By Sandrine Dixson-Declève and Mathis Wackernagel
Rumors swirl that the U.S. administration plans to symbolically undermine environmental NGOs and philanthropic organizations, mirroring its recent heavy-handed threats against Colombia and Harvard University and continuing its onslaught on environmental stewardship and defiance of rule of law. This isn’t serving the common good; it’s just another attempt at government sanctioned censorship. Since day one of this new administration, we have seen it time and time again – the harassment of advocates working on civil rights, gender and social justice, the suppression of “inconvenient truths,” and the gutting of crucial government agencies.
Such tactics are straight from the authoritarian playbook. What’s shocking is their emergence in a nation, which has always claimed to stand for upholding democratic values, human rights, and the rule of law with robust checks and balances. It is even more surprising in a situation where the ruling party holds only a slim majority in both the House of Representatives and the Senate and yet reacts with deafening silence.
Few among the majority party dare to call out this cruel, self-defeating absurdity, though history will remember their complicity in harassing and gutting academic and governmental institutions, as well as philanthropic and non-governmental organizations, that provide vital intelligence, analysis, policy options and capital to enable knowledge-based decision making and solutions for the poly crisis and 21st century challenges – the very tools a nation needs to survive let alone thrive.
Banning words, stifling debate, and crippling public-good organizations doesn’t strengthen governance; it blinds it. Imagine painting over your windshield when you go down the highway at 60 mph. Or withholding bank statements from account holders. Or hiding pre-diabetes risks to avoid “upsetting” patients. Why would a government actively sabotage its ability to prepare for the inevitable? Which senator or representative truly believes they’ll escape accountability for misleading constituents—or that their legacy will survive such willful negligence?
We do not have unlimited time to respond to the well-documented challenges we face. Delaying action—and even worse, undermining our ability to act—is economically disastrous and reinforcing are greatest existential risks.
U.S. government agencies, many of which are themselves under threat, have reported that atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations – driven up by fossil fuel use – now exceed the limit compatible with a 2°C global warming threshold by about 26 years of global emissions. The scientific as well as the international community recognize this threshold as the line between manageable change and dangerously unstable environmental conditions.
These resource dynamics are becoming a massive risk, not just for the world, but also for the United States. Both remain more dependent on fossil fuels than ever. In fact, half of all fossil fuels ever consumed have been burned since the year 2000. Hence, we are facing a stark dilemma:
- Our economies are so reliant on fossil fuels that they cannot function without them;
- Yet the atmosphere is now so saturated with emissions that humanity cannot thrive with them.
Failing to address this reality and even pursuing a “drill, baby, drill” energy policy threatens economic resilience to future shocks and stresses as it deepens national and global reliance on an energy source without a long-term future. Failing to prepare for this inevitable transition is self-destructive. Therefore, actively weakening the United States’ own ability to respond to this existential challenge is not just shortsighted—it’s costly, cynical and cruel. And it is deeply counter to “America first”.
Climate denial isn’t just futile; it’s expensive and already lethal. Rejecting measurable reality, like pretending gravity doesn’t exist, won’t make the crisis vanish. It only ensures we’re unprepared and burdened with economic costs and instability for many years to come. And with such a narrow congressional and senatorial majority, the moral burden falls squarely on each elected U.S. official who stays silent. Their reputations, legitimacy, and effectiveness won’t recover.
With all this dismantling of needed institutions, every day henceforth ever more people will carry questions in their hearts and minds of who is on the right side of history and who we can entrust with looking after our country. This isn’t just about yet another executive order by a President. It’s about betrayal: Who will look their children – grandchildren – or voters—in the eye and justify this recklessness? Who will stand up for a future which ensures that all people can survive and even thrive let alone American citizens?