In a swift and controversial move, President Donald Trump made headlines in January by signing an executive order titled “Restoring Freedom of Speech and Ending Federal Censorship” upon his return to the White House. However, the true impact of this order quickly became apparent as it imposed strict language rules, mandating the recognition of only two genders and the cessation of any diversity, equity, and inclusion programs. The government was also ordered to redefine “energy” to exclude solar and wind power, setting a tone of change that would ripple through various sectors.
As the days passed, federal websites saw the disappearance not only of terms like “diversity” but also “clean energy” and “climate change,” igniting a language purge that extended beyond government platforms. Scientists who depended on federal funding were instructed to align their activities with Trump’s executive orders, leading to concerns that acknowledging climate change could jeopardize their jobs. This shift marked a significant crackdown on language tied to progressive causes, reflecting the emergence of what has been coined as the “woke right,” a reactionary movement establishing its own set of language norms in opposition to progressive terms.
The Environmental Data and Governance Initiative revealed that more than 200 government websites had scrubbed climate change information, underscoring the impact of these language modifications on public access to reliable information. Such alterations in language not only shape public perception but also deepen the existing divide between Republicans and Democrats in their understanding of critical issues like climate change.
Norma Mendoza-Denton, an anthropology professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, and a book co-editor on Trump’s language use, emphasized the significance of powerful entities influencing reality to serve their interests. While such efforts are not new, the scale and rapidity of the current language shifts are unprecedented, posing challenges for individuals and organizations to navigate this evolving landscape of language restrictions.
As Gretchen Gehrke from the Environmental Data and Governance Initiative pointed out, government websites play a crucial role in providing authoritative information to the public. Removing climate change facts from these platforms limits the collective understanding of reality and fosters a fragmented societal discourse. The repercussions of defying Trump’s language directives were evident when the Associated Press faced consequences for retaining the original name “Gulf of Mexico” after Trump’s rebranding to “the Gulf of America,” resulting in reporters losing White House access.
The impact of these language mandates transcended federal websites, affecting various sectors such as university research, nonprofits, and businesses. The solar industry, for instance, shifted its language to align with Trump’s messaging, illustrating the pervasive influence of these language changes. Amanda Fencl, director of climate science at the Union of Concerned Scientists, expressed concerns about the restrictions on research imposed by these language rules, particularly in the field of climate justice.
The erosion of climate change references from federal environmental websites during Trump’s first term and the subsequent reemergence under the Biden administration underscored the shifting dynamics in language use. The leaked video from Project 2025 revealed a concerted effort by conservative think tanks to eradicate climate change references, emphasizing the ideological underpinnings of these language purges.
Amidst the challenging environment created by these language restrictions, some government employees have resorted to unconventional methods to continue their climate work. Reports of federal workers isolating themselves in technology-free rooms to discuss climate change underscore the lengths individuals are willing to go to uphold their commitment to addressing critical environmental issues.
The use of euphemistic language and rebranding of terms related to climate change raise concerns about the clarity and effectiveness of communication around pressing environmental challenges. While the deliberate avoidance of explicit language may offer a workaround in the current climate, it also risks undermining efforts to raise awareness and prompt action on climate-related issues.
The persistence of climate change impacts, regardless of the language used to describe them, highlights the urgency of addressing environmental challenges. Despite attempts to silence certain terms, the pressing need to engage in meaningful conversations and actions to mitigate climate change cannot be ignored. The concept of climate change transcends mere words, demanding a concerted effort to address its far-reaching implications.
