Bald Eagles Are Thriving. Could Trump Change That?
'The bald eagle has been a poster child for the effectiveness of the Endangered Species Act,' says Bill Bowerman, professor of wildlife ecology and toxicology at the University of Maryland.
It was only on Christmas Eve last year that the Biden Administration officially designated the bird as America's national bird. But now, as the Trump Administration proposes a rule change that would alter the definition of 'harm' under the act, the Endangered Species Act's power to preserve habitats and protected species around the country could be at risk.
The goal of the Endangered Species Act is to provide a framework for saving threatened animals and their environments. The act ended up recovering the bald eagle, considered near extinction in the 1960s, with only 417 known nesting pairs recorded in the lower 48 states in 1963. Now, the bird is no longer under threat; they were delisted from the Endangered Species Act in 2007. Today, there are over 71,400 nesting pairs of bald eagles in the wild.
These birds of prey seem to be thriving. Many might not know, but bald eagles are migratory birds. While some choose to live in the same region year-round, others travel far distances during the year. And their range is expanding with our changing climate; during their migration season, the birds are now moving further north than in previous years, and are laying their eggs earlier.
Scientists say they are keeping an eye on these changes, though. While they are not yet impacting the bird's reproduction or food sources, they are seeing new challenges emerge. 'This year, at the end of March in Michigan, there was a three day freezing rain event, and it put up to one inch thick ice on trees,' says Bowerman. 'So it brought down some nest sites.'
During their migrations they also rely heavily on National Parks—many of which have been facing cuts under the Trump Administration. 'When they migrate, it appears that they use state, national, county, federal parks, or protected lands as stepping stones,' says Scott Rush, associate professor the department of wildlife, fisheries, and aquaculture at Mississippi State University. 'If we lose some of these areas, we don't have the support mechanisms for these birds over these large places.'
It's not just the likely elimination of protections to National Parks, however, that could impact the birds. Opening up more forests to industry is also a potential threat to their habitats. In April, the Trump Administration proposed a rule change that would continue to prohibit actions that harm or kill endangered species, but rescind protections for their habitats. Habitat destruction is the greatest threat to endangered species—and could put others at risk. The move is part of the administration's plan to increase drilling and logging in the United States.
Regardless of whether these changes come into effect, our daily habits could also be impacting bald eagles. These days, one of the leading killers for bald eagles is electrocution from power lines. 'As temperature changes, whether it be hotter or colder, there's a greater need for more electricity, and a lot of bald eagles nest on utility towers, and some of the issues with utility towers is that the birds can get electrocuted or they can cause outages,' says Rush.
Bowerman says that it serves as a reminder that we should be doing more, not less, when it comes to protecting the species that live alongside us. 'We need to have greater appreciation for species and learn about them before we discount them and just write them off.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
37 minutes ago
- Newsweek
American kids' health is deteriorating
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. The health of American children has been deteriorating for nearly two decades, a new study warns. From rising mortality rates to an alarming surge in chronic conditions, obesity and mental health struggles, U.S. children are facing a mounting health emergency that experts say demands urgent national attention. Published in the journal JAMA Network, the study analyzed health data collected from 2007 to 2023 by eight comprehensive sources, including national mortality statistics, five large-scale surveys and pediatric electronic health records. "We are experiencing a crisis in child health—this is clear and really not debatable," pediatrician and paper author Dr. Christopher B. Forrest told Newsweek. Girl works at a computer and eats fast food. Girl works at a computer and eats fast food. Yuliya Apanasenka According to Forrest, the decline in the health of American children has been going on for several decades—and is affecting virtually all aspects of health. He said: "Because children are rapidly developing and depend on adults and institutions, [such as] for the health, wellbeing and resilience, they are the 'canaries in the coal mine'—the first indicators that we have a more generalized deterioration in the ecosystem that all of us live within." One of the most jarring findings is how much more likely children are to die in the United States compared to those in other high-income countries. Infants under one are 78 percent more likely to die in the U.S. than in 18 comparable nations in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). For children and adolescents aged one to 19, the mortality risk is 80 percent higher. Leading causes include prematurity and sudden unexpected infant death among babies, while firearm deaths and motor vehicle crashes are driving youth mortality rates. In fact, U.S. children were 15 times more likely to die by firearm than their counterparts abroad. The study also found a sharp increase in chronic health conditions among children. Between 2011 and 2023, the percentage of children aged 3–17 with at least one chronic condition rose from 39.9 percent to 45.7 percent in pediatric health systems and from 25.8 percent to 31 percent in the general population. Obesity now affects one in five children, early puberty—particularly among girls—is becoming more common, and one in seven girls begins menstruation before age 12. These changes, researchers warn, may be linked to broader environmental, nutritional and societal stressors that are yet to be fully understood. Beyond physical health, children's emotional and functional wellbeing also showed signs of significant decline. From increased sleep disturbances to more frequent activity limitations, American children today are also struggling in ways that go beyond the clinical. Rates of depressive symptoms, loneliness and physical complaints such as headaches and stomachaches have also worsened. While many of the adverse trends have worsened in the past decade, some began much earlier. U.S. childhood mortality, once on par with peer countries in the 1960s, began to diverge in the 1970s. Obesity among 2–19-year-olds grew from just 5.2 percent in the early 1970s to nearly 20 percent by 2018. Average sleep duration has also declined steadily since the early 20th century. Forrest told Newsweek that there are no quick fixes or simple solutions. Essentially, we need to completely transform the environment in which children develop. "We need the collective intelligence and wisdom of parents to collaborate on developing the solutions that will start to shift the places where children live, grow and learn from environments that are unhealthful to ones that are health promoting," he said. Forrest's advice to parents is to engage with extended family, the wider community and, most importantly, their children. "Creating a loving, nurturing, caring and responsive home environment is critical for children's healthy development," he said. "We cannot as parents do that alone. We need a relational web of support and care. Make family a priority, more important than a higher paying job." Do you have a tip on a health story that Newsweek should be covering? Do you have a question about children's health? Let us know via health@ Reference Forrest, C. B., Koenigsberg, L. J., Eddy Harvey, F., Maltenfort, M. G., & Halfon, N. (2025). Trends in US children's mortality, chronic conditions, obesity, functional status, and symptoms. JAMA.
Chicago Tribune
6 hours ago
- Chicago Tribune
Illinois lawmakers have mixed results in efforts to rein in AI
Illinois lawmakers have so far achieved mixed results in efforts to regulate the burgeoning technology of artificial intelligence, a task that butts up against moves by the Trump administration to eliminate restrictions on AI. AI-related bills introduced during the spring legislative session covered areas including education, health care, insurance and elections. Supporters say the measures are intended to address potential threats to public safety or personal privacy and to counter any deceitful actions facilitated by AI, while not hindering innovation. Although several of those measures failed to come to a vote, the Democratic-controlled General Assembly is only six months into its two-year term and all of the legislation remains in play. But going forward, backers will have to contend with Republican President Donald Trump's administration's plans to approach AI. Days into Trump's second term in January, his administration rescinded a 2023 executive order from Democratic President Joe Biden, that emphasized the 'highest urgency on governing the development and use of AI safely and responsibly.' Trump replaced that policy with a declaration that 'revokes certain existing AI policies and directives that act as barriers to American AI innovation.' Last week, the states got a reprieve from the federal government after a provision aimed at preventing states from regulating AI was removed from the massive, Trump-backed tax breaks bill that he signed into law. Still, Democratic Illinois state Rep. Abdelnasser Rashid, who co-chaired a legislative task force on AI last year, criticized Trump's decision to rescind Biden's AI executive order that Rashid said 'set us on a positive path toward a responsible and ethical development and deployment of AI.' Republican state Rep. Jeff Keicher of Sycamore agreed on the need to address any potential for AI to jeopardize people's safety. But many GOP legislators have pushed back on Democratic efforts to regulate the technology and expressed concerns such measures could hamper innovation and the ability of companies in the state to remain competitive. 'If we inhibit AI and the development that could possibly come, it's just like we're inhibiting what you can use metal for,' said Keicher, the Republican spokesperson for the House Cybersecurity, Data Analytics, & IT (Information Technology) Committee. 'And what we're going to quickly see is we're going to see the Chinese, we're going to see the Russians, we're going to see other countries come up without restrictions with very innovative ways to use AI,' he said. 'And I'd certainly hate in this advanced technological environment to have the state of Illinois or the United States writ large behind the eight ball.' Last December, a task force co-led by Rashid and composed of Pritzker administration officials, educators and other lawmakers compiled a report detailing some of the risks presented by AI. It addressed the emergence of generative AI, a subset of the technology that can create text, code and images. The report issued a number of recommendations including measures to protect workers in various industries from being displaced while at the same time preparing the workforce for AI innovation. The report built on some of the AI-related measures passed by state lawmakers in 2024, including legislation subsequently signed by Pritzker making it a civil rights violation for employers to use AI if it subjects employees to discrimination, as well as legislation barring the use of AI to create child pornography, making it a felony to be caught with artificially created images. In addition to those measures, Pritzker signed a bill in 2023 to make anyone civilly liable if they alter images of someone else in a sexually explicit manner through means that include AI. In the final days of session in late May, lawmakers without opposition passed a measure meant to prevent AI chatbots from posing as mental health providers for patients in need of therapy. The bill also prohibits a person or a business from advertising or offering mental health services unless those services are carried out by licensed professionals. It limits the use of AI in the work of those professionals, barring them, for example, from using the technology to make 'independent therapeutic decisions.' Anyone found in violation of the measure could have to pay the state as much as $10,000 in fines. The legislation awaits Pritzker's signature. State Rep. Bob Morgan, a Deerfield Democrat and the main House sponsor of the bill, said the measure is necessary at a time when there's 'more and more stories of AI inappropriately and in a dangerous way giving therapeutic advice to individuals.' 'We started to learn how AI was not only ill-equipped to respond to these mental health situations but actually providing harmful and dangerous recommendations,' he said. Another bill sponsored by Morgan, which passed through the House but didn't come to a vote in the Senate, would prevent insurers doing business in Illinois from denying, reducing or terminating coverage solely because of the use of an artificial intelligence system. State Sen. Laura Fine, the bill's main Senate sponsor, said the bill could be taken up as soon as the fall veto session in October, but noted the Senate has a year and half to pass it before a new legislature is seated. 'This is a new horizon and we just want to make sure that with the use of AI, there's consumer protections because that's of utmost importance,' said Fine, a Democrat from Glenview who is also running for Congress. 'And that's really what we're focusing on in this legislation is how do we properly protect the consumer.' Measures to address a controversial AI phenomenon known as 'deepfakes,' when video or still images of a face, body or voice are digitally altered to appear as another person, for political purposes have so far failed to gain traction in Illinois. The deepfake tactic has been used in attempts to influence elections. An audio deepfake of Biden during last year's national elections made it sound like he was telling New Hampshire voters in a robocall not to vote. According to the task force report, legislation regulating the use of deepfakes in elections has been enacted in some 20 states. During the previous two-year Illinois legislative term, which ended in early January, three bills addressing the issue were introduced but none passed. Rashid reintroduced one of those bills this spring, to no avail. It would have banned the distribution of deceitful campaign material if the person doing so knew the shared information to be false, and was distributed within 90 days of an election. The bill also would prohibit a person from sharing the material if it was being done 'to harm the reputation or electoral prospects of a candidate' and change the voting behavior of electors by deliberately causing them to believe the misinformation. Rashid said hurdles to passing the bill include whether to enforce civil and criminal penalties for violators. The measure also needs to be able to withstand First Amendment challenges, which the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois has cited as a reason for its opposition. 'I don't think anyone in their right mind would say that the First Amendment was intended to allow the public to be deceived by political deep fakes,' Rashid, of Bridgeview, said. 'But … we have to do this in a really surgical way.' Rashid is also among more than 20 Democratic House sponsors on a bill that would bar state agencies from using any algorithm-based decision-making systems without 'continuous meaningful human review' if those systems could have an impact on someone's civil liberties or their ability to receive public assistance. The bill is meant to protect against algorithmic bias, another threat the task force report sought to address. But the bill went nowhere in the spring. One AI-related bill backed by Rashid that did pass through the legislature and awaits Pritzker's signature would prohibit a community college from using artificial intelligence as the sole source of instruction for students. The bill — which passed 93-22 in the House in the final two days of session after passing 46-12 in the Senate on May 21 — would allow community college faculty to use AI to augment course instruction. Rashid said there were 'technical reasons' for not including four-year colleges and universities in Illinois in the bill but said there'd be further discussions on whether the measure would be expanded to include those schools. While he said he knows of no incidents of AI solely replacing classroom instruction, he explained 'that's the direction things may be moving' and that 'the level of experimentation with AI in the education space is significant.' 'I fully support using AI to supplement instruction and to provide students with tailored support. I think that's fantastic,' Rashid said. 'What we don't want is during a, for example, a budget crisis, or for cost-cutting measures, to start sacrificing the quality of education by replacing instructors with AI tools.' While Keicher backed Morgan's mental health services AI bill, he opposed Rashid's community college bill, saying the language was 'overly broad.' 'I think it's too restrictive,' Keicher said. 'And I think it would prohibit our education institutions in the state of Illinois from being able to capitalize on the AI space to the benefit of the students that are coming through the pipeline because whether we like it or not, we've all seen the hologram teachers out there on the sci-fi shows that instruct our kids. At some point, 50 years, 100 years, that's going to be reality.' Also on the education front, lawmakers advanced a measure that would help establish guidelines for elementary and high school teachers and school administrators on how to use AI. It passed 74-34 in the House before passing 56-0 in the Senate during the final hours of spring session. According to the legislation, which has yet to be signed by Pritzker, the guidance should include explanations of basic artificial intelligence concepts, including machine learning, natural language processing, and computer vision; specific ways AI can be used in the classroom to inform teaching and learning practices 'while preserving the human relationships essential to effective teaching and learning'; and how schools can address technological bias and privacy issues. John Sonnenberg, a former director of eLearning for the State Board of Education, said at a global level, AI is transforming education and, therefore, children should be prepared for learning about the integration of AI and human intelligence. 'We're kind of working toward, not only educating kids for their future but using that technology to help in that effort to personalize learning and do all the things in education we know we should be doing but up to this point and time we didn't have the technology and the support to do it affordably,' said Sonnenberg, who supported the legislation. 'And now we do.'
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
Scientists warn US will lose a generation of talent because of Trump cuts
A generation of scientific talent is at the brink of being lost to overseas competitors by the Trump administration's dismantling of the National Science Foundation (NSF), with unprecedented political interference at the agency jeopardizing the future of US industries and economic growth, according to a Guardian investigation. The gold standard peer-reviewed process used by the NSF to support cutting-edge, high-impact science is being undermined by the chaotic cuts to staff, programs and grants, and by meddling by the so-called department of government efficiency (Doge), according to multiple current and former NSF employees who spoke with the Guardian. The scientists warn that Trump's assault on diversity in science is already eroding the quality of fundamental research funded at the NSF, the premier federal investor in basic science and engineering, which threatens to derail advances in tackling existential threats to food, water and biodiversity in the US. Related: We are witnessing the destruction of science in America | Paul Darren Bieniasz 'Before Trump, the review process was based on merit and impact. Now, it's like rolling the dice, because a Doge person has the final say,' said one current program officer. 'There has never in the history of NSF been anything like this. It's disgusting what we're being instructed to do.' Another program officer said: 'The exact details of the extra step is opaque but I can say with high confidence that people from Doge or its proxies are scrutinizing applications with absolutely devastating consequences. The move amounts to the US willingly conceding global supremacy to competitors like China in biological, social and physical sciences. It is a mind-boggling own goal.' The NSF, founded in 1950, is the only federal agency that funds fundamental research across all fields of science and engineering, and which over the years has contributed to major breakthroughs in organ transplants, gene technology, AI, smartphones and the internet, extreme weather and other hazard warning systems, American sign language, cybersecurity and even the language app Duolingo. In normal times, much of the NSF budget ($9bn in 2024-25) is allocated to research institutions after projects undergo a rigorous three-step review process – beginning with the program officer, an expert in the field, who ensures the proposed study fits in with the agency's priorities. The program officer convenes an expert panel to evaluate the proposal on two statutory criteria – intellectual merit and broader impacts on the nation and people – which under the NSF's legal mandate includes broadening participation of individuals, institutions, and geographic regions in Stem (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) fields. The NSF's gold standard review process has 100% been compromised Current NSF program officer Applications from across the country which are greenlighted by the program officer are almost always funded, though may be subject to tweaks after revision by the division director before the grants directorate allocates the budget. That was before Trump. Now, Doge personnel can veto any study – without explanation, the Guardian has confirmed. 'We are under pressure to only fund proposals that fit the new narrow priorities even if they did not review as well as others,' said one current program officer. 'The NSF's gold standard review process has 100% been compromised.' Research aimed at addressing the unequal impact of the climate crisis and other environmental hazards is particularly vulnerable, according to several sources. New proposals are also being screened for any direct reference or indirect connection to diversity, equity or inclusion (DEI). 'NSF is being asked to make science racist again – which contradicts evidence that shows that diversity of ideas is good for science and good for innovation. We are missing things when only white males do science,' said one program officer. In addition to Doge interfering in new proposals, at least 1,653 active NSF research grants authorized on their merits have so far been abruptly cancelled – abandoned midway through the project, according to Grant Watch, a non-profit tracker of federal science and health research grants canceled under Trump. Multiple NSF scientists who oversee a diverse range of NSF programs described the grant cancellations as 'unprecedented', 'arbitrary' and a 'colossal waste of taxpayer money'. Almost 60% of the projects abandoned are in states which voted for Joe Biden in 2024, Guardian analysis found. Meanwhile more than one in nine cancelled grants – 12% of the total – were at Harvard University, which Trump has particularly targeted since coming to power in January. In addition, studies deemed to be violating Trump's executive orders on DEI and environmental justice – regardless of their scientific merit, potential impact or urgency – are being abruptly terminated at particularly high rates. It's not uncommon for the NSF and other federal research agencies to shift focus to reflect a new administration's priorities. Amid mounting evidence on the crucial role of diversity in innovation and science, Biden priorities included increased effort to tackle inequalities across the Stem workforce – and a commitment to target underserved communities most affected by the climate crisis and environmental harms. Trump's priorities are AI, quantum information science, nuclear, biotech and translational research. It has been soul-sucking to see projects that went through the review process being changed or terminated over and over again Current NSF staffer 'It's normal that a new administration will emphasize some areas, de-emphasize others, and we would gradually transition to new priorities. During the George W Bush administration there were shenanigans around climate change, but it was nothing like this kind of meddling in the scientific review process. You never just throw proposals in the garbage can,' said one current NSF staffer. 'Our mandate is to advance science and innovation. And we just can't do that if we're not thinking about diversifying the Stem workforce. We don't have enough people or diversity of thought without broadening participation – which is part of the NSF mission mandate,' said a former program officer from the Directorate for Computer and Information Science who recently accepted a buyout. 'It has been soul-sucking to see projects that went through the review process being changed or terminated over and over again,' they added. *** The Federal Reserve estimates that government-supported research from the NSF and other agencies has had a return on investment of 150% to 300% over the past 75 years, meaning US taxpayers have gotten back between $1.50 and $3 for every dollar invested. Trump's big, beautiful bill calls for a 56% cut to the current $9bn NSF budget, as well as a 73% reduction in staff and fellowships – with graduate students among the hardest hit. Last week, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (Hud) announced that it will be moving into the NSF headquarters in Virginia over the course of the next two years. The shock announcement – which did not include any plans on relocating more than 1,800 NSF employees – has triggered speculation that the administration eventually plans to defund the agency entirely. For now, program officers are also being instructed to return research proposals to scientists and institutions 'without review' – regardless of merit and despite having been submitted in response to specific NSF solicitations to address gaps in scientific and engineering knowledge around some of the most pressing concerns in the US. This includes projects that have in fact undergone review, and others which can no longer be processed due to staff and program cuts, according to multiple NSF sources. In one case, a 256-page proposal by scientists at four public universities to use ancient DNA records to better forecast biodiversity loss as the planet warms was apparently archived without consideration. In an email seen by the Guardian, the NSF told Jacquelyn Gill, a paleoecologist and principal investigator (lead scientist) based at the University of Maine, that all proposals submitted to the Biology Integration Institute program were returned without review. A second email said their specific proposal had been 'administratively screened' and the area of proposed study was 'inappropriate for NSF funding'. An estimated 40% of animals and 34% of plants across the US are currently at risk. The proposed study would have used an emerging technology to extract ancient DNA from lake sediments, ice cores and cave deposits to better understand which species fared better or worse when the planet naturally warmed thousands of years ago – in order to help model and protect biodiversity in the face of human-made climate change. Gill told the Guardian the team took great care to avoid any reference to DEI or climate change. The grant would have created much-needed research capacity in the US, which is lagging behind Europe in this field. 'Ancient DNA records allow you to reconstruct entire ecosystems at a very high level. This is a very new and emerging science, and grants like this help catalyze the research and reinvest in US infrastructure and workforce in ways that have huge returns on investments for their local economies. It's an absolute slap in the face that the proposal was returned without review,' Gill said. Nothing's going to get funded because there's DEI in this program NSF employee In another example, two academic institutions chosen to receive prestigious $15m grants for translational research – a Trump priority – after a 30-month cross-agency review process led by the engineering directorate and involving hundreds of people will not be honored. The proposals selected for the award through merit review will be returned without review for being 'inappropriate for NSF funding', the Guardian understands. 'This is complex, very high-impact translation science to achieve sustainability across cities and regions and industries … we're being instructed to put the principal investigators off, but nothing's going to get funded because there's DEI in this program,' said an NSF employee with knowledge of the situation. Meanwhile scores of other proposals approved on merit by program officers are disappearing into a 'black box' – languishing for weeks or months without a decision or explanation, which was leading some to 'self-censor', according to NSF staff. 'It's either NSF staff self-censoring to make sure they don't get into trouble, or it is censorship by somebody inserted in the scientific review process from Doge. Either way it's a political step, and therefore problematic,' said Anne Marie Schmoltner, a program officer in the chemistry division who retired in February after 30 years in the agency. In addition to distributing funds to seasoned researchers, the NSF supports students and up-and-coming scientists and engineers through fellowships, research opportunities and grants. This next generation of talent is being hit particularly hard under Trump, who is attempting to impose sweeping restrictions on visas and travel bans on scores of countries. The proposed 2026 budget includes funding for only 21,400 under- and postgraduate students nationwide – a 75% fall on this year. Like many scientists across the country, Gill, the paleoecologist, is not accepting new graduate students this fall due to funding uncertainty. 'That's a whole generation of young scientists who see no pathway into the field for them. I cannot stress enough how deeply upsetting and demoralizing these cuts are to a community of people who only ever wanted to solve problems and be of use.' Yet the NSF student pipeline provides experts for the oil and gas, mining, chemical, big tech and other industries which support Trump, in addition to academic and government-funded agencies. 'Industry is working on optimizing what they're doing right now, whereas NSF is looking 10, 20 years down the road. The US wants a global, robust economy and for that you need innovation, and for innovation you need the fundamental research funded by the NSF,' said Schmoltner. The NSF declined to comment, referring instead to the agency website last updated in April which states: 'The principles of merit, competition, equal opportunity and excellence are the bedrock of the NSF mission. NSF continues to review all projects using Intellectual Merit and Broader Impacts criteria.' *** The sweeping cuts to the NSF come on top of Trump's dismantling of other key scientific research departments within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Department of Agriculture (USDA) and US Geological Service (USGS). The USGS is the research arm of the Department of Interior. Its scientists help solve real-life problems about hazards, natural resources, water, energy, ecosystems, and the impacts of climate and land-use change for tribal governments, the Bureau of Land Management, fish and wildlife services, and the National Parks Service among other interior agencies. Trump's big, beautiful bill cuts the USGS budget by 39%. This includes slashing the entire budget for the agency's ecosystems mission area (EMA), which leads federal research on species & ecosystems and houses the climate adaptation science centers. EMA scientists figure out how to better protect at-risk species such as bees and wolverines, minimize harmful overgrazing on BLM lands, and prevent invasive carp from reaching the Great Lakes – all vitally important to protect food security in the US as the climate changes. The EMA has already lost 25 to 30% of employees through Doge-approved layoffs and buyouts, and is now facing termination. 'We've already lost a lot of institutional memory and new, up-and-coming leaders. [If Trump's budget is approved], all science in support of managing our public lands and natural resources would be cut,' said one USGS program officer. This is now a political process USGS scientist 'Our economy is driven by natural resources including timber, minerals and food systems, and if we don't manage these in a sustainable way, we will be shooting ourselves in the foot.' Like at the NSF, the USGC's gold standard peer-review system for research approval and oversight is now at the mercy of Doge – in this case Tyler Hasson, the former oil executive given sweeping authority by the interior secretary. According to USGS staff, Hasson's office accepts or rejects proposals based on two paragraphs of information program officers are permitted to submit – without any dialogue or feedback. 'The gold standard scientific review is being interfered with. This is now a political process,' said one USGS scientist. A spokesperson for the interior department said: 'The claim that science is being 'politicized' is categorically false. We reject the narrative that responsible budget reform constitutes an 'assault on science'. On the contrary, we are empowering American innovation by cutting red tape, reducing bureaucracy and ensuring that the next generation of scientists and engineers can focus on real-world solutions – not endless paperwork or politically motivated research agendas.' The USGS, office of management and budget and White House did not respond to requests for comment. The Guardian is interested in hearing from US scientists and students impacted by the changes at National Science Foundation and other agencies, including on the impact on innovation in the US. Contact
