reflects not just news coverage but lived experience: heat domes in the Pacific Northwest, toxic smoke from Canadian wildfires, and historic flooding in places like Texas Hill Country. These events also strain emergency services, raise insurance costs, and threaten the habitability of some regions. Public concern may be growing, but without policy change and reduced fossil fuel use, the physical toll of climate disruption will keep rising.
The Trump administration’s decision to halt climate science funding and dismantle research infrastructure has already begun to upend major projects, forcing scientists to abandon long-term studies and scaling back the U.S. role in international climate assessments.
A $15 million federal grant to study biodiversity loss was canceled, stalling years of research on climate impacts on species and ecosystems.
The administration has taken down key climate science websites, canceled contracts with scientific journals, and proposed eliminating climate research funding in the 2026 budget.
Scientists are scaling back or ending long-term monitoring programs like the Keeling Curve due to funding threats, raising concerns about the loss of continuous climate data.
Key quote:
“We’re getting a message loud and clear from this administration: Climate and environmental research are not welcome in this country.”
— Jacquelyn Gill, professor of paleoecology and plant ecology, University of Maine
Why this matters:
Climate research depends on consistent funding and uninterrupted data collection, often over decades. Interruptions to programs like the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's carbon monitoring or the Global Change Research Program mean critical gaps in understanding the pace and scope of climate change. The removal of public-facing resources like Climate.gov also restricts access to reliable information, affecting everyone from educators to emergency planners. At the same time, other countries are accelerating climate research and renewable investments, putting the U.S. at a global disadvantage. As the climate continues to warm — 2024 marked the hottest year on record — the decision to pull back from scientific inquiry and public transparency hampers the nation’s ability to prepare for rising seas, extreme weather, biodiversity collapse, and public health threats.
