In an article published in June 2025 of the MIT Technology Review, senior editor James Temple outlines the Trump administration’s termination of grants awarded by the National Science Foundation (NSF) to over 100 climate research projects. Tens of millions of dollars were stripped from previously approved studies, many of which were already underway. As someone just beginning to dip my foot into the world of climate science, I’m concerned by the sight of established researchers like Harvard’s Daniel Nocera, a pioneer in artificial photosynthesis research, having funding for their groundbreaking studies slashed. If accomplished scientists working at prestigious universities have their heads on the chopping block, what does that mean for someone like me who’s just starting out? Further proposed cuts may be in place by the time my generation fully involves ourselves, and these are even more alarming: a 60% reduction in NSF research spending and additional massive cuts to climate monitoring programs. Climate science relies on decades of consistent measurements. Even short gaps can significantly delay our understanding for generations, so future scientists may be decades behind where current researchers hoped to position them. Daniel Schrag, co-director of Harvard’s science, technology, and public policy program, warns that “we might lose a generation of talent,” a direct blow to current high-school, undergraduate, and graduate students looking to prevent or reverse environmental harm. In a time when established scientists are already questioning whether to stay in the field, it makes me question my ambitions of entering it now. Yet I see something telling about these systematic attacks on climate science. Research doesn’t typically get defunded unless it’s producing what Al Gore termed an “inconvenient truth” a generation ago. The intensity of opposition suggests the work’s importance, and I believe that’s exactly why we need more people willing to pursue this field despite the challenges, not fewer.