The United States Senate, in a decisive move, passed a critical spending package on Thursday, largely maintaining current funding levels for a host of vital science and land-related federal agencies, including the Department of Interior, the U.S. Forest Service, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Following its passage in the House of Representatives on January 8th, the bipartisan measure now awaits President Donald Trump’s signature, which is widely anticipated. This legislative action represents a significant congressional pushback against the administration’s persistent attempts to drastically reduce funding for federal services crucial to environmental protection, natural resource management, and scientific research.

For many observers and advocates, the bill stands as a clear affirmation of the nation’s commitment to its public lands and scientific infrastructure, directly countering proposals that sought to dismantle or severely curtail these functions. Miranda Badgett, a senior government relations representative for The Wilderness Society, articulated this sentiment, stating, "It really shows that our public lands are meant to be managed for everyone in this country and not just private industry looking to turn a profit. This bill really rejected some of the reckless budget cuts we saw proposed by the administration that would impact our national public-land agencies." Her remarks underscore the deep ideological chasm that has often defined environmental policy debates in recent years, pitting conservation interests against those advocating for increased resource extraction and reduced federal oversight.

Despite this perceived victory for environmental and scientific proponents, the bill is not without its compromises, reflecting the often-contentious nature of federal budget negotiations. Conservation and science advocates acknowledge that the package trims 2025 budget numbers slightly, resulting in millions of dollars in cuts from institutions like NASA, the U.S. EPA, and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Furthermore, a critical concern highlighted by Jacob Malcom, executive director of Next Interior, an organization advocating for the Department of Interior, is the bill’s failure to account for inflation. In an economic climate marked by rising costs, maintaining "current levels" effectively translates to a real-term reduction in purchasing power, potentially hindering agencies’ ability to sustain essential operations and projects.

A significant triumph for environmental stewardship and scientific integrity within the legislative process was the Senate’s rejection of nearly 150 budget riders proposed by the House. These riders, often described as poison pills, aimed to dramatically hamstring federal agencies and roll back environmental protections. Among the most contentious rejected provisions were those that would have prohibited the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) from enforcing the Public Lands Rule, a landmark regulation finalized in 2024 designed to prioritize conservation alongside other land uses. The administration had actively sought to repeal this rule, making its protection a key battleground. Other rejected riders included mandates for quarterly oil and gas lease sales in at least nine states, which would have accelerated fossil fuel extraction on public lands, and prohibitions against implementing the BLM’s Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Rule, a measure that notably boosted royalty rates oil and gas companies must pay the federal government for extracting resources. These rejections represent a congressional endorsement of a more balanced approach to public land management, seeking to ensure fair returns for taxpayers and uphold environmental safeguards.

However, the spending package harbors a particularly concerning blow for climate science and the nation’s broader health and safety, especially for the American West: the potential destabilization of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), based in Boulder, Colorado. NCAR is a world-renowned institution whose advanced modeling and analysis underpin much of the weather forecasting that billions worldwide rely on daily for safety, economic planning, and disaster preparedness. Instead of providing a direct line item for NCAR’s funding, the bill merely instructs the National Science Foundation (NSF), which oversees the center, to "continue its functions." This vague directive leaves NCAR’s future precarious, particularly in light of the administration’s previously stated desire to dissolve the center. Hannah Safford, associate director of climate and environment for the Federation of American Scientists, underscored the gravity of this situation, noting that while an immediate, sudden loss of service might not occur, the long-term impact could manifest as increasingly unreliable weather forecasting, jeopardizing lives and livelihoods. Colorado Senators Michael Bennet and John Hickenlooper had actively campaigned for specific NCAR funding within the bill, reflecting the center’s critical importance to both regional and national scientific infrastructure.

The implications of such a cut extend far beyond national borders. NCAR’s contributions to climate modeling are integral to global efforts to understand and mitigate climate change, providing crucial data that informs international policy and adaptation strategies. Any disruption to its operations could have ripple effects across the global scientific community and impede progress in addressing one of humanity’s most pressing challenges.

Despite the legislative guardrails established, uncertainty looms regarding the administration’s willingness to fully implement the budget as written. Badgett voiced personal concerns, noting that while the bill includes directives requiring federal agencies to seek approval from the House and Senate Appropriations Committees for significant changes in staffing or spending, the potential for executive discretion remains a worry. These "guardrails" are intended to safeguard agencies, public lands, and the dedicated professionals who work tirelessly to execute their missions.

This ongoing struggle over funding levels highlights a persistent issue: the chronic underfunding of many environmental agencies. Jacob Malcom pointed out that institutions like the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), tasked with conserving and recovering threatened and endangered species, often receive only a fraction of the resources needed to fulfill their mandates. This historical underinvestment has broad consequences. When agencies lack adequate funding and resources, the public lands, waters, and critical ecosystems they oversee continue to suffer. Crucial research necessary to prepare communities for the escalating impacts of climate change, from extreme weather events to sea-level rise, is also jeopardized.

Jonathan Gilmour, co-founder of The Impact Project, a data and research platform focused on the value of public service, raised additional concerns about agency capacity. Following recent layoffs and deferred resignations across various federal departments, he questioned whether the new budget would enable agencies to rehire or bring on new employees to fill critical roles. A decline in staffing directly impacts agencies’ ability to deliver essential services, enforce regulations, and manage vast natural resources effectively.

Malcom succinctly summarized the bill’s outcome as "not as bad as it could be, but it’s also not as good as it needs to be." This sentiment encapsulates the frustration of many who see a continuous erosion of federal capacity for environmental protection and scientific advancement. He warned that despite avoiding the most draconian cuts, those who live, work, and recreate in the West and across the nation might still witness a gradual decline in federal services. This trend, Malcom suggested, aligns with a long-running political strategy, dating back decades, aimed at making public services less effective, thereby eroding popular support and paving the way for further cuts. The current spending package, while offering some respite, appears to be another step in that challenging direction, ensuring that the debate over the future of America’s environment and scientific enterprise will continue to be a central and contested issue.