The Trump Administration’s Climate Policies Jeopardize Research in Disaster-Prone Puerto Rico

Professor Maritza Barreto Orta had planned to complete two federal funding applications crucial for her research on coastal erosion in Puerto Rico. However, these funding opportunities “disappeared” from the websites of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) due to new policies imposed by U.S. President Donald Trump. These policies limit funding for academic research on climate change.

Research on sea level rise, coastal erosion, coral bleaching, renewable energy, heatwaves, climate-related diseases like dengue, and extreme weather events like hurricanes is at risk under Trump’s climate policies, which have withdrawn the United States from the Paris Agreement and international climate financing plans. Studies examining the climate’s influence on cancer rates in Puerto Rico are also jeopardized.

Puerto Rico ranks sixth among the countries most affected by the climate crisis, according to the latest Climate Risk Index published by the international organization Germanwatch. This index measures the impact of extreme weather, climate, and hydrological events on people and the economy.

In line with Trump’s executive orders, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) have begun mass cancellations of research grants, cutting funding to active scientific projects that “do not align with the agency’s priorities.” These cuts target studies focused on environmental justice, climate change, transgender populations, gender identity, diversity, equity, and inclusion, as well as any research perceived as discriminatory based on race or ethnicity, according to a report by Nature magazine in early March.

Puerto Rico currently has 107 active NIH-funded grants totaling $78.5 million. Of these, 91 (85%) are led by University of Puerto Rico (UPR) scientists, while 25 are housed at private institutions, though none of the latter focus on climate and health intersections.

The Coastal Research and Planning Institute (CoRePI), led by Barreto Orta, is affiliated with the UPR’s School of Planning at the Río Piedras campus. Amid funding cuts to the university, the professor and her team rely on federal grants to conduct their studies and keep CoRePI operational. With current resources, the institute can operate only until April 2026 unless it secures new funding to continue.

Barreto Orta acknowledged that “the opportunity to seek more external funding has diminished.”

Currently, CoRePI has two main active projects, one funded by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) amounting to $2.4 million to assess erosion in coastal municipalities, and another $500,000 project funded by CDBG grants from the Department of Housing, aimed at training for coastal erosion studies.

According to a survey done by the  NOOA in 2006, Puerto Rico has an estimated 700 miles of coastline (1,126 kilometers).

“Our last project will conclude in April 2026, and I’m unsure where I’ll be able to submit new proposals to keep the center running, which not only evaluates the state of coastal erosion but also provides mentorship and funding to students,” Barreto Orta explained.

Scientists from the public university system interviewed by the Centro de Periodismo Investigativo (CPI) said this uncertainty about the immediate future of climate crisis research in Puerto Rico has spread among UPR researchers, warning that these measures halt the search for solutions to face and anticipate natural disasters by limiting students’ academic training.

Studies on renewable energy, agriculture, and planning are also faltering. At the Río Piedras campus, professors Jorge Colón Rivera, from the Chemistry Department, and José Hernández Ayala, from the School of Planning, are also battling the avalanche of restrictions imposed by the federal government.

Colón Rivera leads research on renewable energy, an essential field for Puerto Rico’s energy future, while Hernández Ayala studies the effects of heat waves on the island’s schools. Both fear their projects will be cut short if they cannot secure grants to continue their studies in the coming years.

Colón Rivera said the U.S. Department of Energy removed all information related to the Reaching a New Energy Sciences Workforce (RENEW) program from its website, from which funds for studies conducted in collaboration with researchers from UPR in Humacao, Ana G. Méndez University, and Cornell University in New York originate. The chemist expressed concern about potential program cancellations that support research on finding renewable solutions for generating electricity.

Colón Rivera is part of four active investigations: two with grants from the National Science Foundation (NSF) and two with RENEW funds from the U.S. Department of Energy, exploring how solar energy can “generate green hydrogen, a clean and renewable fuel.” The four grants total $43.6 million distributed among all institutions collaborating on the studies.

He added that the program would not only be affected by its focus on identifying renewable energy sources but also because it sought to support institutions serving underrepresented communities in the sciences. Another of Trump’s policies, in the executive order of January 21, seeks to cancel all federal government diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs.

“We are concerned that there may not be as many programs to fund climate science proposals, and perhaps programs will be eliminated. In the case of renewable energy, we worry that when we renew proposals, we may no longer be attractive for having students from an area of the population that is not the typical one participating in other programs,” he noted.

The UPR has ongoing research evaluating the environment from various academic perspectives and receiving federal funds from the NIH, NOAA, NSF, USGS, NASA, and CDBG funds awarded by the U.S. Department of Housing, among others.

The interim president of the UPR, Miguel Muñoz, told the CPI that the university administration has not received official notifications about the closure of any of these studies. However, he acknowledged that they have faced instability issues on some federal agency websites, limiting the possibility for some researchers to submit their progress reports.

“We have found that, on some occasions, the website or the agency’s page where the researcher has to submit their progress reports was closed one week, but the next week it opened, and the researcher could submit their progress reports. That continuity has been maintained, with very rare exceptions of one or two proposals (studies) where we have not been able to establish that contact, but we are hopeful that everything will normalize,” Muñoz said.

He could not specify which agencies or specific researchers he was referring to.

Amid the uncertainty about the future of their research, Hernández Ayala expressed concern that his investigation might stagnate because it focuses on climate change topics. A few weeks ago, he submitted a pre-proposal to the NSF to study the impact of heat on Puerto Rico’s public schools day to day operations, and although he was told his topic was promising and suggested which call for proposals he could apply to, he now fears the proposal will not be approved.

Of the $26.6 million the NSF has awarded in Puerto Rico in fiscal year 2023, $18.6 million (70%) was awarded to the UPR. In its latest update on how Trump’s executive orders are being implemented, the NSF indicated that it maintains the agency’s usual practices focused on “evaluating the merit of the proposals they are considering” without ignoring federal standards.

“The review criteria remain consistent. Guidance on reviews and panel summaries has not changed. Program directors do not comment on activities outside of the purview of the panel. The reviews and panel summaries are advisory to NSF. As has always been the practice at NSF, we will consider this advisory material in conjunction with agency-wide guidance and applicable federal standards when making funding decisions,” the agency states on its website.

At the University of Puerto Rico, Mayagüez Campus (known as RUM), agricultural economics professor Héctor Tavárez faces the possibility of not being able to access funds from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) for his studies on sustainable and resilient agricultural practices because his work includes the term “climate change,” which contradicts the public policy decreed by Trump.

“Many of the proposals we fill out are to directly or indirectly address climate change. We are quite concerned that in the future, they will tell us: ‘no, this proposal is not authorized’ or ‘this proposal is not a priority.’ When just a year ago, it was precisely the type of proposal with the highest priority for the [federal] government,” he said.

Tavárez, like other researchers, fears that the restriction on research addressing climate change and its impact will lead to the loss of this type of agricultural study.

“Imagine running an agricultural research project on eggplant or coffee, only to have your funding suddenly frozen. We aren’t necessarily talking about future projects, but projects that are running. If you receive a budget cut because the study has to do with climate change, it’s not that the project is altered for a while, it’s that it is basically destroyed because we’re working with living beings,” warned the professor, who between 2022 and 2024 obtained $479,355 from three USDA grants.

The USDA suspended more than $100 million in grants to the University of Maine in March, which was put under investigation by the Trump administration for not complying with the president’s executive order prohibiting the participation of girls and transgender women in women’s sports. The cancellation of funds occurred after the state’s governor, Janet Mills, had a confrontation with Trump at the White House in February when the president threatened to withdraw funds from the Maine government if they did not comply with the executive orders related to gender.

The USDA also canceled a $10,000 grant this semester to the Inter American University, Barranquitas Campus, intended to train 100 Puerto Rican farmers in “climate-smart” agricultural practices, according to Rector Juan Negrón. “The main idea of the project was to improve food production, and in this case, it focused on the necessity of considering environmental conditions when practicing agriculture,” he said.

Negrón noted that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) also canceled the evaluation of a proposal submitted to access $10 million for an environmental justice project in the communities of Orocovis. This project would have included analyses of river pollution in the area and community adaptation to disasters such as hurricanes. Researchers from the Mayagüez Campus and the University of Puerto Rico, Río Piedras Campus, were also set to participate in the project, the biochemist explained.

Trump’s public policy against climate change also wreaks havoc at UPR in Humacao, where the U.S. Forest Service put on hold a funding request submitted by the Transdisciplinary Institute for Research and Social Action (ITIAS, in Spanish) of the Department of Social Sciences to create a community climate justice network in eastern Puerto Rico, environmental sociologist Alejandro Torres Abreu claimed.

Torres Abreu said the proposal would allow ITIAS to access $300,000 from the U.S. Forest Service, complemented by $500,000 from the UPR program Sea Grant Puerto Rico.

“Due to Trump’s policy, federal agencies like the U.S. Forest Service comply with that policy, and since [the funding request] was under evaluation and the agency had not signed it, the process was halted until it is clarified what will happen and what the guidelines are regarding those funding processes. So, it affects me because of the way I planned the project’s development,” said Torres Abreu, who directed ITIAS from 2016 to 2023.

They anticipate a “gag” on scientific innovation

The elimination of scientific research calls for proposals and the penalization of investigations that include terms like “climate change,” “race,” “diversity,” or “climate justice” could generate self-censorship and disinterest among researchers in submitting proposals for federal funds or even preferring to focus on other lines of research to avoid the pressure imposed by Trump, warned Professor Manuel Valdés Pizzini, director of the Interdisciplinary Center for Coastal Studies (CIEL, in Spanish) established 19 years ago at the RUM.

“It’s a gag on innovation, integrity, and creativity in the scientific community,” he stated.

Valdés Pizzini is part of the Puerto Rico Adapted Flood Maps research project conducted by the Graduate School of Planning at the Río Piedras campus, in collaboration with the federal Sea Grant Puerto Rico Program and CIEL, with a $750,000 NOAA grant valid until 2027.

“Projects related to observing how the ocean behaves, if they are subject to cuts, we will no longer have that important data. An entire scientific component would be eliminated, which also has an educational component because we do all these projects to train a whole new crop of researchers. We will lose an entire cadre of people who will not enter these fields because there are no funds to work on research,” warned Valdés Pizzini.

For climatologist Rafael Méndez Tejeda, a physics professor at UPR in Carolina, climate research will also be limited by cuts, layoffs, and censorship experienced by federal agencies like NOAA in their operations, as the agencies will no longer have the capacity to collect information and data consulted by other scientists.

“Regardless of whether they don’t affect us yet, research will be limited because the executive orders are penalizing agencies like NOAA, FEMA, or NASA, which generate databases. If we have fewer people generating databases, and if [for example] we don’t have data from NOAA’s buoys and satellites, our research will be affected,” he said.

Meteorologist Ada Monzón warned that the National Weather Service (NWS), which is under NOAA, would not be launching “radiosonde” instruments with the usual frequency due to “staff limitations” in its offices. “These instruments provide information on the atmosphere’s vertical profile and are the data that feed the models meteorologists use to make forecasts,” Monzón explained in a Facebook post.

However, meteorologist Ernesto Morales from the NWS assured that the services that the agency provides for data collection and dissemination, at least in Puerto Rico, remain unchanged for now.

“There is a restructuring of the agency, and it’s not clear what will happen, but what is known is that services and the ways we collect information through satellites, weather stations, or radars will not be affected in the short term as part of this restructuring,” he told the CPI.

The Trump administration has cut at least 800 positions at NOAA at the central level, including critical duties at the National Hurricane Center and the Storm Prediction Center, as well as cuts at the Climate Prediction Center, which, among other things, provides critical weather data across Africa and tracks the El Niño-La Niña phenomenon, as well as the Weather Prediction Center, focused on South America.

Opinions clash over “adjustment” of language in research proposals

Among the researchers that the CPI interviewed, there are differing opinions about adjusting the language of their research proposals to dodge Trump’s restrictive policies on climate change.

Some, like Professor Tavárez from the RUM, consider modifying terms like “climate change” or “global warming” in their funding applications a necessary strategy to secure federal funding and move projects forward, while others argue that preserving the language is the way to maintain scientific integrity and honesty in their project proposals.

“Unfortunately, writing the words ‘climate change,’ ‘global warming,’ and ‘gender equity’ puts me at a disadvantage. Even if I feel uncomfortable and think it’s not ethically correct, I will have to do it [omit those words] because I think they wouldn’t approve the proposals,” said the agricultural economics professor.

The director of Sea Grant in Puerto Rico, Ruperto Chaparro, also agrees with adjusting the language to evade funding limitations. He said the focus in proposal writing should prioritize the impacts caused by the environment, such as floods or heatwaves, and not on “umbrella” concepts like the climate crisis.

“There is a list of words that should not be used. Instead of talking about ‘climate change,’ you can talk about the impacts. You have to play the game and change the title and put something related that doesn’t mention those words. Here in Puerto Rico, we are used to the gag law because we are a (US) colony. When you learn to play the game, the outcome is what matters,” Chaparro said. Sea Grant operates with $2 million in funds awarded by NOAA, matched 50% by UPR.

Professor Pablo Méndez Lázaro, principal investigator of the Caribbean Climate Adaptation Network at the UPR Medical Sciences Campus, believes that other concepts like “climate oscillation” can be used if it becomes impossible to use the concept of climate change to apply for federal funds. The researcher is part of a study measuring the intersection between climate and cancer incidence in Puerto Rico with a $1.1 million NIH grant.

Although Hernández Ayala acknowledged that this situation would lead to having to “dress up” proposals to try to move them forward, he positioned himself against omitting concepts because “they are not to the liking of the current administration.”

“As a scientist, I cannot deny the reality of what we are experiencing globally and in Puerto Rico. I cannot deny climate change. No matter how much I want to say that extreme heat does not exist and is not related to climate change, it would be irresponsible of me to have to adjust my research just because this administration is uncomfortable with those words because they don’t align with their economic interests,” the planner said.

Barreto Orta stood on the same side, stating that she will continue to use the term climate change in her studies and research proposals.

“Personally, I will continue working on the topic of climate change. Even if there are people who do not favor that approach, I will not hide something I know is true. I have a responsibility as a researcher, although I may have to change strategies to convey the messages,” she said, referring to focusing more on communicating how these situations will impact people’s quality of life, such as those who cannot insure their homes because they are in flood zones, rather than the impact on the habitat. 

Interim UPR president downplays the issue and its implications

The CPI learned from two separate sources that, at least in the UPR campuses of Río Piedras and Humacao, professors have been meeting to discuss how to address censorship by the Trump administration on academia, and according to the sources, there are positions for and against adjusting the language.

Although he sees no problem in adjusting the language of proposals to avoid funding cuts, the interim president of the UPR was not clear in saying whether that will be the university’s official stance on how to handle the public policy imposed by the Trump administration.

“When a call for proposals comes, it comes with specific guidelines and objectives. Saying there is an ethical conflict because one changed a proposal title, I don’t see any conflict. That proposal goes to a committee of colleagues who evaluate them (…) I think it’s an issue that is exaggerated in how it manifests because you respond to a proposal call. If I had an ethical conflict in terms of submitting a proposal, the decision is up to the researcher not to submit it,” Muñoz noted.

In this scenario, Méndez Tejeda said it is urgent for the university administration to take clear positions on how Trump’s executive orders will be applied, as he said these measures will not only affect research in natural sciences but also because climate change directly affects society, studies looking at climate intersections with social sciences could also be reduced.

“We are going back almost to the 60s or 70s if we continue with the limitation and censorship of a series of things that were already believed to be overcome. It’s censorship that will limit academia because if I can’t work on diversity, race, and inclusion topics, all those topics will be affected, not only in natural sciences but also in social sciences that will not be able to access proposals,” he warned.

Barreto Orta pointed out that in the scenario promoted by Trump’s policies, denial of climate change will increase, and advances in ecological awareness generated among citizens will be rolled back.

“The scenario is bad because, even without Trump’s policies, coastal erosion was not accepted as a threat to people. In recent years, there have been some small changes, and we have seen progress. Here the question is what the universities’ stance on these new positions will be because scientists will not stop,” she concluded.

All the researchers interviewed told the CPI that they have not received any official communication from the university administration instructing them on the course to follow with research that would be contrary to federal government orders. They agree they don’t  know how the UPR will adopt Trump’s executive orders or what measures are being taken to identify funds that allow the institution and its research to continue operating.

The interim president denied the lack of communication and said that in his first meeting with the rectors of the 11 campuses after taking office on February 18, one of the main instructions he gave was for professors to keep following the guidelines of federal agencies regarding Trump’s executive orders.

“I was surprised by that comment because in my first meeting with all the rectors, this was one of the issues mentioned, and the rectors are constantly receiving those communications, and the researchers too. But since you bring up the issue, maybe what it tells me is that I have to reaffirm my instructions regarding that,” he told the CPI.

In his first report to the UPR Board of Governors, Muñoz indicated that continuous follow-up is given to the guidelines and changes coming from federal agencies, but there is no specific process to notify the university community.

Professor Colón Rivera, meanwhile, warned that “if these projects are canceled after being peer-reviewed and approved by the agencies, and they still have four, two, or one year to go, and suddenly the money is blocked, I would think that one way Puerto Rico can continue doing research and helping students is to find a way to complement with local government funds  And how can that be done? Either the Puerto Rico Government addresses it, or the Fiscal Control Board [JCF] must release the money it has taken from the UPR, or the Science and Technology Trust seeks to allocate something to prevent everything from falling apart. It would be disastrous for all research to fall apart.”

The Puerto Rico Science and Technology Trust did not respond to a request for comments from the CPI to learn if Trump’s restrictions have affected the research they conduct or the flow of funds..

Salt on the wound

The elimination of studies funded by federal funds for climate change research represents an additional challenge for UPR’s finances, which since 2017 has faced a 48% cut in its operating budget due to measures by the Fiscal Control Board (JCF).

The UPR also faces the possibility of losing another $5.4 million in health research funds if Trump’s proposal to limit up to 15% of funds for administrative and operational expenses of NIH grants is implemented.

“The University expects early-career professors like me — this is my first year at UPR — to submit proposals and secure research funding, but now it’s tougher. From the University, we must think about how we can reduce dependence on these funds and make the University receive funds from the Puerto Rico government or other global or nonprofit entities again,” said Professor Hernández Ayala.

Amid this scenario, Muñoz said that although several forums demand the reinstatement of the formula applied by law, which granted 9.6% of the Puerto Rican Government’s General Fund to the University, this measure is not viable due to the fiscal crisis facing the Puerto Rican Government.

“The reality is that thinking they will reinstate the formula is not a feasible reality. We have to take measures with the budget we have, use it with the greatest effectiveness and efficiency, and comply with a university restructuring,” Muñoz said.

This story is made possible through a collaboration between the Centro de Periodismo Investigativo and Open Campus.

This translation was generated with the assistance of AI and thoroughly reviewed by our editorial team to ensure accuracy and clarity.