Trump's proposed budget would eliminate a significant environmental protection initiative
The Trump administration's 2026 budget proposal takes a hefty swing at the Ecosystems Mission Area (EMA), a key component of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), by slashing nearly 90% of its funding. This proposed cut would gut a program that studies the intricate interplay of ecology and biology in the nation's landscapes and waters, a move conservationalists deem a significant misstep.
The EMA, currently funded at around $293 million, stands to receive a mere $29 million under the new budget – a drastic reduction that risks bringing the program to its knees. Alongside other USGS and federal science agency programs, the EMA's funding takes a substantial hit in this proposal, setting off alarms within the scientific community.
Congress still needs to approve the budget, leaving a sliver of hope for the EMA's preservation. Spurred into action, over 70 scientific societies and universities penned a letter to Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, pleading to spare the program from extinction.
Proponents of the Heritage Foundation's Project 2025 – a blueprint for government shrinkage – have long viewed the EMA as an expedient target. Their work cites the contentious land management issues in the western regions, where endangered species protections have occasionally clashed with development, drilling, and mining interests.
The EMA is also instrumental in federal climate research, a focus the Trump administration has repeatedly targeted, dubbing climate science as a component of a "social agenda" in earlier budget proposals.
"This is a division that does very important work, and does it very well," bemoaned Peter Groffman, an ecosystems ecologist at the City University of New York. He questions whether universities and other institutions could effectively carry on the EMA's work.
As it stands, there seem to be no concrete plans to transfer EMA research to other federal agencies.
With millions of dollars and years of dedicated work on the line, the dissolution of the EMA could mean the squandering of invaluable long-term experiments. Researchers in the southwest, for example, have been monitoring vegetation adaptations in arid landscapes, including rangelands, under warming and drying conditions. Their work could help ranchers adapt their grazing practices to future climate conditions.
Critical baseline data would also be lost if ongoing long-term experiments were halted, impeding efforts to monitor changes within ecosystems.
In addition, the EMA plays a pivotal role in predicting and preventing wildfires, tracking invasive species and diseases, managing and protecting water supplies, and studying birds and bees, just to name a few. Its collaborative research units in 41 states provide vital support for states, universities, and the economy at large.
"It's an incredible return on our federal tax dollars," said Jack Payne, a wildlife ecologist who worked with cooperative programs over two decades. "It's a tremendous program for our quality of life, and for the health and success of our natural resources."
The potential elimination of the EMA raises concerns about the U.S.'s ability to face environmental challenges effectively, threatening the country's long-term environmental health and economic stability.
© 2025 The New York Times Company
- The proposed budget cut of nearly 90% for the EMA, a crucial component of the USGS, could potentially end long-term experiments like the monitoring of vegetation adaptations in arid landscapes, threatening the potential for ranchers to adapt their grazing practices to future climate conditions.
- The EMA's instrumental role in predicting and preventing wildfires, tracking invasive species and diseases, managing and protecting water supplies, and studying birds and bees, among other functions, provides vital support for states, universities, and the economy at large, making its dissolution a significant threat to the U.S.'s long-term environmental health and economic stability.
- With the EMA facing potential elimination, the absence of concrete plans to transfer its research to other federal agencies raises questions about the scientific community's ability to carry on the EMA's work, especially in areas like federal climate research, which has previously been targeted by the Trump administration.
