Science Talk: How Words Got Tricky in Trump’s Climate Work

In a federal research office, one word was banned from conversations. “Climate” and its cousins were off limits after a memo from top USDA officials told staff to steer clear of over 100 phrases that could hint at climate science. The order came in March, forcing scientists to rewrite their projects with euphemisms like “elevated temperatures” or “soil health.”

The change wasn’t isolated. Across government agencies, words tied to climate and diversity began disappearing from grant proposals. Researchers had to replace “climate change” with “extreme weather,” and even talk about “weather extremes” instead of the science that drives it.

Funding agencies reflected this shift too. The National Science Foundation approved far fewer grants that mentioned “climate change” last year, dropping from 889 to just 148. Many scientists slipped the term out of their titles and abstracts, hoping reviewers would still see the underlying science.

The story also shows how politics can shape research priorities. When Trump’s administration cut budgets for environmental science, scientists looked elsewhere—private foundations, foreign governments, or different federal programs. Some projects were renamed to avoid “climate” tags and survive cuts; others disappeared entirely because their titles included the banned abbreviation “CC.”

Scientists must decide whether to keep their language neutral or risk losing funding. Some, like Illinois climatologist Trent Ford, only use “climate change” when it’s absolutely necessary. Others find that the new wording lets them continue their work without drawing political attention, though it may blur the real focus of their studies.

The debate remains: Is this a form of censorship, or simply a funder’s right to align research with its priorities? The answer is complex. Scientists adapt by choosing careful wording, but the pressure shows how language can influence what research gets done and who sees it.