The U.S. intelligence community released its annual threat assessment for 2025 on March 25th. Notably absent was any mention of climate change—marking the first time in more than ten years that it hasn’t been included.
Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, when questioned about the removal during a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing, stated that the assessment focused on “the most extreme and critical direct threats to our national security.”
Gabbard stated she did not recall directing the intelligence community to omit climate change from the report. However, this change occurs amidst the Trump Administration’s ongoing de-emphasis on climate issues within the federal agenda.
The U.S. government has regarded climate change as a global security concern for at least three decades. Mark Nevitt, a law professor at Emory University, notes that academic studies at the Naval War College addressed environmental stressors and climate change back in the 1980s. President George W. Bush first officially recognized climate change as a national security threat in August 1991, and the U.S. national security community initially listed it as a threat in [omitted specific year/document as it was missing in original text].
The annual threat assessment typically includes climate change due to its potential to destabilize regions both domestically and internationally. Nevitt explains that the assessment aims to project areas of concern and competition, guiding the U.S. national security sector’s focus. The intelligence community wants to be prepared for future conflicts and competition because climate change is destabilizing various parts of the world through extreme weather, droughts, and rising sea levels.
The intelligence community often describes climate change as a “threat multiplier” because it intensifies existing problems and creates new challenges.
Scott Moore, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania specializing in climate and security, states that climate change exacerbates existing threats like extremism and terrorism. He explains that intensified climate impacts put stress on food systems and worsen tensions within countries.
Climate migration, for example, is increasing globally. According to the [omitted source name as it was missing in the original text], weather-related disasters caused over half of the new internal displacements within countries in 2023.
Karen Seto, a professor at Yale School of the Environment, explains that mass migration can lead to political and social tensions, as well as border issues, potentially destabilizing entire regions and affecting national security. A study from the journal [omitted journal name as it was missing in original text] found that extreme weather contributes to migration into the U.S. through the southern border, with more migrants from agricultural regions in Mexico settling in the U.S. following severe droughts.
Experts say such displacement can significantly impact people’s lives and livelihoods, especially in already vulnerable regions. Moore suggests that in countries with extremist ideologies, extreme droughts caused by climate change may lead people to abandon farming, migrate to cities facing unemployment, become socially dislocated, and become more susceptible to extremism or violence.
Domestically, considering climate change enables the U.S. military to ensure infrastructure resilience against extreme weather and to effectively respond to national disasters both at home and abroad. Nevitt highlights the need for the National Guard, Coast Guard, and U.S. military to assist communities during extreme weather events. Intensifying extreme weather due to climate change could strain military resources and endanger lives if the military isn’t prepared.
Infrastructure within the U.S., like energy and internet grids, requires fortification. Regions losing power during extreme weather events could become vulnerable to attack.
Seto warns that the energy grid is highly at risk, and wildfires across the country could act as threat multipliers. She believes the national security risk lies in the lack of preparedness to respond to threats from foreign agents exploiting potential weaknesses.
Demonstrating a commitment to addressing the climate crisis is crucial for maintaining U.S. diplomatic strength, especially with countries that prioritize climate change. Moore points out that countries significant to the U.S. defense posture, like Pacific Island nations, are deeply concerned about climate change and want to know what the U.S. is doing to help them cope. Ignoring climate change or censoring its mention can harm diplomatic engagement with important countries.
Experts warn that removing climate change from the threat list and deprioritizing the issue will only make the U.S. more vulnerable. Nevitt argues that this will make the administration and national security sector less agile, potentially lacking the necessary personnel, plans, policies, and capacity when disasters strike. He emphasizes that climate change cannot be wished away.
