The history of US climate policy reveals a troubling pattern of ignoring or dismissing scientific warnings about global warming. From the first presidential alert in 1965 to recent actions in 2025, key moments show how political and economic interests often outweighed urgent environmental concerns. Despite clear scientific evidence, opportunities for meaningful climate action were repeatedly missed.
1. The First Presidential Warning, 1965
In 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson delivered a message to Congress warning that rising carbon dioxide from fossil fuels was altering the atmosphere globally. This marked the first time such a warning reached the highest level of the US government. The warning was based on a detailed report from Johnson’s Science Advisory Committee, authored by climate scientists like Roger Revelle and Charles Keeling. They cautioned that burning fossil fuels was driving global warming and sea level rise. Although Johnson passed environmental laws that year, none addressed carbon emissions. This marked the beginning of missed climate action in US policy.
2. The White House Climate Memo, 1977
In 1977, President Jimmy Carter received a pivotal one-page White House Climate Memo warning that climate change would become evident by the 2000s through extreme weather like heat waves, floods, and droughts. Carter took the threat seriously. He promoted renewable energy, installed solar panels on the White House, and aimed for 20 percent solar energy by 2000. He also asked the National Academy of Sciences to study climate change in 1980. However, his 1980 election loss halted these efforts. His successor abandoned many of his initiatives, missing a chance for the United States to lead an earlier shift from fossil fuels.
3. The Charney Report, 1979
The 1979 Charney Report was the first in-depth scientific assessment linking greenhouse gas emissions to climate change. Commissioned by the White House, it evaluated early climate models. Jule Charney led a panel of top scientists who confirmed that the models accurately projected rising surface temperatures. They estimated a climate sensitivity of 3°C, a figure still widely accepted. Despite its clarity, the report was ignored. After Reagan’s 1980 election, his administration reversed course. The US weakened environmental protections, promoted fossil fuels, and dismissed climate warnings. This marked the beginning of a long-standing federal pattern of climate denial despite solid scientific evidence.
4. Changing Climate Report, 1983
Between 1983 and 1985, the National Academy of Sciences released a 496-page report titled Changing Climate in response to President Carter’s request for a greenhouse effect analysis. Although it echoed the Charney Report’s conclusions and offered no major new data, public relations distorted its urgency. Committee chairman William Nierenberg acknowledged the need for action in the report but publicly suggested future generations could handle the issue better. The media amplified his downplaying, and the Reagan administration used this to dismiss EPA warnings. They framed them as alarmist, avoiding policy change despite clear scientific evidence.
5. Hansen’s Testimony, 1987
Between 1987 and 1989, James Hansen faced repeated censorship by the U.S. government over his climate science testimony. In November 1987, the White House Office of Management and Budget ordered changes to his Senate testimony, removing key global warming data. Hansen refused and testified as a private citizen. On June 23, 1988, during a record-setting summer, Hansen told Congress that global warming was already underway. In April 1989, the Bush administration again tried to alter his statements. Chief of Staff John Sununu pushed for misleading edits, but public backlash over the censorship drew more attention than the testimony itself.
For a visual perspective on how Earth’s climate has changed, take a look at these striking NASA climate change images.
6. The Byrd-Hagel Resolution
The Byrd-Hagel Resolution, passed unanimously by the Senate in 1997, created a major obstacle to US climate efforts. Sponsored by Senators Byrd and Hagel, it stated that the US should not join any climate treaty unless developing countries like China and India also had emissions limits. This effectively blocked US ratification of the Kyoto Protocol, even though the Clinton administration signed it in 1998. The resolution wrongly equated industrialized nations, responsible for 76% of past emissions, with developing countries seeking energy access. This ignored the “common but differentiated responsibilities” principle, prioritizing economic interests over global climate leadership.
7. The Kyoto Protocol Rejection. 2001
In 2001, President George W. Bush rejected the Kyoto Protocol, stating it excluded 80 percent of the world, including China and India, and would harm the US economy. This claim misrepresented emissions data. At the time, the US produced one-fourth of global greenhouse gases, and one American emitted 19 times more carbon dioxide than one Indian. Bush argued that developing nations should limit their essential emissions while wealthy nations maintained luxury emissions. Although US climate scientists voiced concern, some remained hopeful. The US Senate opposed Kyoto’s support for developing nations’ emission growth, prioritizing economic concerns over scientific evidence.
8. Systematic Editing of Climate Reports, 2002-2005
Between 2002 and 2005, the Bush administration systematically edited climate reports to downplay the risks of global warming. Philip Cooney, formerly with the American Petroleum Institute, led this effort while serving as chief of staff of the Council on Environmental Quality. He added language like “lack of understanding” and “considerable uncertainty” to a 2002 climate report and even removed entire sections. Cooney later told Congress that his loyalty was to the President. Although the EPA’s 2002 Climate Action Report linked climate change to human activity, Bush dismissed it and opposed action, revealing a consistent rejection of expert findings.
9. Keystone Pipeline Environmental Assessment Manipulation, 2013
In 2013, the State Department’s environmental review of the Keystone XL pipeline avoided analyzing the project’s direct climate impacts. Instead, it focused on hypothetical outcomes if the pipeline were rejected. This allowed the conclusion that rejection would not reduce emissions because Canadian oil could still be transported by rail. Environmental lawyer Pat Parenteau said this violated both the intent and requirements of NEPA. The EPA repeatedly urged the State Department to assess greenhouse gas emissions and propose mitigation strategies. However, the agency sidestepped these issues, showing how environmental reviews were manipulated to ignore climate consequences.
10. Trump Administration’s Comprehensive Climate Censorship, 2016-2020
Between 2016 and 2020, the Trump administration conducted an extensive and coordinated suppression of climate science. Columbia University’s Sabin Center tracked nearly 100 censorship incidents, including deleting climate-focused websites, removing the term “climate” from programs, banning scientists from conferences, and dissolving advisory boards. Agencies like FEMA omitted climate change from key documents, even while reporting dramatic increases in disaster declarations. The administration also downplayed the Fourth National Climate Assessment, involving 13 federal agencies and over 300 scientists. Trump rejected its findings, stating, “I don’t believe it.” The report was released on Black Friday to minimize public attention.
11. Removing Climate from National Security Assessments, 2019
Between 2019 and 2025, the 2025 Annual Threat Assessment notably removed climate change from the list of national security threats to the United States. This marked a major shift from previous reports that highlighted dangers such as extreme weather and geopolitical impacts. Earlier assessments explained how climate-driven economic and social instability, like Middle East droughts, could lead to conflicts requiring a US military response. Despite expert intelligence and agency findings confirming these risks, the 2025 report excluded climate change. This decision reflects a political choice that disregards professional assessments and established security threats.
To see what actions hold the most potential for real impact, explore these most promising climate solutions backed by science.
12. FEMA’s Strategic Plan Climate Erasure, 2018-20193
FEMA’s 2018-2022 Strategic Plan notably avoided mentioning climate change, despite recognizing more frequent and severe natural disasters. The 2019 National Preparedness Report followed this trend, omitting climate change, drought, and sea-level rise, even while discussing the 2018 California wildfires, which killed 100 people. The report only referenced “climate” once, referring to “school climate” in a section on violence prevention. It acknowledged the wildfires were “widely blamed on a decade-long drought,” but failed to link this to climate change. Rep. Yvette Clarke stated, “It is inexplicable to me that climate change would be left out,” highlighting the risks of ignoring climate science in disaster planning.
13. Trump’s Second Paris Agreement Withdrawal, 2025
President Trump’s second withdrawal from the Paris Agreement on January 20, 2025, marked a significant shift in climate policy. His executive order titled “Putting America First in International Environmental Agreements” began withdrawal proceedings, halted wind energy projects, and mandated fossil fuel leasing. This occurred despite 2024 being the first year to exceed 1.5°C of global warming. The order also ended NOAA’s National Climate Assessment teams and barred federal agencies from considering climate impacts in energy permits. UN Secretary-General António Guterres warned this move would “undermine global efforts” as US emissions rose 3.4% since 2020, ignoring climate security warnings.
The Bottom Line
These 13 instances illustrate a consistent failure by the US government to address climate change responsibly. Ignoring expert advice and suppressing scientific data have delayed crucial policy shifts. As climate impacts intensify, this legacy of neglect underscores the urgent need for informed leadership that prioritizes science and global cooperation to protect the planet’s future.
