Research & Developments is a blog for brief updates that provide context for the flurry of news that impacts science and scientists today.

It’s a bird! It’s a plane! It’s… a bolide!

People in Georgia, Tennessee, and the Carolinas reported sightings of a fireball overhead on Thursday afternoon, 26 June. It is unclear whether it was a meteor or space junk entering Earth’s atmosphere. Meteors can exceed one meter in size and are referred to as bolides when they explode in the atmosphere.

Sometimes, meteorite pieces can be recovered on the ground after such an event. In this case, they may need to be fished out of the foundation of a home. One fragment was reported to have struck a roof in Henry County, Georgia, according to Atlanta news station 11 Alive.

Mike Hankey, operations manager of the American Meteor Society, told 11 Alive that the organization received more than 100 reports of fireball sightings within 2 hours. Most reported said the sighting occurred between 12:25 and 12:40 p.m. EDT.

He explained that bolides can enter the atmosphere at speeds of up to 50,000 miles (80,000 kilometers) per hour, but slow to hundreds of miles per hour as they near Earth’s surface.

“You don’t want to get hit by one,” he clarified. (We at Eos tend to agree.) “It can cause a lot of harm, damages. They’ll go through multiple floors of a home, oftentimes.”

The bolide was bright enough that it was captured briefly by NOAA’s GOES-19 satellite, around the border of Virginia and North Carolina.

NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory’s Center for Near Earth Object Studies (CNEOS) fireballs database reports that this marks the 20th fireball detected by U.S. government sensors this year. However, the Geostationary Lightning Mapper aboard the NOAA-operated GOES East and GOES West satellites detected nearly 700 this year. In April, another bolide made headlines when it flew over Mexico City.

According to the Swinburne University of Technology, about 5,000 bolides fall to Earth each year, but very few are observed, in large part because so many of them enter the atmosphere over the ocean.

—Emily Dieckman (@emfurd.bsky.social), Associate Editor

These updates are made possible through information from the scientific community. Do you have a story idea about science or scientists? We’re listening! Send us a tip at eos@agu.org.

Text © 2025. AGU. CC BY-NC-ND 3.0
Except where otherwise noted, images are subject to copyright. Any reuse without express permission from the copyright owner is prohibited.

Research & Developments is a blog for brief updates that provide context for the flurry of news regarding law and policy changes that impact science and scientists today.

Officials from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced on Tuesday that only adults older than 65 and people with specific medical conditions will be considered eligible for COVID-19 vaccinations this fall.

Healthy Americans younger than 65 may be eligible for vaccine boosters depending on the outcomes of new clinical trials.

FDA commissioner Marty Makary and Vinay Prasad, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, published the agency’s new framework in the New England Journal of Medicine. They wrote that that the United States’ existing policy is more aggressive than those in European nations and Canada, most of which recommend COVID-19 boosters primarily for older adults and those classified as high-risk.

“The FDA will approve vaccines for high-risk persons and, at the same time, demand robust, gold-standard data on persons at low risk,” they wrote.

Makary and Prasad used the Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) definition of “high risk” conditions, which includes asthma, cancer, cystic fibrosis, diabetes, heart disease, pregnancy, and tuberculosis.

The FDA also approved a new COVID-19 vaccine from Novavax on 17 May, with similar limitations.

Fewer Americans are opting into COVID boosters, with CDC data reporting that just 23% of adults and 13% of those under 18 had received the 2024-2025 vaccine as of 26 April.

However, COVID-19 still presents a danger. The CDC estimates that between 1 October 2024 and 10 May 2025, there were 260,000 to 430,000 COVID-19 hospitalizations and 30,000 to 50,000 COVID-19 deaths. Research has found that environmental factors, such as exposure to air pollution and proximity to gas and oil wells, can increase the likelihood or severity of the disease.

“This an anti-science move that will kill more Americans,” Lucky Tran, a scientist and public health communicator based in New York, wrote on Bluesky.

—Emily Dieckman (@emfurd.bsky.social), Associate Editor

These updates are made possible through information from the scientific community. Do you have a story about how changes in law or policy are affecting scientists or research? Send us a tip at eos@agu.org.

Text © 2025. AGU. CC BY-NC-ND 3.0
Except where otherwise noted, images are subject to copyright. Any reuse without express permission from the copyright owner is prohibited.

Research & Developments is a blog for brief updates that provide context for the flurry of news regarding law and policy changes that impact science and scientists today.

President Trump’s proposed 2026 budget, released today, slashes non-defense discretionary spending by $163 billion, a 22.6% reduction from 2025.

In the budget request, sent from Russell T. Vought, director of the Office of Management and Budget, to Senate Appropriations Chair Susan Collins, Vought wrote that the suggestions came after a rigorous review of the 2025 budget, which was found to be “tilted toward funding niche non-governmental organizations and institutions of higher education committed to radical gender and climate ideologies antithetical to the American way of life.”

Among the proposed cuts:

• A 9.4% cut, or $4.7 billion, to the Department of Energy
  • In addition, the budget proposes cancelling “over $15 billion in Green New Scam funds, committed to build unreliable renewable energy, removing carbon dioxide from the air, and other costly technologies burdensome to ratepayers and consumers.”
• A 54% cut, or $5  billion, to the Environmental Protection Agency
  • This includes eliminating the EPA’s environmental justice program and atmospheric protection program, as well as cutting funds for the Hazardous Substance Superfund and the Clean and Drinking Water State Revolving Loan Funds.
  • “Trump’s plan to virtually eliminate federal funding for clean, safe water represents a malevolent disregard for public health. Even by Trump’s appalling standards, this direct attack on a benchmark water safety program is unconscionable,” said Food & Water Watch Executive Director Wenonah Hauter in a statement.
• A 30.5% cut, or $5.1 billion, to the Interior Department, including $198 billion from the Bureau of Land Management, $900 million from the National Park Service, and $564 million from the U.S. Geological Survey
  • From the proposal: “Eliminates programs that provide grants to universities, duplicate other Federal research programs and focus on social agendas (e.g. climate change) to instead focus on achieving dominance in energy and critical minerals.”
• A 24.3% cut, or $6 billion, to NASA, including a 47% cut to the science budget
  • Among many other cuts, the budget “eliminates funding for low-priority climate monitoring satellites,” “reduces Space Technology by approximately half,” and “terminate[s] unaffordable missions such as the Mars Sample Return Mission.” It suggests cutting the lunar Gateway, Space Launch System rocket, and Orion capsule, as well as the Office of Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) engagement. NASA’s overall cut takes into account a proposed $647 million budget increase for human space exploration.
  • In a statement, The Planetary Society urged Congress to reject the proposed budget, calling it “a historic step backward for American leadership in space science, exploration, and innovation.”
  • In a statement, the American Astronomical Society expressed “grave concerns” over these cuts, and said, “This will derail not only cutting-edge scientific advances, but also the training of the nation’s future STEM workforce.”
• A 55.8% cut, or $4.9 billion, to the National Science Foundation
  • From the proposal: “The Budget cuts funding for: climate; clean energy; woke social, behavioral, and economic sciences; and programs in low priority areas of science. NSF has fueled research with dubious public value, like speculative impacts from extreme climate scenarios and niche social studies.”
• An approximately 25% cut, or $1.5 billion, to NOAA
  • From the proposal: “The Budget terminates a variety of climate-dominated research, data, and grant programs, which are not aligned with Administration policy-ending “Green New Deal” initiatives.”

The budget proposal also includes suggestions to increase defense spending by 13%, to $1.01 trillion; and for “a historic $175 billion investment to, at long last, fully secure our border.”

Read more about the budget proposal at AGU’s The Bridge.

—Emily Dieckman (@emfurd.bsky.social), Associate Editor

These updates are made possible through information from the scientific community. Do you have a story about how changes in law or policy are affecting scientists or research? Send us a tip at eos@agu.org.

Text © 2025. AGU. CC BY-NC-ND 3.0
Except where otherwise noted, images are subject to copyright. Any reuse without express permission from the copyright owner is prohibited.

Historic wildfires broke out in South Korea in late March 2025, killing 32 people, injuring 45, and displacing about 37,000. In total, the fires burned more than 100,000 hectares (about 247,000 acres), nearly quadruple the area that burned in the country’s previous worst recorded fire season in 2000. (In comparison, the January 2025 Palisades and Eaton Fires in Southern California burned about 91,000 hectares, or 37,000 acres.)

A new study by scientists with World Weather Attribution (WWA) suggests that atmospheric warming—caused primarily by fossil fuel burning—made the hot, dry, and windy conditions that drove the South Korean fires about twice as likely and 15% more intense.

About 5,000 buildings burned, including homes, industrial structures, farms, and cultural heritage sites such as the Gounsa Temple in Uiseong, which was originally built in 618 CE.

“The scale and speed of the fires were unlike anything we’ve ever experienced in South Korea,” said June-Yi Lee, an atmospheric scientist at Pusan National University and the Institute for Basic Science, in a statement. “This study adds to a growing body of science showing how climate change is making weather conditions more favorable to dangerous wildfires.”

Hot, Dry, and Windy

WWA researchers examined the Hot-Dry-Windy Index (HDWI) across the entire country for the month of March. This metric calculates fire risk from temperature, humidity, and wind speed observations.

The combination of high temperatures, low humidity, and high wind speeds that occurred from 22 to 26 March were unusual, even for today’s climate, the researchers found. Such conditions are expected to occur in March only once every 340 years. But this combination of conditions would have been even rarer in a preindustrial climate, occurring only once every 744 years.

The study suggests that the trend in the HDWI was driven primarily by unseasonably high temperatures.

“From March 22–26, the daily maximum average temperature in southeastern Korea averaged around 25°C, which was 10°C higher than the normal March average,” Lee said in a press briefing. Little rain fell in the region this winter, which, combined with high temperatures, led to drier, more flammable fuels. Relative humidity was around 20% at the time of the fires, not unusual for March. Wind speeds on 25 March reached up to 25 meters per second, a short-lived spike that helped the fires spread quickly.

The WWA team also calculated that if the climate warms by another 1.3°C by 2100, the HDWI will continue to increase, with the conditions behind such fires growing another 2 times as likely.

The nature of WWA’s rapid response studies means they are not peer reviewed, but they have published peer-reviewed studies on the methodology they use in all of their analyses. The study marks the World Weather Attribution’s 100th rapid analysis since the organization formed in 2014. It is the sixth to focus on a wildfire.

A Strong Case

ClimaMeter, another project that examines how extreme weather events may have been affected by a changing climate, released a study about South Korea’s wildfires on 25 March. (As with the WWA study, it was not peer reviewed but used peer-reviewed methods.)

ClimaMeter uses a different methodology than WWA does but had similar findings, reporting that the meteorological conditions leading up to the fires were about 2°C hotter, 30% drier, and 10% windier compared with similar past events.

Davide Faranda, a physicist with the French National Centre for Scientific Research and coordinator of ClimaMeter, pointed out that their study showed climate change strengthened the meteorological conditions conducive to fires, not necessarily that climate change caused the fires. He was not involved with the WWA study but noted that the two groups’ rapid response studies often arrive at similar or complementary findings.

“For the moment, it’s more difficult to prove that climate change did not affect an event,” he said.

“A decade ago, the influence of climate change on events was less clear. But now it’s undeniable. The wildfires in South Korea are a case in point,” said Friederike Otto, WWA colead and a climatologist at Imperial College London, in a statement.

—Emily Dieckman (@emfurd.bsky.social), Associate Editor

Citation: Dieckman, E. (2025), Climate change heightened conditions of South Korean fires, Eos, 106, https://doi.org/10.1029/2025EO250170. Published on 30 April 2025.

Text © 2025. AGU. CC BY-NC-ND 3.0
Except where otherwise noted, images are subject to copyright. Any reuse without express permission from the copyright owner is prohibited.

Research & Developments is a blog for brief updates that provide context for the flurry of news regarding law and policy changes that impact science and scientists today.

A new executive order, issued on 24 April, aims to help private companies to mine the deep sea.

Some areas of the ocean floor host swaths of potato-sized nodules that contain coveted minerals such as cobalt and nickel. For the past decade, the International Seabed Authority (ISA) has been developing a mining code, which would govern the laws of how nations explore and exploit these resources.

But in the new executive order citing the 1980 Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act, President Trump declared that the United States—the only major global economy that is not part of the ISA—would create a process for granting companies permits to mine these minerals.

Under the Law of 1994 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea Treaty (which the United States did not ratify), a nation has economic rights to the resources within 200 nautical miles of its coast, but international waters fall under ISA jurisdiction.

The new order aims to establish the United States “as a global leader in seabed mineral exploration and development both within and beyond national jurisdiction,” according to text released by the White House.

Dozens of nations have called for a moratorium, pause, or ban on deep-sea mining, and companies including BMW, Google, and Samsung have vowed to not use deep-sea minerals in their products until the risks of doing so are better understood. When The Metals Company, a Canadian seabed mining company, announced in March that it planned to apply for exploration and extraction permits through the U.S. government, even nations that generally support mining in international waters, such as China and Russia, condemned the company’s actions.

At the ISA Council’s session last month, Leticia Carvalho, secretary general of the ISA, expressed “deep concern” over The Metals Company’s announcement, saying that any unilateral action not taken under the ISA’s authority “would constitute a violation of international law.”

As Eos has reported, much of the concern surrounding deep sea mining comes from how little is known about ecosystems on the ocean floor, meaning mining these modules could have significant unforeseen impacts.

“There are still major gaps in understanding biodiversity and ecosystem functions at polymetallic nodule ecosystems,” Sabine Gollner, a deep-sea marine biologist at the Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research told Eos last year. “Once nodules are removed by mining, all biodiversity and functions directly dependent on the minerals will be lost for millions of years at the mined location.”

—Emily Dieckman (@emfurd.bsky.social), Associate Editor

These updates are made possible through information from the scientific community. Do you have a story about how changes in law or policy are affecting scientists or research? Send us a tip at eos@agu.org.

Text © 2025. AGU. CC BY-NC-ND 3.0
Except where otherwise noted, images are subject to copyright. Any reuse without express permission from the copyright owner is prohibited.

Research & Developments is a blog for brief updates that provide context for the flurry of news regarding law and policy changes that impact science and scientists today.

On 21 April, the Environmental Protection Agency notified hundreds of employees working on diversity, equity, and inclusion and environmental justice issues that they would be fired or reassigned to other positions.

Citing two executive orders that aim to end DEI programs and to implement the Department of Government Efficiency, a notice sent to employees by Travis Voyles, assistant deputy administrator of the agency, said the reduction in force “will directly benefit the American people and better advance the Agency’s core mission of protecting human health and the environment.”

In February, the EPA placed the entire, nearly 200-person Office of Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights staff on leave. The agency then reinstated dozens of the positions in March. As reported by The Washington Post, the new “reduction in force” will cut 105 staffers, effective 31 July, and reassign another 175, effective 29 June.

Earlier in the day on 21 April, EPA administrator Lee Zeldin held a press briefing at EPA headquarters in Washington, D.C. When asked how he would ensure the agency’s work reflected the Trump administration’s priorities, he said he was soliciting input from staff on how they think the agency could operate better.

“Number one is I think it’s incredibly important for us to fulfill all statutory obligations,” he said. “Two, I do not want to lose one good employee, and we’re going to be very thoughtful and deliberate in how we go forward.”

As reported by The New York Times, the EPA is also planning to cancel tens of millions of research grants researching topics such as the health effects of pesticide exposure, wildfire smoke, and Per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (also known as PFAS, or “forever chemicals”).

—Emily Dieckman (@emfurd.bsky.social), Associate Editor

These updates are made possible through information from the scientific community. Do you have a story about how changes in law or policy are affecting scientists or research? Send us a tip at eos@agu.org.

Text © 2025. AGU. CC BY-NC-ND 3.0
Except where otherwise noted, images are subject to copyright. Any reuse without express permission from the copyright owner is prohibited.

Research & Developments is a blog for brief updates that provide context for the flurry of news regarding law and policy changes that impact science and scientists today.

The National Science Foundation has cancelled hundreds of grants to researchers working on projects related to diversity, equity, and inclusion, as well as misinformation and disinformation.

In a statement posted on its website, NSF director Sethuraman Panchanathan wrote that the agency’s efforts to promote the progress of science should not preference some people, such as women or those from underrepresented groups, over others.

“Research projects with more narrow impact limited to subgroups of people based on protected class or characteristics do not effectuate NSF priorities,” he wrote. “Awards that are not aligned with NSF’s priorities have been terminated, including but not limited to those on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) and misinformation/disinformation.”

A post on the Department of Government Efficiency’s X account said NSF had cancelled 402 grants, worth $233 million.  

Funding was cancelled for a range of projects including one studying efforts to limit the spread of inaccurate information online and another using community-based science to research the effects of extreme heat in racially and ethnically diverse communities.

The announcement follows a 21 January executive order from President Trump that ordered all executive departments and agencies to terminate all “dangerous, demeaning, and immoral race- and sex-based preferences under the guise of so-called “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI) or “diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility” (DEIA).”

The NSF statement also cited President Trump’s 20 January executive order (one of 26 signed on his first day in office): Restoring Freedom of Speech and Ending Federal Censorship. “Under the guise of combatting ‘misinformation,’ ‘disinformation,’ and ‘malinformation,’ the Federal Government infringed on the constitutionally protected speech rights of American citizens,” the order read.

Noam Ross, a computational researcher and the director of rOpenSci, and Scott Delaney, an epidemiologist at Harvard, created an Airtable form in which researchers can report their grant cancellations.

—Emily Dieckman (@emfurd.bsky.social), Associate Editor

These updates are made possible through information from the scientific community. Do you have a story about how changes in law or policy are affecting scientists or research? Send us a tip at eos@agu.org.

Text © 2025. AGU. CC BY-NC-ND 3.0
Except where otherwise noted, images are subject to copyright. Any reuse without express permission from the copyright owner is prohibited.

Research & Developments is a blog for brief updates that provide context for the flurry of news regarding law and policy changes that impact science and scientists today.

16 April update: Continuing its efforts to bolster the nation’s coal industry, the Trump administration has exempted at least 66 coal-fired power plants from federal rules to limit emissions of toxic air pollutants, AP reported. 

In March, the EPA set up an email address meant for companies to request exemptions to air pollution regulations set by the Biden administration, including the Mercury and Air Toxics Standard, which set stricter emissions limits on mercury, arsenic, and benzene. Exemptions can also be requested for EPA rules limiting ethylene oxide, a carcinogenic gas used in chemical manufacturing.

The Clean Air Act allows President Donald Trump to temporarily exempt industrial sites from these new regulations if those sites meet certain requirements. 

A list posted as of 15 April shows companies’ requests for exemptions have succeeded. The list names 47 power providers who operate at least 66 coal-fired power plants that will receive a two-year exemption from the Biden-era regulations. 

“These passes to pollute carve a ragged hole through the heart of federal protections for the air we breathe,” Maya Golden-Krasner, a senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, told AP. “This is what it looks like to put polluter profits ahead of the wellbeing of Americans and the planet.”

9 April: President Trump signed an executive order on 8 April to drastically reduce restrictions on domestic coal production . It lays out plans to enable coal mining on federal lands, identify and revise existing regulations and policies that seek to transition the country away from coal production, and identify regions where “coal-powered infrastructure” can be used to support artificial intelligence data centers.

In a separate order, Trump said he would instruct the Justice Department to identify and fight any state and local laws “purporting to address ‘climate change’ or involving ‘environmental, social, and governance’ initiatives, ‘environmental justice,’ carbon or ‘greenhouse gas’ emissions, and funds to collect carbon penalties or carbon taxes.” Such climate policies, he said, were “putting our coal miners out of business.”

In March, the president signed a different executive order demanding immediate action to increase production of minerals in the United States. The order defined “mineral” as critical minerals, uranium, copper, potash, gold “and any other element, compound, or material as determined by the Chair of the National Energy Dominance Council (NEDC).”

The new executive order designates coal as a mineral as well. Several days before Trump signed the order, the U.S. Department of Agriculture removed regulations that protected 264,000 acres of land in Nevada from oil, gas, and geothermal energy development and 165,000 acres of land in New Mexico from mining and geothermal leasing.

According to the 2024 global carbon budget, coal is responsible for 41% of global fossil carbon dioxide emissions. Burning coal also emits sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, particulates, mercury, and other heavy metals, all of which can contribute to health problems such as respiratory illness and some of which contribute to smog and acid rain.

In the United States, reliance on coal has been falling for decades as it has been replaced with other sources of electricity, primarily natural gas. Though natural gas is not a clean energy source, it produces fewer emissions than coal does, and natural gas plants are cheaper than coal plants to build and operate. Solar and wind power have also risen in popularity. In 2001, about 51% of the country’s net electricity generation came from coal. By 2023, the figure had dropped to just 16.2%.

Trump signed the executive orders while standing in front of a group of coal miners wearing hard hats, and spoke about “bringing back an industry that was abandoned, despite the fact that it was just about the best, certainly the best, in terms of power, real power.”

“I told my people ‘Never use the word “coal” unless you put “beautiful, clean” before it,’” he said. “Today, we’re taking historic action to help American workers, miners, families and consumers.”

The executive order comes in the wake of the General Services Administration closing dozens of Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) offices across the country, laying off an estimated 85% of employees at the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, and imposing tariffs on Chinese-made ships entering U.S. ports to pick up materials, including coal.

In a 9 April statement, Cecil E. Roberts, international president of the United Mine Workers of America (UMWA), said the union appreciated the new executive order. In an earlier statement, he had called the downsizing of MSHA offices “devastating to the coal industry” and said the Trump administration owes American miners an explanation for the slew of new policies that put “a target on their back.”

The White House posted a video on X of several of the people who stood behind Trump while he signed the executive order. None were identified by name, but one was Jeff Crowe, a miner from West Virginia who also spoke briefly at the podium during the announcement of the executive order. All praised the president’s decision, as well as his new tariff policies.

President Trump signed major energy executive orders today—surrounded by REAL AMERICANS.

The fake news media's latest orchestrated attack—this time over tariffs—falls flat with coal miners, who told us: "it's actually gonna help our industry out [&] bring jobs back to America." pic.twitter.com/yQsxAJxIxm

— The White House (@WhiteHouse) April 9, 2025

—Emily Dieckman (@emfurd.bsky.social), Associate Editor

These updates are made possible through information from the scientific community. Do you have a story about how changes in law or policy are affecting scientists or research? Send us a tip at eos@agu.org.

Text © 2025. AGU. CC BY-NC-ND 3.0
Except where otherwise noted, images are subject to copyright. Any reuse without express permission from the copyright owner is prohibited.

Research & Developments is a blog for brief updates that provide context for the flurry of news regarding law and policy changes that impact science and scientists today.

Update: On 24 April, NOAA announced on Bluesky and X that the National Weather Service had reinstated its contract to translate severe weather alerts into other languages.

This month, the National Weather Service (NWS) announced that, until further notice, it will no longer be offering automated translation services for its severe weather alerts. These alerts warn U.S. residents about imminent dangers including thunderstorms, tropical cyclones, flooding, and extreme heat. The news was reported by Earth.org, The Washington Post, the Associated Press, and other outlets.

The agency attributed the change to a contract lapse with Lilt, an artificial intelligence company that worked with NWS forecasters to develop software that could accurately translate weather terminology into Spanish, simplified Chinese, Vietnamese, French, and Samoan.

The agency’s product translation page states that the NWS “is committed to enhancing the accessibility of vital, life-saving information by making urgent weather updates available in multiple language.” However, it also notes that “changes or discontinuations may occur without advance notice.” A banner atop the page now reads, “The translated text production functionality on this site may be interrupted after 3/31/2025. Further details will be provided when available.”

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 67.8 million people in the United States speak a language other than English at home, including nearly 42 million Spanish speakers and more than 2 million French (including Patois, Cajun, Creole, and Haitian) speakers. The Census Bureau lists communication barriers, such as those that exist in households with limited English, as a measure of social vulnerability. Previous research has documented that a lack of translated emergency alerts, or poorly translated alerts, can leave communities uninformed, confused, and ultimately more vulnerable to danger.

The NWS is part of NOAA, which has faced drastic cuts under the Trump administration. More than 1,000 employees have been laid off from the agency, though a handful have been rehired. More mass layoffs are expected as the Department of Government Efficiency eliminates thousands of federal positions.

A NOAA employee told PBS that if the contract with Lilt is not reinstated within 30 days of its 1 April expiration, restarting it will be a complex and lengthy process that involves seeking bids from several companies.

—Emily Dieckman (@emfurd.bsky.social), Associate Editor

These updates are made possible through information from the scientific community. Do you have a story about how changes in law or policy are affecting scientists or research? Send us a tip at eos@agu.org.

Text © 2025. AGU. CC BY-NC-ND 3.0
Except where otherwise noted, images are subject to copyright. Any reuse without express permission from the copyright owner is prohibited.

Boots On the Ground

Seen from above, the dozens of people trekking through the Rwenzori Mountains might have looked something like an ant farm branching across the landscape, said Klaus Thymann. The expedition into the range on the border between Uganda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo included Thymann, an environmental scientist; Heïdi Sevestre, a glaciologist at the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme; guides from the Uganda Wildlife Authority (UWA); and—predominantly—interested community members there to help with logistics.

The group was there in August 2024 to survey ice on the range’s three tallest peaks and to create the first 3D model of the glaciers on Mount Stanley, whose apex, Margherita Peak, is the third highest in Africa at 5,109 meters (16,763 feet).

“It’s really a team work, and a very good one,” said Thymann, founder and director of Project Pressure, a nonprofit organization focused on environmental issues.

Their newly analyzed data confirmed that Mount Speke, the second-highest peak in the range, no longer hosts a glacier (only static ice) and that Mount Baker, the third highest, is practically ice free. The researchers found that the surface area of the Stanley Plateau glacier fell by 29.5% between 2020 and 2024.

“Glaciers worldwide are shrinking or disappearing, so that’s not a surprise,” Thymann said. “I think what is surprising is how rapid it’s going.”

Jim Russell, a climate scientist and geochemist at Brown University who was not involved in the research, has been making expeditions to the Rwenzori Mountains since 2006. He called these glaciers a “canary in a coal mine.”

“The recent retreat is really significant, and it’s illustrating substantial climate change is happening at high elevations,” he said.

Sleeping Bags, Licorice, and Drones

Aside from essentials, such as sleeping bags and licorice (“It’s all about the amount of flavor you can get with the least amount of volume,” Thymann explained), the crew carried an array of equipment, including a generator, fuel and cables for the generator, three drones, and GPS hardware.

“There’s no roads, there’s no helicopters, there’s not even a donkey,” Thymann said. “Everything has to be carried in, so that makes science challenging because the logistics are difficult.” With the weight of equipment and the need to acclimate to the elevation, it’s a 5-day trek from the entrance of Rwenzori Mountains National Park up through tropical, bamboo, and alpine forests to the Stanley Plateau.

Thymann led expeditions to the area in 2012, 2020, and 2022. In 2020, the team captured images of the plateau with consumer drones, then used photogrammetry to create a digital elevation model of the area.

When they returned in 2024, they went one step further. They used a surveying system to determine the precise GPS coordinates of eight points along the plateau, then set up a brightly colored target on each point. When they flew drones over the area to capture more than 850 photos, they could not only create a model but also anchor it to precise GPS coordinates. They also used the points to retroactively anchor the 2020 model. By comparing the two models, they determined the extent of ice loss on the plateau.

Sevestre, the glaciologist, also used ground-penetrating radar to determine the depth of the glaciers. “If you want to know volume, you have to know three dimensions. You have to know the x, the y, and then the z,” Thymann said. “Nobody knew the z, so nobody knew the depth.”

The researchers expect to publish more detailed findings, including glacier volume, in late 2025.

Russell said he was “amazed” the researchers were able to do this work in this remote area. Though there is no standard way of mapping glaciers, he added that the Rwenzori Mountains’ glaciers have historically been mapped simply by tracing the movement of their edges. The Project Pressure team is “not just tracing the lowest elevation of the glacier,” he said. “They’re also able to kind of see the sides, see how that’s shrinking, potentially see it thinning from the top.”

Protecting the Home of Gods

The dwindling of Rwenzori’s ice may be a bellwether of glaciers’ futures worldwide, but closer to home, its effects are already being felt.

The ice on the mountain range is the highest source of water for the River Nile and holds water that millions of Ugandans rely upon. Trekking tourism to Rwenzori Mountains National Park, a United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) World Heritage Site, also bolsters the local economy.

“This ice supports the people of the communities living around it, 100%,” said Masereka Solomon, a tour guide in Uganda who began working with Thymann in 2012. Solomon has lived in the area for 34 years—his whole life—and has watched the ice retreat firsthand. For him and other Bakonzo people who live in the foothills of the Rwenzori Mountains, the glaciers also hold a deep religious and cultural significance, as they believe that their gods live in the ice atop the mountains.

“We believe if we protect this mountain, if we fight hard to maintain the small ice, or the small glaciers that [remain], our gods will not be homeless,” Solomon said.

Thymann emphasized the role of the dozens of community members during the expeditions, from helping transport equipment up the mountain to spotting the drones and returning regularly to maintain time-lapse cameras. He and the other Project Pressure researchers analyze the data and share the results with UWA and locals.

He added that though the Bakonzo people understand that the retreating ice is caused by climate change, he hopes that this more detailed data can “empower” the community and that sharing these findings widely will raise awareness of Uganda’s shrinking glaciers.

—Emily Dieckman (@emfurd.bsky.social), Associate Editor

Citation: Dieckman, E. (2025), A new 3D map shows precipitous decline of Ugandan glaciers, Eos, 106, https://doi.org/10.1029/2025EO250126. Published on 3 April 2025.

Text © 2025. AGU. CC BY-NC-ND 3.0
Except where otherwise noted, images are subject to copyright. Any reuse without express permission from the copyright owner is prohibited.

Research & Developments is a blog for brief updates that provide context for the flurry of news regarding law and policy changes that impact science and scientists today.

The Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA), which works to protect U.S. miners from injury, illness, and death on the job, is among the latest federal agencies targeted for cuts by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).

In collaboration with the General Services Administration, or GSA, DOGE has begun terminating leases for hundreds of offices and buildings for groups such as NOAA, the Natural Resources Conservation Service, geological surveys in several states, and the National Park Service. According to coverage by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Grist, and others, the list includes at least 34 centers run by MSHA, which conduct regular inspections of quarries and mines to ensure worker safety.

It is unclear whether the lease terminations will involve layoffs or relocating workers to other MSHA office locations.

When MSHA first began operation under the Mine Act of 1977, 242 U.S. miners died in mining accidents. In 2025, there were 31, according to the MSHA website.

Federal regulators at MSHA also created a rule, set to take effect in April, which cuts in half the amount of silica allowed in air, in an effort to reduce a new form of black lung disease.

Wayne Palmer, tapped by President Trump to be the next leader of MSHA and who held the position during Trump’s first term, recently served as an executive at the Essential Minerals Association, which filed a legal brief challenging the new rule.

In a statement provided to several news outlets, a GSA spokesperson said: “A component of our space consolidation plan will be the termination of many soft term leases. To the extent these terminations affect public facing facilities and/or existing tenants, we are working with our agency partners to secure suitable alternative space.”

In a statement, United Mine Workers of America International President Cecil E. Roberts said the organization was “troubled” by the news. To keep workers safe, she added, both unions representing workers’ best interests and government agencies enforcing laws are necessary.

In their absence, “workers’ safety will be left solely in the hands of employers. History has shown us time and time again that doing so is a recipe for disaster, especially in the mining industry.”

—Emily Dieckman, (@emfurd.bsky.social), Associate Editor

These updates are made possible through information from the scientific community. Do you have a story about how changes in law or policy are affecting scientists or research? Send us a tip at eos@agu.org.

Text © 2025. AGU. CC BY-NC-ND 3.0
Except where otherwise noted, images are subject to copyright. Any reuse without express permission from the copyright owner is prohibited.

Research & Developments is a blog for brief updates that provide context for the flurry of news regarding law and policy changes that impact science and scientists today.

Various U.S. federal agencies sent a 36-point survey to researchers abroad who receive U.S. funding, asking questions related to the Trump administration’s priorities. The questions cover topics such as “eradicating anti-Christian bias” and defending against “gender ideology,” and asked researchers to disclose ties to “entities associated with communist, socialist or totalitarian parties.”

The Conversation and The Guardian both published the communication in full. Specific questions include:

• Can you confirm this is not a climate or “environmental justice” project or include such elements?
• Does this project support U.S. energy independence or reduce global reliance on hostile countries for energy resources?
• Can you confirm that your organization has not received ANY funding from the PRC (including Confucius Institutes and/or partnered with Chinese state or non-state actors), Russia, Cuba, or Iran?
• Can you confirm that this is no DEI project or DEI elements of the project?
• Does this project take appropriate measures to protect women and to defend against gender ideology as defined in the below Executive Order?

Versions of the questionnaire were sent out to researchers in Australia, the European Union, the United Kingdom, and Canada beginning 5 March, with deadlines between midnight on 7 March and 5 p.m. on 10 March, according to the New York Times. The survey has come from agencies including the U.S. Geological Survey, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the U.S. Department of State, on instruction (according to the email) from the U.S. Office of Management and Budget. Some academics “who conduct joint research with U.S. partners” were sent the questionnaire directly, while others were contacted through national agencies such as Australia’s Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), with which the U.S. agencies had shared the survey.

Vicki Thomson, chief executive of the Group of Eight (Go8) consortium of Australia’s leading research universities, told Nature that the Australian government has suggested researchers respond to the survey, whereas several European universities told the outlet they are advising researchers not to respond. The president of the Canadian Association of University Teachers said the United States is trying to “impose a certain ideological viewpoint on research.”

Chennupati Jagadish, president of the Australian Academy of Science, told ABC Radio National that some of the primary concerns among researchers are how answering the survey—or not answering it—could affect their research and their ability to travel to the United States.

In a 17 March statement urging the Australian government to resist foreign interference, Chennupati noted that the United States is Australia’s largest research partner, and added, “If responses to the survey lead to reductions or cessation of US–Australian scientific collaborations, it will directly threaten our scientific and technological capability.”

—Emily Dieckman (@emfurd.bsky.social), Associate Editor

These updates are made possible through information from the scientific community. Do you have a story about how changes in law or policy are affecting scientists or research? Send us a tip at eos@agu.org.

Text © 2025. AGU. CC BY-NC-ND 3.0
Except where otherwise noted, images are subject to copyright. Any reuse without express permission from the copyright owner is prohibited.

Research & Developments is a blog for brief updates that provide context for the flurry of news regarding law and policy changes that impact science and scientists today.

Universities across the United States are feeling the effects from a wave of policies the Trump administration and its Department of Government Efficiency say are aimed at making the government more productive.

Eos will update this list as more developments unfold. If you have a tip about a university program affected by new policies or cutbacks, please contact us at eos@agu.org.

7 June update: The Trump administration is threatening the academic accreditation of Columbia University, shortly after starting an overhaul of accreditation in general and months after stripping Columbia of more than $400 million in funding.

Specifically, Education Secretary Linda McMahon said in a letter that Columbia “acted with deliberate indifference towards the harassment of Jewish students” and so “no longer appears to meet the Commissions accreditation standards.”

27 May update: A letter from the Trump administration asked federal agency leaders to cancel all remaining federal contracts with Harvard University. The remaining federal contracts implicated in the letter are worth an estimated $100 million and include contracts with about nine agencies, according to the New York Times. 

The letter, signed by the commissioner of the Federal Acquisition Service, an agency responsible for procuring government goods and services, asks other federal agencies to find alternative recipients for these federal contracts and recommends that federal agencies not consider Harvard University for future contracts.

One administration official referred to the planned cuts as a complete severance of the government’s relationship with Harvard, according to the New York Times. 

The letter repeated reasoning found in other Trump administration communications about Harvard University, saying that Harvard “continues to engage in race discrimination” and has failed to protect Jewish students from anti-Semitic actions.

22 May update: The federal government has revoked Harvard’s ability to enroll international students, reports The New York Times. In a letter to the university posted to X, Kristi Noem, secretary of Homeland Security, wrote that the decision was the result of Harvard’s “refusal to comply with multiple requests to provide the Department of Homeland Security pertinent information while perpetuating an unsafe campus environment that is hostile to Jewish students, promotes pro-Hamas sympathies, and employs racist ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion’ policies.”

A news release from the Department of Homeland Security clarified that the termination of Harvard’s Student and Exchange Visitor Program also means that “existing foreign students must transfer or lose legal status.”

A California judge blocked the administration from terminating students’ legal status nationwide while a court case challenging previous terminations is still pending.

More than 27% of Harvard’s student body in the 2024-2025 academic year was international students, according to university enrollment data. According to NAFSA: Association of International Educators, international students contributed $44 billion to the U.S. economy in the 2023-2024 academic year.

21 May update: The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is cancelling $60 million worth of federal grants to Harvard University. Combined with other cuts announced in the last six weeks, this brings the university’s total funding losses to more than $2.7 billion. In a post on X, HHS cited the university’s “continued failure to address anti-Semitic harassment and race discrimination” as the reason.

An article in the Daily Caller linked to in the HHS post stated that the cut grants were related to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention-related funding.

14 May update: The Trump administration has cancelled $450 million in grants to Harvard, adding to the $2.2 billion in already-terminated funds.

“Harvard’s campus, once a symbol of academic prestige, has become a breeding ground for virtue signaling and discrimination,” read a statement from the Department of Health and Human Services’ Joint Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism. “By prioritizing appeasement over accountability, institutional leaders have forfeited the school’s claim to taxpayer support.”

Yesterday, Harvard president Alan M. Garber responded to a 5 May letter from Education Secretary Linda McMahon announcing Harvard would no longer receive new grants.

“You and I have a shared interest in ensuring that American universities continue to be global leaders in innovative and life-saving research that benefits all Americans, boosts the national economy, and serves the country’s interests,” he wrote. “Harvard’s efforts to achieve these goals are undermined and threatened by the federal
government’s overreach into the constitutional freedoms of private universities and its continuing disregard of Harvard’s compliance with the law.”

6 May update: Columbia University announced it will lay off 180 employees, or about 20% of employees who are funded by the $400 million in grants cancelled by the Trump administration.

In a statement, university leadership also said they would be keeping most salaries at current levels. They “have also developed programs to further streamline our workforce through attrition and are preparing to launch a voluntary retirement incentive program, the details of which will be shared next week.”

5 May update: Education Secretary Linda McMahon posted a letter to X announcing “the end of new grants” for Harvard. In a press call attended by Politico, a senior administration official said if the university would like to reinstate its eligibility, it “would have to enter into a negotiation with the government to satisfy the government that it’s in compliance with all federal laws.”

23 April update: An executive order, “Reforming Accreditation to Strengthen Higher Education,” accuses accreditors of abusing their “enormous authority” and failing in their responsibility to ensure institutions provide high-quality education. The order states that the Secretary of Education shall “hold accountable, including through denial, monitoring, suspension, or termination of accreditation recognition, accreditors who fail to meet the applicable recognition criteria or otherwise violate Federal law.” 

As reported by Inside Higher Ed, it was one of several executive orders signed on 23 April related to higher education, including one requiring colleges to disclose some foreign gifts and another to support Historically Black Colleges and Universities.

15 April update: After Harvard University announced it would not comply with policy changes demanded by the Trump administration, the federal government announced a freeze of $2.2 billion in federal funding for the university. 

“The disruption that has plagued campuses in recent years is unacceptable,” the U.S. Department of Education’s Joint Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism said in a statement. “It is time for elite universities to take the problem seriously and commit to meaningful change if they wish to continue receiving taxpayer support.” 

Harvard updated its letter after publication to indicate a willingness to engage in dialogue with the administration. The letter changed a phrase stating that the university “will not negotiate over its independence or constitutional rights” to one stating that it “will not surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights.” The update also clarified that the university was “open to dialogue” but would not “agree to demands that go beyond the lawful authority of this or any administration.”

The government statement did not clarify which grants would be affected by the freeze.

14 April update: Harvard University has chosen not to comply with policy changes demanded by the Trump administration, according to a letter sent from the university to the federal government. 

On 11 April, the Trump administration sent a letter to Harvard president Alan Garber asking the university to comply with a set of terms in order to “maintain Harvard’s financial relationship with the federal government,” which includes billions of dollars in federal research funding. Terms presented in the letter included reforming the university’s hiring and admissions practices, agreeing to an external audit to ensure “viewpoint diversity,” discontinuing all DEI programs, offices, and policies, and banning masks on campus. 

Harvard said it will not accept the proposed agreement. “The University will not surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights,” Garber said in a statement. 

“No government—regardless of which party is in power—should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue,” Garber said.

10 April update: On 9 April, Science reported that the National Institutes of Health is freezing all remaining grant money owed to Columbia University. The news comes just weeks after the Trump administration first cut $400 million in federal grants to the university, including $250 million in NIH grants.

An NIH source told Science that, in addition to blocking new funding to the university, NIH will also stop paying researchers working on existing projects. Scientists will require approval from NIH before drawing from existing disbursements.

9 April update: The U.S. Department of Commerce announced on 8 April that it was ending $4 million in grants to Princeton University that funded cooperative agreements with NOAA. Three programs in particular will lose funding, effective June 30, 2025. 

Research programs being cut include efforts to model Earth systems, climate change, and water availability. The Department of Commerce announcement said the programs were “no longer in keeping with the Trump Administration’s priorities.”

The announcement stated that one cooperative agreement “suggests that the Earth will have a significant fluctuation in its water availability as a result of global warming,” and that “using federal funds to perpetuate these narratives does not align with the priorities of this Administration.”

According to the announcement, funding to another climate and Earth systems modeling project was cut because the research “promotes exaggerated and implausible climate threats.”

1 April update: Dozens of federal grants to Princeton University, from sources including NASA and the Department of Energy, have been halted by the Trump administration, according to AP, the New York Times, and other sources. It is among more than 50 schools, including almost all of the nation’s Ivy League universities, being investigated by the Department of Education for accusations of antisemitism. Princeton’s most recent report states that it received $455 million in federal grants during the 2023-2024 fiscal year.

The university’s president, Christopher Eisgruber, said in a statement that the university is “committed to fighting antisemitism and all forms of discrimination,” as well as defending academic freedom and due process rights. He also said Princeton will comply with the law.

On 19 March, Eisgruber wrote a piece in The Atlantic voicing concern over funding cuts at Columbia University.

“The Trump administration’s recent attack on Columbia University puts [research universities] at risk, presenting the greatest threat to American universities since the Red Scare of the 1950s. Every American should be concerned,” he wrote.

31 March update: The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Education, and the General Services Administration announced a plan to review more than $255 million in contracts between Harvard University, its affiliates and the federal government “as part of an investigation aimed at eliminating anti-Semitic harassment on college campuses.” The agencies are also reviewing more than $8.7 billion in multiyear grant commitments to the university and its affiliates “to ensure the university is in compliance with federal regulations, including its civil rights responsibilities.”

Republicans have criticized the way universities, including Harvard and Columbia, have responded to campus protests over the Israel-Gaza war. Earlier this month, in response to a subpoena from a House committee, Harvard provided thousands of pages of documents detailing its efforts to combat antisemitism.

28 March update: On Thursday, 27 March, the federal government launched investigations into whether Stanford University and three University of California campuses (UC Berkeley, UCLA, and UC Irvine) are complying with a 2023 Supreme Court ruling ending affirmative action in college admissions. In a statement, Attorney General Pamela Bondi said she and the president “dedicated to ending illegal discrimination and restoring merit-based opportunity across the country.”

The Trump administration also launched an investigation into the California Department of Education, according to the Associated Press. The investigation concerns a 2024 law that bans school districts from adopting policies requiring staff to disclose information about a student’s sexual orientation or gender identity to parents, or any other person, without the child’s consent, unless otherwise required by law.

24 March update: As reported by the Washington Post and other outlets, Columbia University agreed to comply with demands made by the Trump administration, including banning masks used to conceal identities and hiring 36 officers with the authority to arrest students. This comes in the wake of the administration cancelling $400 million in federal contracts and grants to the institution. Education Secretary Linda McMahon told CNN that the university is “on the right track so that we can now move forward.”

19 March: The University of California announced to employees it would implement a system-wide hiring freeze across all 10 of the system’s campuses, six academic health centers, and three national laboratories. The system employs approximately 265,000 faculty and staff, according to its website, and is home to some of the top Earth and space science programs in the country. Princeton University, ranked #1 among national universities by U.S. News & World Report, also announced a hiring freeze.

19 March: The administration paused $175 million in federal funding to the University of Pennsylvania (Penn) for defying “his executive order banning biological males from infiltrating women’s sports,” according to a FOX News video posted by a White House account. DOGE’s Elon Musk is a 1997 Penn graduate.

BREAKING: The Trump Administration has "paused $175 million in federal funding from the University of Pennsylvania" over its policies forcing women to compete with men in sports.

Promises made, promises kept. pic.twitter.com/o4yiiqtH9d

— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) March 19, 2025

17 March: As reported by WBUR, Bunker Hill Community College cancelled its summer study abroad programs, in which several dozen students planned to travel out of the country to study topics including wildlife conservation and ecology. Administrators cited concerns about international students being unable to re-enter the United States after the trip. Other schools, including Brown University, are advising international students and employees to delay international, and even domestic, travel.

14 March: Johns Hopkins University is cutting more than 2,000 jobs, many of them abroad, citing the loss of $800 million worth of USAID grants.

13 March (updated 26 March): Brown University enacted a hiring freeze.

11 March: Eos reported that The National Science Foundation’s Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REUs), competitive summer research opportunities, are being cancelled at institutions across the nation. Some are also freezing or reducing admissions to graduate programs.

10 March: Harvard University announced a hiring freeze, citing “substantial financial uncertainties driven by rapidly shifting federal policies” faced by institutions across the nation. It is home to some of the nation’s top programs in Earth sciences.

7 March: The Trump administration cancelled $400 million in federal contracts and grants to Columbia University. In a letter to the university’s interim president, Katrina Armstrong, representatives from the administration said they would reconsider the terminated funding if the university agreed to a list of demands, including placing the Middle East, South Asian, and African Studies departments on “academic receivership,” a rarely invoked move in which a college administration takes over a department.

David Damrosch, a professor of comparative literature at Harvard University, told the Chronicle of Higher Education the move was “bizarre and unprecedented.” “I have never heard of it in a democratic society,” he said. According to a 19 March Wall Street Journal report, the university is preparing to agree to the demands.

26 February: Stanford University, which has top-ranking programs in environmental sciences, geochemistry, geology, and geophysics and seismology, announced a hiring freeze.

—Emily Dieckman (@emfurd.bsky.social), Associate Editor

These updates are made possible through information from the scientific community. Do you have a story about how changes in law or policy are affecting scientists or research? Send us a tip at eos@agu.org.

Text © 2025. AGU. CC BY-NC-ND 3.0
Except where otherwise noted, images are subject to copyright. Any reuse without express permission from the copyright owner is prohibited.

Research & Developments is a blog for brief updates that provide context for the flurry of news regarding law and policy changes that impact science and scientists today.

When U.S. President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy met to sign a minerals agreement on 28 February, their discussion devolved into a heated, and widely covered, exchange.

The minerals agreement, if signed, would result in half of Ukraine’ future revenue from minerals and natural resources going to the United States, in exchange for U.S. military support.

A draft of the deal published by Kyiv Independent on 26 February, defines natural resource assets as “deposits of minerals, hydrocarbons, oil, natural gas, and other extractable materials, and other infrastructure relevant to natural resource assets (such as liquified natural gas terminals and port infrastructure).”

One subset of these resources, critical minerals, are so-called because they are considered critical to the national or economic security of the United States. They include aluminum, copper, cobalt, lithium, and silicon.

President Trump declared a National Energy Emergency in January, proclaiming that the “energy and critical minerals… identification, leasing, development, production, transportation, refining, and generation capacity of the United States are all far too inadequate to meet our Nation’s needs.” In the same month, Eos reported on the mining industry’s struggle to recruit employees.

A 2022 assessment by Hanna Liventseva, then-president of the Ukrainian Association of Geologists, noted that the country covers just 0.4% of the Earth’s surface but contains about 5% of the world’s mineral resources. Her report also stated that there are 8,761 deposits and 1,288 recorded sites for 95 minerals of commercial value, which are included in the Ukrainian Recorded Mineral Reserves. According to the Ukrainian Geological Survey, Ukraine ranks first among European Union countries in graphite and lithium reserves, and also has notable amounts of titanium, beryllium, and uranium.

However, in an analysis piece for Foreign Policy, University of Texas at Austin public affairs researcher Joshua Busby, U.S. Naval War College Russia Maritime Studies Institute researcher  Emily J. Holland, and Colorado School of Mines Payne Institute for Public Policy director Morgan D. Bazilian suggested that access to Ukraine’s minerals won’t solve supply chain problems in the United States. They argue that this is because knowledge of Ukraine’s minerals is limited, and developing mines and extracting minerals is time-consuming and difficult—particularly during a war.

“The unique realities of global minerals markets—as well as logistical conditions on the ground in Ukraine—make it highly unlikely that these assets would have any meaningful impact on U.S. national and economic security in the short and medium term,” they wrote.

It is unclear when—and whether—the minerals deal will be signed, but both President Zelenskyy and a representative of President Trump have suggested it will be.

—Emily Dieckman (@emfurd.bsky.social), Associate Editor

These updates are made possible through information from the scientific community. Do you have a story about how changes in law or policy are affecting scientists or research? Send us a tip at eos@agu.org.

Text © 2025. AGU. CC BY-NC-ND 3.0
Except where otherwise noted, images are subject to copyright. Any reuse without express permission from the copyright owner is prohibited.

Research & Developments is a blog for brief updates that provide context for the flurry of news regarding law and policy changes that impact science and scientists today.

At AGU’s Annual Meeting 2024, activist Sharon Lavigne spoke about living in Louisiana, in what is commonly known as “Cancer Alley.” The 85-mile stretch along the Mississippi River is home to more than 200 industrial facilities, including the Denka Performance Elastomer plant, which uses chloroprene to manufacture synthetic rubber for products such as automotive parts, adhesives, and construction materials.

The U.S. EPA and the Justice Department sued Denka in 2023, requiring that the company “immediately reduce its chloroprene emissions to levels that no longer cause or contribute to unacceptably high cancer risks within the communities surrounding the Facility.”

As reported in the New York Times and the Washington Post, the Trump administration now plans to drop the lawsuit.

The EPA classifies chloroprene as a “likely carcinogen,” which indicates there is strong evidence it causes cancer in humans. Exposure to the chemical is also known to affect the nervous, cardiac, respiratory, and gastrointestinal systems.

Lavigne, the founder of the environmental justice grassroots organization RISE St. James, spoke about friends and family members with cancer and community members facing a range of other health problems.

“Women become pregnant, they have miscarriages,” she said. “Children [who] go outside to play, will come back in the house with rashes. They have a lot of respiratory problems.”

According to the EPA lawsuit, air quality monitors near the Denka facility measured average chloroprene concentrations up to 14 times higher than the limit for what a person may safely breathe over the course of a 70-year lifetime.

Most communities in the area are predominately Black. A 2019 ProPublica analysis found that the air quality problems were especially acute in predominantly Black and low-income communities. A 2022 complaint filed by the EPA to Louisiana state regulators also alleged that Black communitas faced disproportionate impacts.

“This is a massive injustice,” Lavigne said in her AGU24 keynote. “How would you like it if your community was called ‘Cancer Alley?’”

—Emily Dieckman (@emfurd.bsky.social) , Associate Editor

These updates are made possible through information from the scientific community. Do you have a story about how changes in law or policy are affecting scientists or research? Send us a tip at eos@agu.org.

Text © 2025. AGU. CC BY-NC-ND 3.0
Except where otherwise noted, images are subject to copyright. Any reuse without express permission from the copyright owner is prohibited.