How Climate Change Poses a Serious Threat to National Security: Understanding the Risks and Solutions

The U.S. intelligence community’s annual threat assessment for 2025, released on March 25, surprised many by omitting any mention of climate change. This marks the first time in over a decade that climate change hasn’t been recognized in the report.

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard explained that the report focused on "the most extreme and critical direct threats" to national security. When asked about the exclusion, she stated she didn’t recall directing the intelligence community to avoid the topic. However, this change comes amid the Trump Administration’s push to downplay climate issues.

For over 30 years, the U.S. government has regarded climate change as a security threat. Mark Nevitt, an associate professor at Emory University, notes that discussions about environmental threats began in the 1980s at the Naval War College. President George W. Bush was the first to label climate change a national security issue back in 1991, and it has routinely appeared in annual threat assessments since then.

Climate change is considered a "threat multiplier," intensifying existing problems and creating new challenges. Scott Moore, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania, points out that climate change worsens issues like extremism and terrorism by stressing food systems and increasing tensions within societies. For instance, a report from the Migration Data Portal indicates that more than half of internal displacements in 2023 were caused by climate-related disasters.

Karen Seto, a professor at Yale, emphasizes the dangers of climate migration. She explains that large movements of people can lead to political instability, especially in regions already facing challenges. A study in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found that extreme weather is driving more people from agricultural areas in Mexico to the U.S., with many migrants fleeing drought-stricken regions.

Such displacement can disrupt lives and contribute to social unrest. Moore highlights that when farmers lose their livelihoods due to extreme weather, they may migrate to cities facing job scarcity, increasing vulnerability to extremist ideologies.

On the home front, military readiness is also at stake. Climate change necessitates that infrastructure be built to endure severe weather, so the military can respond effectively to disasters. Nevitt points out that the National Guard and other military branches are crucial for community support during crises, and failure to prepare could lead to increased risks.

Furthermore, U.S. infrastructure, including energy grids, needs reinforcement. These systems are susceptible to attacks during extreme weather events. Seto warns that the energy grid is especially vulnerable, as wildfires and other disasters put essential services at risk.

The diplomatic implications are significant as well. Countries, particularly those in the Pacific who view climate change as a top concern, expect the U.S. to take action on the issue. Moore argues that ignoring climate change could damage vital international relationships, especially in regions where climate issues are paramount.

Experts stress that sidelining climate change will only make the U.S. more susceptible to future threats. As Nevitt puts it, “You can’t just wish climate change away.” By overlooking this crucial issue, the administration risks being unprepared as climate impacts intensify.

The absence of climate change in national security discussions could hinder the U.S.’s ability to tackle not only environmental crises but also the political and social fallout that follows. Adapting our strategies is essential to ensure a resilient and secure future.

Source link

policy,Explainer,healthscienceclimate,News