The US government has taken two high-profile steps that curtail widely used sources of climate information: the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) will not coordinate the 2026 Arctic Report Card, and the National Academy of Sciences removed a chapter on climate science from a judges' reference manual. Scientists and former agency officials warned these actions reduce public access to authoritative analysis precisely as the Arctic records continued warming.
What happened and what was said
NOAA, which has produced an annual Arctic Report Card since 2006, announced that "Coordination of the 2026 Arctic Report Card will not be facilitated through NOAA" and that previously published data would remain publicly available. The agency did not provide a detailed explanation for the change.
Separately, the National Academy of Sciences — an independent, Congressionally-chartered body — removed a chapter addressing climate science from a manual designed to help judges. The action followed public criticism from President Donald Trump, who used the social media platform Truth Social to denounce the chapter as "fraudulent, biased and misleading," according to reporting.
"They're imposing ignorance on the system in the hopes that that will address the challenges that are real associated with climate change,"
said Rick Spinrad, a former NOAA administrator, in commentary to news agencies, describing the twin moves as part of a broader pattern of pressure on climate science under the current administration.
Context: why the Arctic Report Card matters
The Arctic Report Card has been a regular synthesis of observations and research documenting rapid environmental change at high northern latitudes. The 2025 edition, produced prior to this week's announcement, concluded the polar region had experienced its warmest year on record, with consequences ranging from accelerated glacier and sea-ice loss to ecological shifts described as "greening" and disruptions to weather patterns elsewhere.
Scientists emphasise that the Arctic acts as a global indicator: because it is warming several times faster than the global average — a process called Arctic amplification — changes there have knock-on effects worldwide. For instance, loss of sea ice alters the salinity and density of surface waters entering the North Atlantic, with potential impacts for the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation, a major conveyor of heat that helps moderate winters in parts of Europe.
Immediate implications and expert reaction
Critics say removing an institutional home for the Report Card and stripping climate material from guidance for judges risks weakening the evidence base for policymakers, courts and the public. With record-setting heat documented across land and ocean surfaces globally, the timing of the moves has alarmed some researchers and former officials.
NOAA has stated that historical data will remain accessible, but without agency coordination the compilation and editorial oversight that have characterised the annual synthesis may be disrupted. The National Academy's decision similarly raises questions about the availability of vetted scientific summaries intended for non-specialist audiences, including legal professionals grappling with climate-related cases.
- NOAA: will not coordinate the 2026 Arctic Report Card; prior data remain public.
- National Academy of Sciences: removed a climate chapter from a judges' manual after public criticism.
- Scientists' concern: actions come as the Arctic records continued, unprecedented warmth and ongoing global climate impacts.
| Institution | Action |
|---|---|
| NOAA | Declined to coordinate 2026 Arctic Report Card; retained prior data online |
| National Academy of Sciences | Removed climate chapter from judges' manual |
Observers framed the pair of developments as part of a broader pattern of administrative decisions since the start of the president's second term affecting federal science capacity. Those decisions followed extensive personnel changes and budget reductions earlier in the term, according to reporting.
For the scientific community, the central concern is practical: a thinning of institutional channels that collate, interpret and explain complex environmental data could leave policymakers, courts and the public without trusted, regularly updated syntheses at a time when rapid change demands clear, evidence-based responses. How other agencies, academic groups or international partners might step in to fill any gaps remains an open question.
