A Premature Termination
The current administration’s abrupt cancellation of the U.S. National Nature Assessment (NNA)—a first-of-its-kind report evaluating the state of America’s ecosystems, biodiversity, and their ties to human well-being—has ignited a firestorm within the scientific community. Initiated under President Biden in 2022, the assessment was weeks from completing its first full draft, with over 150 scientists and experts contributing thousands of hours to synthesize data on nature’s role in mitigating climate change, supporting economic stability, and addressing environmental justice .
The NNA aimed to fill critical knowledge gaps identified in prior federal reports, such as the Fifth National Climate Assessment, by quantifying how nature loss exacerbates risks like food insecurity, extreme weather, and migration-driven conflicts . Its cancellation, enacted via executive order on January 30, 2025, leaves policymakers without a roadmap for integrating nature-based solutions—such as wetland conservation or urban green spaces—into climate resilience strategies (1,2).
Funding Freezes and Research Paralysis
The NNA’s termination aligns with broader federal actions destabilizing U.S. science:
NSF Grant Freezes: The National Science Foundation (NSF) paused reviews of 10,000 research grants worth billions of dollars to comply with Trump’s executive orders targeting diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs and climate science (3,4). Reviews were flagged for terms like broadening participation, climate science, and foreign assistance.
2. Global Health Impacts: A parallel freeze on foreign aid has disrupted HIV treatment for 20 million people reliant on the U.S.-funded PEPFAR program, with clinics in Africa rationing antiretroviral drugs (5).
3. Legal Challenges: Twenty-two states and the District of Columbia sued to block the funding freezes, arguing they violate congressional mandates, such as the NSF’s obligation to promote STEM participation among underrepresented groups (6).
These actions mirror the 2025 freeze on USDA climate-smart agriculture grants, which slashed $6 billion from rural energy and debt relief programs.
---
Risks to Climate and Ecosystem Science
The NNA’s cancellation undermines efforts to address three systemic risks:
Economic and Security Blind Spots
The report sought to quantify how ecosystem degradation threatens U.S. security. For example, Chapter 9 analyzed risks from invasive species, maladaptation in climate projects, and migration pressures. One case study highlighted how poorly planned adaptation in São Tomé and Príncipe worsened social inequality and instability (7). Without this data, U.S. policymakers lack tools to evaluate trade-offs between nature-based solutions (e.g., conserving wetlands) and synthetic alternatives (e.g., building water treatment plants).
Climate Resilience Gaps
The NNA’s Chapter 10 focused on unintended consequences of climate mitigation, such as renewable energy projects displacing ecosystems. Researchers warned that excluding privately owned lands—which constitute 80% of New England’s forests—from risk assessments could lead to unchecked deforestation and biodiversity loss .
Environmental Justice
The assessment included a chapter co-led by Dr. Adrienne Hollis, emphasizing nature’s role in remedying environmental injustices in frontline communities. Its cancellation delays actionable strategies for addressing disparities in air quality, flood vulnerability, and green space access .
---
Quantifying the Fallout
Research Delays: NSF’s grant review freeze has postponed funding decisions for projects ranging from geosciences to social equity studies, creating uncertainty for postdoctoral researchers and graduate students reliant on federal support.
Economic Costs: The NNA’s benefit-cost analyses, now shelved, could have informed $31 billion in disaster aid allocated under the 2025 American Relief Act, ensuring funds are spent on high-impact resilience projects.
Global Leadership: The U.S. exit from the World Health Organization and aid freezes jeopardize its influence in global health and climate diplomacy, ceding ground to China and the EU .
---
Scientists Fight Back
Despite the administration’s order, NNA authors are mobilizing to publish the report independently. Dr. Phil Levin, the project’s director, emphasized its urgency: “The country needs what we are producing” . Similarly, the NSF has partially resumed grant reviews under court orders, but flagged projects remain in limbo .
---
Conclusion
The NNA’s cancellation reflects a broader pattern of sidelining science in federal policymaking. With 72% of U.S. fish and wildlife species at risk of extinction and climate-driven disasters accelerating, the absence of a comprehensive nature assessment leaves the nation ill-prepared to navigate intersecting ecological and socioeconomic crises . As legal battles over funding freezes unfold, the scientific community’s resilience—and democracy’s capacity to uphold evidence-based governance—face a defining test.