The Trump Administration’s “War on Words” — and What It Means for Climate Action
- frontlineclimateac
- Oct 6
- 3 min read
Updated: 7 days ago
A new language playbook inside DOE
Late September brought a striking directive from the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE): staff were told to avoid terms central to modern climate work — “climate change,” “decarbonization,” “green,” “sustainable,” “emissions,” “energy transition,” “carbon footprint,” even references to “tax credits/subsidies.” The guidance arrived by internal email from Rachel Overbey, EERE’s acting external-affairs chief, urging personnel to steer clear of language “misaligned with the administration’s perspectives and priorities.” (Politico)
DOE spokespeople have publicly denied that any formal ban exists, but multiple outlets have reported the internal instruction — creating a clear clash between official messaging and employee-facing guidance. (E&E News by POLITICO)
Not the first time: From CDC to website scrubs
This is part of a longer pattern. In 2017, federal analysts at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention were told to avoid seven terms (“evidence-based,” “science-based,” etc.) in budget documents — a move widely criticized as politicizing science. Around the same time, the Environmental Protection Agency took its climate pages offline for “updates,” effectively removing public-facing information for years. (The Washington Post)
The current administration has again been accused of removing or burying climate information on federal sites, prompting archivists and advocacy groups to mirror and preserve datasets. (National Security Archive)
Word policing as policy: why language matters
Changing the words changes the work. If agencies can’t say “decarbonization” or “emissions,” it becomes harder to write funding calls, evaluate research, or justify regulations grounded in emissions reduction. Even when framed as a mere “style guide,” vocabulary rules can chill grantmaking and reporting, and they narrow what civil servants feel safe to analyze or recommend. Scholars and watchdogs have warned that such “word bans” amount to a quiet constraint on science and public understanding. (Brookings)
Wider rollback context
The language guidance lands alongside broader federal moves: re-withdrawing from the Paris Agreement; scaling back or pausing clean-energy funding; and rebranding fossil fuels as a growth imperative. Independent trackers and reporting document the new executive order to exit Paris again and a raft of regulatory reversals. (The White House)
Outside Washington, the practice of “wordwashing” has also spread. In 2024, Florida enacted a law striking “climate change” from numerous statutes and re-orienting energy policy toward fossil fuels — a state-level echo of the federal shift. (Florida Phoenix)
The signal to markets and partners
Language is a market signal. U.S. federal agencies shape global supply chains, standards, and finance. Downplaying “emissions” or “energy transition” can deter private investment, complicate multinational R&D, and undercut America’s ability to lead — especially as rivals expand clean-energy manufacturing and infrastructure. Analyses warn that sidelining climate ambition risks ceding competitiveness to countries that are scaling renewables and electrification. (The Guardian)
International consequences
Withdrawal from Paris reverberates far beyond symbolism. Research suggests that U.S. non-participation materially reduces global emissions cuts by eroding cooperation and creating leakage. Development partners also face uncertainty around U.S. climate finance commitments. (ScienceDirect)
What to watch next
Implementation versus denial: Whether the DOE “words to avoid” email becomes enforceable policy in program documents, FOAs, and public reports — despite official denials. (Politico)
Data access: Any further website changes at EPA, DOE, NOAA and the durability of parallel archives maintained by civil society. (National Security Archive)
Regulatory rollbacks: The evolving docket of repealed or delayed rules tracked by independent institutions. (Brookings)
State counter-trends: Whether states and cities expand their own climate policies and retain precise terminology in statutes and plans, offsetting federal retrenchment. (Florida Phoenix)
Why this “war on words” matters
You can’t manage what you refuse to name. Removing standard scientific terms doesn’t change physical realities — it changes our capacity to respond to them. Precision in public language is the scaffolding for transparent budgeting, rigorous evaluation, and accountable policy. Scrubbing it out narrows the state’s problem-solving vocabulary just when the climate challenge demands clarity.
For governments, civil society, and partners abroad (including Africa’s rapidly urbanizing economies), the takeaway is simple: keep the language honest, the data accessible, and the cooperation active — regardless of shifting rhetoric in Washington. The atmosphere reacts to molecules, not memos.
Frontline for Climate Action
Comments