Meet The Government Consultants Raking In Millions To Spread Climate Doom

More than three decades ago, Congress launched an initiative called the U.S. Global Change Research Program. Today, it spends billions of dollars a year empowering liberal climate scientists to spread climate change doom. 

The government group says its role is to provide the “scientific foundation to support informed decision-making across the United States” on climate change. It’s done so by producing five National Climate Assessment reports, which are considered the “crown jewel” of climate research.

Despite taking funding from at least ten separate government agencies, producing the report seems to be the group’s sole function. The most recent iteration — published in 2023 and still prominently showcased on its government website — warns that “severe climate risks to the United States will continue to grow.” The next report is due out in the next couple of years, according to E&E News. 

The National Climate Assessment is not simply an intellectual exercise, but rather one that carries real policy might. Congress and agencies use it to justify regulations and funding decisions, and states and cities across the country lean on it as the non-partisan scientific foundation for their own climate action plans. In summary, it is the scientific bedrock for directing policy at all levels of government towards liberal climate change goals.

While the U.S. Global Change Research Program states on its website that it has a budget of $4.95 billion in 2025, it only lists two full-time employees. So, who’s getting paid to put the massive and consequential report together?

Sources familiar with past iterations of the National Climate Assessment say the work is largely outsourced to a group called ICF, a massive government contractor that has an active contract to work on the report. The Daily Wire identified at least one active contract from NASA for ICF to “support” the U.S. Global Change Research Program. ICF is set to be paid millions of dollars during the Trump administration to “assist the nation and the world to understand, assess, predict, and respond to human-induced and natural processes of global change.” 

The contract was first announced in June 2021, and described as a $34 million, five-year contract to help with the National Climate Assessments. Only $18 million has been paid out, according to the government spending database. But with another assessment on deck and ICF under contract for another year, the additional $16 million could be disbursed in the next year. 

A climate scientist who has worked on the National Climate Assessment in the past says ICF runs the show, virtually controlling the entire U.S. Global Change Research Program. 

“By providing all staff for the USGCRP, a federal agency, the ICF exerts undue influence over the global change narrative and priorities presented by the federal government,” said the official, who requested anonymity to discuss the work. “The ICF, through the USGCRP, exerts an undue influence on the production of the National Climate Assessment every four years. With the exception of its Executive Director and the Director of the National Climate Assessment, the ICF supplies all staff associated with the USGCRP.”

Those two positions mentioned by the climate official are the only two employees listed on the U.S. Global Change Research Program staff list: a director of the National Climate Assessment named Ariela Zycherman, and a deputy director for services named Heidi Roop.

A top Trump administration official, Russell Vought, has signaled that he wanted to exert more oversight over the next climate assessment. Vought runs the powerful Office of Management and Budget, and has openly stated that he wants to make deep cuts to “woke and weaponized” spending. 

Vought has specifically called out the U.S. Global Change Research Program’s report, arguing that the bureaucrats who write it end up with outsized power over government action. He’s called for an investigation of the political leanings of the contractors that assemble the report.

Both staffers listed by U.S. Global Change Research Program appear to be highly partisan actors. Zycherman last year contributed to the presidential campaigns of both Joe Biden and then Kamala Harris, according to campaign finance records. Roop has her pronouns in her Instagram bio and describes herself as a “climate scientist focused on preparing for a warmer world.” 

And ICF is an incredibly partisan firm. Its website boasts about its “corporate citizenship,” “culture and belonging,” and “environmental justice.” Several blogs are posted on its site about how to infuse “equity” into “climate discussions,” support EV mandates, and advance “environmental justice.” Perhaps most telling, nearly all of the officials its website lists as being part of the ICF Climate Team are Democrat donors, giving to candidates including Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. The Daily Wire was unable to spot any contributions to Republicans.

ICF takes in far more in government contracts than its active $34 million from NASA. An analysis of federal spending data found that the consulting firm rakes in hundreds of millions of dollars each year through federal contracts, and took in over $2 billion during the Biden administration.

The consulting firm is likely aware that the scope of its government work could be slashed during Trump’s term, and so are investors. Its stock price was at $171 a share days ahead of last November’s election, but has since cratered to just $77 a share, the lowest it had been since the last time Trump was president.

(Yes, the stock price fell before the current market volatility caused by tariffs).

Screenshot of Google Finance

Houston Keene, a former journalist who now leads a government transparency organization, argues that unnamed government consultants shouldn’t be paid millions to chart the nation’s climate policy.

“The public deserves an honest assessment from the government on the state of climate science,” Keene said. “That requires an objective, nonpartisan author who does not have financial interests in the outcome. ICF appears to be none of these things.”

“There can be no proper assessment with scientific integrity when a clearly partisan and financially conflicted activist organization is holding the pen,” he said.

According to the U.S. Global Change Research Program website, NASA is providing a significant chunk of the initiative’s budget in 2025. It is unclear whether the money NASA is slated to pay ICF for its work on the assessment is included in that budget.

Thus far, there has been no announcement by the administration regarding the U.S. Global Change Research Program, its contract with ICF, or the status of the next assessment. Neither ICF nor the U.S. Global Change Research Program responded to requests for comment.