Maybe you think “climate change” is overstated. Maybe you’ve looked at the data and you’re not convinced.
Good. That’s what science is for. Arguing, testing, disproving.
That’s exactly why a scientific institution should be free to use the term: so it can be studied, tested, and if the skeptics are right, disproven in the open. Banning the words doesn’t settle the argument. It just makes sure nobody gets to have it.
What actually happened
On February 14, 2025, then–DHS Secretary Kristi Noem issued a directive to the Coast Guard restricting “climate change” terminology and content from academic programs, extending to coursework, research projects, and participation in scientific conferences where the topic comes up.
This isn’t about climate policy. It’s about what a science school is allowed to discuss.
Every CGA graduate earns a Bachelor of Science. The Academy runs the Center for Arctic Study and Policy, a mission that requires being able to discuss the Arctic’s changing conditions. You can’t staff that mission, or grant that degree with a straight face, while banning a term from classroom discussion.
What senior officers are actually saying
This isn’t outside advocacy. It’s coming from inside the service.
Former Commandant Admiral Paul Zukunft has publicly criticized the directive on operational grounds. Future officers face Arctic operations, coastal resilience, severe weather, migration, and disaster response. Regardless of anyone’s views on climate policy, they need to understand the relevant science to do the job.
Writing in U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings (June 2026), retired officer Roger Herbert argued academic freedom is a military necessity. Intellectual diversity strengthens readiness, not weakens it.
Why alumni say this matters beyond one topic
There’s no such thing as narrowly-scoped academic censorship. Once an institution accepts that a directive can remove one subject from its curriculum, there’s no principled line stopping the next one.