The Trump administration has shut down more than 100 climate studies

The Trump administration has terminated National Science Foundation grants for more than 100 research projects related to climate change amid a widening campaign to slash federal funding for scientists and institutions studying the rising risks of a warming world.

The move will cut off what’s likely to amount to tens of millions of dollars for studies that were previously approved and, in most cases, already in the works. 

Affected projects include efforts to develop cleaner fuels, measure methane emissions, improve understanding of how heat waves and sea-level rise disproportionately harm marginalized groups, and help communities transition to sustainable energy, according to an MIT Technology Review review of a GrantWatch database—a volunteer-led effort to track federal cuts to research—and a list of terminated grants from the National Science Foundation (NSF) itself. 

The NSF is one of the largest sources of US funding for university research, so the cancellations will deliver a big blow to climate science and clean-energy development.

They come on top of the White House’s broader efforts to cut research funding and revenue for universities and significantly raise their taxes. The administration has also strived to slash staff and budgets at federal research agencies, halt efforts to assess the physical and financial risks of climate change, and shut down labs that have monitored and analyzed the levels of greenhouse gases in the air for decades.

“I don’t think it takes a lot of imagination to understand where this is going,” says Daniel Schrag, co-director of the science, technology, and public policy program at Harvard University, which has seen greater funding cuts than any other university amid an escalating legal conflict with the administration. “I believe the Trump administration intends to zero out funding for climate science altogether.”

The NSF says it’s terminating grants that aren’t aligned with the agency’s program goals, “including but not limited to those on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), environmental justice, and misinformation/disinformation.”

Trump administration officials have argued that DEI considerations have contaminated US science, favoring certain groups over others and undermining the public’s trust in researchers.

“Political biases have displaced the vital search for truth,” Michael Kratsios, head of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, said to a group of NSF administrations and others last month, according to reporting in Science.

Science v. politics

But research projects that got caught in the administration’s anti-DEI filter aren’t the only casualties of the cuts. The NSF has also canceled funding for work that has little obvious connections to DEI ambitions, such as research on catalysts. 

Many believe the administration’s broader motivation is to  undermine the power of the university system and prevent research findings that cut against its politics. 

Trump and his officials have repeatedly argued, in public statements and executive orders, that climate fears are overblown and that burdensome environmental regulations have undermined the nation’s energy security and economic growth.

“It certainly seems like a deliberate attempt to undo any science that contradicts the administration,” says Alexa Fredston, an assistant professor of ocean sciences at the University of California, Santa Cruz. 

On May 28, a group of states including California, New York, and Illinois sued the NSF, arguing that the cuts illegally violated diversity goals and funding priorities clearly established by Congress, which controls federal spending.

A group of universities also filed a lawsuit against the NSF over its earlier decision to reduce the indirect cost rate for research, which reimburses universities for overhead expenses associated with work carried out on campuses. The plaintiffs included the California Institute of Technology, Carnegie Mellon University, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, which has also lost a number of research grants.

(MIT Technology Review is owned by, but editorially independent from, MIT.)

The NSF declined to comment.

‘Theft from the American people’

GrantWatch is an effort among researchers at rOpenSci, Harvard, and other organizations to track terminations of grants issued by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and NSF. It draws on voluntary submissions from scientists involved as well as public government information. 

A search of its database for the terms “climate change,” “clean energy,” “climate adaptation,” “environmental justice,” and “climate justice” showed that the NSF has canceled funds for 118 projects, which were supposed to receive more than $100 million in total. Searching for the word “climate” produces more than 300 research projects that were set to receive more than $230 million. (That word often indicates climate-change-related research, but in some abstracts it refers to the cultural climate.) 

Some share of those funds has already been issued to research groups. The NSF section of the database doesn’t include that “outlaid” figure, but it’s generally about half the amount of the original grants, according to Noam Ross, a computational researcher and executive director of rOpenSci, a nonprofit initiative that promotes open and reproducible science.

A search for “climate change” among the NIH projects produces another 22 studies that were terminated and were still owed nearly $50 million in grants. Many of those projects explored the mental or physical health effects of climate change and extreme weather events.

The NSF more recently released its own list of terminated projects, which mostly mirrored GrantWatch’s findings and confirms the specific terminations mentioned in this story.

“These grant terminations are theft from the American people,” Ross said in an email response. “By illegally ending this research the Trump administration is wasting taxpayer dollars, gutting US leadership in science, and telling the world that the US government breaks its promises.”

Harvard, the country’s oldest university, has been particularly hard hit.

In April, the university sued the Trump administration over cuts to its research funding and efforts to exert control over its admissions and governance policies. The White House, in turn, has moved to eliminate all federal funds for the university, including hundreds of NSF and NIH grants. 

Daniel Nocera, a professor at Harvard who has done pioneering work on so-called artificial photosynthesis, a pathway for producing clean fuels from sunlight, said in an email that all of his grants were terminated. 

“I have no research funds,” he added.

Another terminated grant involved a collaboration between Harvard and the NSF National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), designed to update the atmospheric chemistry component of the Community Earth System Model, an open-source climate model widely used by scientists around the world.

The research was expected to “contribute to a better understanding of atmospheric chemistry in the climate system and to improve air quality predictions within the context of climate change,” according to the NSF abstract. 

“We completed most of the work and were able to bring it to a stopping point,” Daniel Jacob, a professor at Harvard listed as the principal investigator on the project, said in an email. “But it will affect the ability to study chemistry-climate interactions. And it is clearly not right to pull funding from an existing project.”

Plenty of the affected research projects do, in one way or another, grapple with issues of diversity, equity, and inclusion. But that’s because there is ample evidence that disadvantaged communities experience higher rates of illness from energy-sector pollution, will be harder hit by the escalating effects of extreme weather and are underrepresented in scientific fields.

One of the largest terminations cut off about $4 million dollars of remaining funds for the CLIMATE Justice Initiative, a fellowship program at the University of California, Irvine designed to recruit, train and mentor a more diverse array of researchers in Earth sciences.  

The NSF decision occurred halfway into the 5-year program, halting funds for a number of fellows who were in the midst of environmental justice research efforts with community partners in Southern California. Kathleen Johnson, a professor at UC Irvine and director of the initiative, says the university is striving to find ways to fund as many participants as possible for the remainder of their fellowships.

“We need people from all parts of society who are trained in geoscience and climate science to address all these global challenges that we are facing,” she says. “The people who will be best positioned to do this work …  are the people who understand the community’s needs and are able to therefore work to implement equitable solutions.”

“Diverse teams have been shown to do better science,” Johnson adds.

Numerous researchers whose grants were terminated didn’t respond to inquiries from MIT Technology Review or declined to comment, amid growing concerns that the Trump administration will punish scientists or institutions that criticize their policies.

Coming cuts

The termination of existing NSF and NIH grants is just the start of the administration’s plans to cut federal funding for climate and clean-energy research. 

The White House’s budget proposal for the coming fiscal year seeks to eliminate tens of billions of dollars in funding across federal agencies, specifically calling out “Green New Scam funds” at the Department of Energy; “low-priority climate monitoring satellites” at NASA; “climate-dominated research, data, and grant programs” at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; and “climate; clean energy; woke social, behavioral, and economic sciences” at the NSF.

The administration released a more detailed NSF budget proposal on May 30th, which called for a 60% reduction in research spending and nearly zeroed out the clean energy technology program. It also proposed cutting funds by 97% for the US Global Change Research Program, which produces regular assessments of climate risks; 80% for the Ocean Observatories Initiative, a global network of ocean sensors that monitor shifting marine conditions; and 40% for NCAR, the atmospheric research center.

If Congress approves budget reductions anywhere near the levels the administration has put forward, scientists fear, it could eliminate the resources necessary to carry on long-running climate observation of oceans, forests, and the atmosphere. 

The administration also reportedly plans to end the leases on dozens of NOAA facilities, including the Global Monitoring Laboratory in Hilo, Hawaii. The lab supports the work of the nearby Mauna Loa Observatory, which has tracked atmospheric carbon dioxide levels for decades.

Even short gaps in these time-series studies, which scientists around the world rely upon, would have an enduring impact on researchers’ ability to analyze and understand weather and climate trends.

“We won’t know where we’re going if we stop measuring what’s happening,” says Jane Long, formerly the associate director of energy and environment at Lawrence Livermore National Lab. “It’s devastating—there’s no two ways around it.” 

Stunting science 

Growing fears that public research funding will take an even larger hit in the coming fiscal year are forcing scientists to rethink their research plans—or to reconsider whether they want to stay in the field at all, numerous observers said.

“The amount of funding we’re talking about isn’t something a university can fill indefinitely, and it’s not something that private philanthropy can fill for very long,” says Michael Oppenheimer, a professor of geosciences and international affairs at Princeton University. “So what we’re talking about is potentially cataclysmic for climate science.”

“Basically it’s a shit show,” he adds, “and how bad a shit show it is will depend a lot on what happens in the courts and Congress over the next few months.”

One climate scientist, who declined to speak on the record out of concern that the administration might punish his institution, said the declining funding is forcing researchers to shrink their scientific ambitions down to a question of “What can I do with my laptop and existing data sets?”

“If your goal was to make the United States a second-class or third-class country when it comes to science and education, you would be doing exactly what the administration is doing,” the scientist said. “People are pretty depressed, upset, and afraid.”

Given the rising challenges, Harvard’s Schrag fears that the best young climate scientists will decide to shift their careers outside of the US, or move into high tech or other fields where they can make significantly more money.

“We might lose a generation of talent—and that’s not going to get fixed four years from now,” he says. “The irony is that Trump is attacking the institutions and foundation of US science that literally made America great.”

This startup wants to make more climate-friendly metal in the US

A California-based company called Magrathea just turned on a new electrolyzer that can make magnesium metal from seawater. The technology has the potential to produce the material, which is used in vehicles and defense applications, with net-zero greenhouse-gas emissions.

Magnesium is an incredibly light metal, and it’s used for parts in cars and planes, as well as in aluminum alloys like those in vehicles. The metal is also used in defense and industrial applications, including the production processes for steel and titanium.

Today, China dominates production of magnesium, and the most common method generates a lot of the emissions that cause climate change. If Magrathea can scale up its process, it could help provide an alternative source of the metal and clean up industries that rely on it, including automotive manufacturing.

The star of Magrathea’s process is an electrolyzer, a device that uses electricity to split a material into its constituent elements. Using an electrolyzer in magnesium production isn’t new, but Magrathea’s approach represents an update. “We really modernized it and brought it into the 21st century,” says Alex Grant, Magrathea’s cofounder and CEO.

The whole process starts with salty water. There are small amounts of magnesium in seawater, as well as in salt lakes and groundwater. (In seawater, the concentration is about 1,300 parts per million, so magnesium makes up about 0.1% of seawater by weight.) If you take that seawater or brine and clean it up, concentrate it, and dry it out, you get a solid magnesium chloride salt.

Magrathea takes that salt (which it currently buys from Cargill) and puts it into the electrolyzer. The device reaches temperatures of about 700 °C (almost 1,300 °F) and runs electricity through the molten salt to split the magnesium from the chlorine, forming magnesium metal.

Typically, running an electrolyzer in this process would require a steady source of electricity. The temperature is generally kept just high enough to maintain the salt in a molten state. Allowing it to cool down too much would allow it to solidify, messing up the process and potentially damaging the equipment. Heating it up more than necessary would just waste energy. 

Magrathea’s approach builds in flexibility. Basically, the company runs its electrolyzer about 100 °C higher than is necessary to keep the molten salt a liquid. It then uses the extra heat in inventive ways, including to dry out the magnesium salt that eventually goes into the reactor. This preparation can be done intermittently, so the company can take in electricity when it’s cheaper or when more renewables are available, cutting costs and emissions. In addition, the process will make a co-product, called magnesium oxide, that can be used to trap carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, helping to cancel out the remaining carbon pollution.

The result could be a production process with net-zero emissions, according to an independent life cycle assessment completed in January. While it likely won’t reach this bar at first, the potential is there for a much more climate-friendly process than what’s used in the industry today, Grant says.

Breaking into magnesium production won’t be simple, says Simon Jowitt, director of the Nevada Bureau of Mines and of the Center for Research in Economic Geology at the University of Nevada, Reno.

China produces roughly 95% of the global supply as of 2024, according to data from the US Geological Survey. This dominant position means companies there can flood the market with cheap metal, making it difficult for others to compete. “The economics of all this is uncertain,” Jowitt says.

The US has some trade protections in place, including an anti-dumping duty, but newer players with alternative processes can still face obstacles. US Magnesium, a company based in Utah, was the only company making magnesium in the US in recent years, but it shut down production in 2022 after equipment failures and a history of environmental concerns. 

Magrathea plans to start building a demonstration plant in Utah in late 2025 or early 2026, which will have a capacity of roughly 1,000 tons per year and should be running in 2027. In February the company announced that it signed an agreement with a major automaker, though it declined to share its name on the record. The automaker pre-purchased material from the demonstration plant and will incorporate it into existing products.

After the demonstration plant is running, the next step would be to build a commercial plant with a larger capacity of around 50,000 tons annually.

A new sodium metal fuel cell could help clean up transportation

A new type of fuel cell that runs on sodium metal could one day help clean up sectors where it’s difficult to replace fossil fuels, like rail, regional aviation, and short-distance shipping. The device represents a departure from technologies like lithium-based batteries and is more similar conceptually to hydrogen fuel cell systems. 

The sodium-air fuel cell was designed by a team led by Yet-Ming Chiang, a professor of materials science and engineering at MIT. It has a higher energy density than lithium-ion batteries and doesn’t require the super-cold temperatures or high pressures that hydrogen does, making it potentially more practical for transport. “I’m interested in sodium metal as an energy carrier of the future,” Chiang says.  

The device’s design, published today in Joule, is related to the technology behind one of Chiang’s companies, Form Energy, which is building iron-air batteries for large energy storage installations like those that could help store wind and solar power on the grid. Form’s batteries rely on water, iron, and air.

One technical challenge for metal-air batteries has historically been reversibility. A battery’s chemical reactions must be easily reversed so that in one direction they generate electricity, discharging the battery, and in the other electricity goes into the cell and the reverse reactions happen, charging it up.

When a battery’s reactions produce a very stable product, it can be difficult to recharge the battery without losing capacity. To get around this problem, the team at Form had discussions about whether their batteries could be refuelable rather than rechargeable, Chiang says. The idea was that rather than reversing the reactions, they could simply run the system in one direction, add more starting material, and repeat. 

Ultimately, Form chose a more traditional battery concept, but the idea stuck with Chiang, who decided to explore it with other metals and landed on the idea of a sodium-based fuel cell. 

In this fuel cell format, the device takes in chemicals and runs reactions that generate electricity, after which the products get removed. Then fresh fuel is put in to run the whole thing again—no electrical charging required. (You might recognize this concept from hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, like the Toyota Mirai.)

Chiang and his colleagues set out to build a fuel cell that runs on liquid sodium, which could have a much higher energy density than existing commercial technologies, so it would be small and light enough to be used for things like regional airplanes or short-distance shipping.

GRETCHEN ERTL/MITTR

The research team built small test cells to try out the concept and ran them to show that they could use the sodium-metal-based system to generate electricity. Since sodium becomes liquid at about 98 °C (208 °F), the cells operated at moderate temperatures of between 110 °C and 130 °C (or 230 °F and 266°F), which could be practical for use on planes or ships, Chiang says. 

From their work with these experimental devices, the researchers estimated that the energy density was about 1,200 watt-hours per kilogram (Wh/kg). That’s much higher than what commercial lithium-ion batteries can reach today (around 300 Wh/kg). Hydrogen fuel cells can achieve high energy density, but that requires the hydrogen to be stored at high pressures and often ultra-low temperatures.

“It’s an interesting cell concept,” says Jürgen Janek, a professor at the Institute of Physical Chemistry at the University of Giessen in Germany, who was not involved in the research. There’s been previous research on sodium-air batteries in the past, Janek says, but using this sort of chemistry in a fuel cell instead is new.

“One of the critical issues with this type of cell concept is the safety issue,” Janek says. Sodium metal reacts very strongly with water. (You may have seen videos where blocks of sodium metal get thrown into a lake, to dramatic effect). Asked about this issue, Chiang says the design of the cell ensures that water produced during reactions is continuously removed, so there’s not enough around to fuel harmful reactions. The solid electrolyte, a ceramic material, also helps prevent reactions between water and sodium, Chiang adds. 

Another question is what happens to one of the cell’s products, sodium hydroxide. Commonly known as lye, it’s an industrial chemical, used in products like liquid drain-cleaning solution. One of the researchers’ suggestions is to dilute the product and release it into the atmosphere or ocean, where it would react with carbon dioxide, capturing it in a stable form and preventing it from contributing to global warming. There are groups pursuing field trials using this exact chemical for ocean-based carbon removal, though some have been met with controversy. The researchers also laid out the potential for a closed system, where the chemical could be collected and sold as a by-product.

There are economic factors working in favor of sodium-based systems, though it would take some work to build up the necessary supply chains. Today, sodium metal isn’t produced at very high volumes. However, it can be made from sodium chloride (table salt), which is incredibly cheap. And it was produced more abundantly in the past, since it was used in the process of making leaded gasoline. So there’s a precedent for a larger supply chain, and it’s possible that scaling up production of sodium metal would make it cheap enough to use in fuel cell systems, Chiang says.

Chiang has cofounded a company called Propel Aero to commercialize the research. The project received funding from ARPA-E’s Propel-1K program, which aims to develop new forms of high-power energy storage for aircraft, trains, and ships.

The next step is to continue research to improve the cells’ performance and energy density, and to start designing small-scale systems. One potential early application is drones. “We’d like to make something fly within the next year,” Chiang says.

“If people don’t find it crazy, I’ll be rather disappointed,” Chiang says. “Because if an idea doesn’t sound crazy at the beginning, it probably isn’t as revolutionary as you think. Fortunately, most people think I’m crazy on this one.”