Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva on Tuesday rejected the US government's argument that Brazil engages in “unreasonable” practices in the bilateral relationship, arguing that it is Washington that runs a trade surplus with his country. If anyone should impose tariffs, he said, it would be Brazil.º
The presidents of Brazil, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, and the United States, Donald Trump, held a meeting of close to three hours at the White House on Thursday in which both leaders declared an end to one of the most severe bilateral crises in two centuries of relations between the two largest economies in the Americas. The encounter, formalized as a working meeting, unfolded in a climate of personal fluency and allowed for the agreement to establish bilateral channels to address commercial, security, and regional cooperation matters.
Since the beginning of the 20th century, global sea level has risen by about 20 centimeters (roughly 8 inches) [Fox-Kemper et al., 2021]. As a result, coastal and island communities around the world are experiencing more frequent high-tide flooding, worsening storm surges, and increasing damage to homes and infrastructure. In the United States, for example, human-caused sea level rise alone increased damages from 2012’s Hurricane Sandy by about $8 billion [Strauss et al., 2021].
The United States has long been a key member of the global climate research community. However, that role is now threatened.
Scientific understanding of the magnitudes and rates of sea level rise, of how they vary around the planet, and of why the ocean is rising is based on a body of rigorous research that, for decades, has tracked past and present sea levels and projected future rise.
The United States has long been a key member of the global climate research community, including in producing the wealth of sea level research that has informed countries, states, and communities of what lies ahead for their shorelines. However, that role is now threatened by the Trump administration’s attacks on the country’s scientific research enterprise broadly and on climate research especially.
Analysis of the evolution of sea level rise projection science [Garner et al., 2018] underscores both the country’s prominent past role in the field and how the ongoing attacks may undermine progress in our understanding of sea level change. It also points to the urgency of acting across multiple fronts to preserve scientific knowledge and prevent further harm to the capacity to measure and project how much and how fast rising seas will affect global coastlines.
By the late 1970s, scientists around the world had begun to recognize the growing threat that climate change posed to the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets and the danger their melting presented to coastal regions [Mercer, 1978]. The first global mean sea level (GMSL) projections were published in 1982 [Gornitz et al., 1982], and the first planning-oriented sea level scenarios were published just a few years later [e.g., National Research Council, 1987].
Since 1982, 103 studies have produced GMSL projections [Garner et al., 2018]. About one third of the studies (33 in total), including the first five, were published by teams led by scientists at U.S. institutions (Figure 1). Thirty-three studies (some, but not all, of which were also led by U.S.-based scientists) have also benefited from U.S. federal funding, sometimes from multiple agencies (Figure 2), including the National Science Foundation (NSF; 16 studies), NASA (10 studies), NOAA (8 studies), the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE; 6 studies), the U.S. Department of Defense (3 studies), the U.S. Geological Survey (2 studies), and the EPA (2 studies).
U.S. scientists have further played critical roles in developing GMSL projections for Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessments. For example, chapters producing sea level projections for the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report [Church et al., 2013], the IPCC Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate [Oppenheimer et al., 2019], and the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) [Fox-Kemper et al., 2021] were all coled by U.S.-based scientists.
Meanwhile, U.S. funding has been essential to the IPCC, constituting more than 25% of the nearly $207 million invested globally in the organization from 1989 to 2024 [IPCC, 2025]. NASA also played a key role in making IPCC AR6 sea level projections more accessible and usable through the NASA/IPCC Sea Level Projection Tool [Kopp et al., 2023; Fox-Kemper et al., 2021; Garner et al., 2021], which supports local assessments of sea level change around the world and has about 400,000 users annually.
U.S. institutions have been vital in developing, hosting, and maintaining critical sea level datasets.
Beyond direct contributions of U.S. scientists and federal funding to the global scientific community’s sea level projection research, U.S. institutions have been vital in developing, hosting, and maintaining critical sea level datasets. For example, the University of Hawai‘i Sea Level Center is a crucial part of the Global Sea Level Observing System, operating a network of more than 90 tide gauge stations and supporting global real-time oceanographic operations and long-term climate studies. NASA satellite missions, including TOPEX/Poseidon and the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE and GRACE-FO), have been instrumental in helping to measure changes in GMSL and ice sheets, providing new ways to assess the accuracy of global sea level projections [Törnqvist et al., 2025]. And the Sea Level Research Group at the University of Colorado has consistently processed such datasets, providing critical data access for the broader research community.
Since January 2025, climate and sea level science in the United States has come under an unprecedented attack. Scientists have seen congressionally approved research funding revoked or frozen. Agencies like NASA, NOAA, and NSF have been stripped of physical resources, talented scientific experts, and independent advisory and governing boards. The Trump administration, in its fiscal year (FY) 2026 budget, sought debilitating funding cuts for federal scientific agencies, including proposed budget reductions of 24% for NASA, 27% for NOAA, 57% for NSF, and 55% for EPA. Although the scale of these cuts was reduced in the enacted FY2026 budget, the administration is pushing for similarly steep cuts in its FY2027 budget request.
In May 2025, NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, which produced the first global sea level projections [Gornitz et al., 1982], was evicted from its 49-year home, and efforts to undermine the institute have continued into 2026. Since December, the administration has advanced plans to dismantle the National Center for Atmospheric Research, which developed and maintains a host of climate datasets and resources, including the Community Earth System Model that is widely used to help generate GMSL projections. And in January 2026, the government announced it would withdraw from more than 60 international bodies, including the IPCC, as part of a broader move to pull back from international scientific cooperation.
Efforts to apply climate science in U.S. policy have been hindered not only by political polarization and proposed funding cuts but also by deliberate suppression of data and research.
Efforts to apply climate science in U.S. policy have been hindered not only by political polarization and proposed funding cuts but also by deliberate suppression of data and research. Broadly, the current U.S. administration has removed more than 2,000 datasets from federal platforms, and more specifically, it has systematically scrubbed climate-related content from agency websites. Such erasures disrupt public access to critical information and undermine scientific transparency.
Furthermore, the DOE published a report that without conducting any statistical analysis, denied the scientific evidence for sea level acceleration. It similarly claimed, without any analysis of the numerous sea level projection studies documented here, that sea level is “rising at a lower rate than predicted.” The EPA went further, falsely claiming that “aggregate sea level rise has been minimal.” In fact, the most recent IPCC sea level projections are in good agreement with observations [Törnqvist et al., 2025; Dessler and Kopp, 2025].
The U.S. scientific community now stands at a precipice. Efforts to dismantle federal scientific agencies and diminish research are eroding the United States’ foundational contributions to our knowledge of global change and sea level rise.
As we plummet toward a loss of data, expertise, and innovation, we face a future that would not only further damage the United States’ reputation for scientific excellence and transparency but also cripple the global sea level research community at a time when the risks from sea level rise are rapidly increasing [Fox-Kemper et al., 2021].
While some U.S.-based sea level scientists could move to countries more committed to climate science, there are not enough positions in the world nor enough mobility for the vast majority to relocate. Grassroots archiving efforts have helped preserve some critical datasets, but this is a temporary and often insufficient stopgap. An urgent need remains for resilient and transparent scientific infrastructure, so that U.S. taxpayer–funded research findings and datasets are, and remain, publicly accessible.
Historically, federally funded scientific initiatives have enjoyed strong support across the political spectrum in the United States.
Historically, federally funded scientific initiatives have enjoyed strong support across the political spectrum in the United States. However, the unprecedented hostility facing science in the country today has revealed that new institutional safeguards and legal protections to prevent political interference are critically needed.
Expanding collaborations between U.S. universities and private foundations and donors provides one potential route to providing some protection and improving long-term stability for sea level science data and initiatives. Climate Central’s Surging Seas project offers one model to emulate. However, philanthropic efforts are far from sufficient to preserve the U.S. scientific enterprise.
Another avenue to protect federally funded science from political pressure is through bipartisan legislation. Bills such as the Scientific Integrity Act (which aims to ensure that scientific findings are not influenced or altered by political pressure) and the Protect America’s Workforce Act (which aims to restore collective bargaining rights for unionized federal employees) represent such opportunities.
Yet the effectiveness of such legislative efforts hinges on the critical caveat that the people holding authority in government recognize and abide by enacted legislation. Under an executive who does not abide by the rule of law, such legislative efforts, even if they are passed successfully, will offer little actual protection. The path to preserving U.S. climate and sea level science, therefore, cannot be separated from the path to restoring the rule of law within the U.S. government.
Progressing on this front requires the scientific community to advocate for its priorities more vocally and to build coalitions that include both academics and the stakeholders who benefit from scientific climate projections. It also requires making use of tools and levers that many scientists are unaccustomed to, such as the court system. AGU and other institutions have modeled this approach over the past year, joining legal efforts to protect federal workers, for example, and speaking up against the dismantling of valued science agencies.
Restoring the rule of law also requires electoral organizing to reestablish Congress as an independent and coequal branch of government that wields, rather than abdicates, lawful oversight of administration officials and federal agencies.
Scientific understanding of sea level processes and projections of future changes inform local, national, and international decisionmaking and provide a pathway to resilience against the risks of rising coastal waters. Safeguarding the long-standing leadership, integrity, and continuity of U.S. climate and sea level science is both a national and global imperative—one that many scientists are already stepping up to support. Now we need the rest of the scientific community—and its allies in academia, philanthropy, industry, and the public—to join in.
The authors thank Amy Appollina and Jessica Slotter for their assistance in curating a database of global sea level rise projections.
Church, J. A., et al. (2013), Sea level change, in Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, edited by T. F. Stocker et al., pp. 1,137–1,216, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, U.K., https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.026.
Dessler, A., and R. E. Kopp (2025), Climate experts’ review of the DOE Climate Working Group Report, ESS Open Archive, https://doi.org/10.22541/ESSOAR.175745244.41950365/V2.
Fox-Kemper, B., et al. (2021), Ocean, cryosphere and sea level change, in Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, edited by V. Masson-Delmotte et al., pp. 1,211–1,362, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, U.K., https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157896.011.
Garner, A. J., et al. (2018), Evolution of 21st century sea level rise projections, Earth’s Future, 6, 1,603–1,615, https://doi.org/10.1029/2018EF000991.
Garner, G. G., et al. (2021), IPCC AR6 Sea Level Projection Tool, NASA Sea Level Change Portal, sealevel.nasa.gov/data_tools/17.
Gornitz, V., S. Lebedeff, and J. Hansen (1982), Global sea level trend in the past century, Science, 215(4540), 1,611–1,614, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.215.4540.1611.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2025), IPCC Trust Fund Programme and Budget, IPCC-LXII/Doc. 2, rev. 1, IPCC Secr., Geneva, Switzerland, apps.ipcc.ch/eventmanager/documents/88/180220250655-Doc.%202,%20Rev.1%20-%20IPCC%20Programme%20and%20Budget.pdf.
Kopp, R. E., et al. (2023), The Framework for Assessing Changes To Sea-level (FACTS) v1.0: A platform for characterizing parametric and structural uncertainty in future global, relative, and extreme sea-level change, Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 7,461–7,489, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-7461-2023.
Mercer, J. (1978), West Antarctic ice sheet and CO2 greenhouse effect: A threat of disaster, Nature, 271, 321–325, https://doi.org/10.1038/271321a0.
National Research Council (1987), Responding to Changes in Sea Level: Engineering Implications, Natl. Acad. Press, Washington, D.C.
Oppenheimer, M., et al. (2019), Sea level rise and implications for low-lying islands, coasts and communities, in IPCC Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate, edited by H.-O. Pörtner et al., pp. 321–445, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, U.K., https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157964.006.
Strauss, B. H., et al. (2021), Economic damages from Hurricane Sandy attributable to sea level rise caused by anthropogenic climate change, Nat. Commun., 12, 2720, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-22838-1.
Törnqvist, T. E., et al. (2025), Evaluating IPCC projections of global sea-level change from the pre-satellite era, Earth’s Future, 13, e2025EF006533, https://doi.org/10.1029/2025EF006533.
Author Information
Andra J. Garner (garnera@rowan.edu), Department of Environmental Science, Rowan University, Glassboro, N.J.; Robert E. Kopp, Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences and Rutgers Climate and Energy Institute, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, N.J.; Gregory G. Garner, Glassboro, N.J.; Aimée B. A. Slangen, Department of Estuarine and Delta Systems, Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research, Yerseke; and Benjamin P. Horton, School of Energy and Environment, City University of Hong Kong
Despite its name, the Canadian Tuxedo is a distinctly American look. The denim-on-denim getup dates back to the 1950s, when Bing Crosby sported a full Levi’s ensemble while in Vancouver, setting a sartorial trend that continues today.
The national mythology woven into this utilitarian material is also the focus of Brooklyn-based Nick Doyle, who layers denim atop denim into large wall sculptures. From a pair of aviators reflecting puffy clouds to a vast Rocky Mountain landscape framed by brick, the works evoke a sort of nostalgic road trip west, as if chasing a big break, and ultimately, realizing the American dream.
For Doyle, denim is a poignant, loaded metaphor for much of American culture and history. The material has roots in chattel slavery, when people enslaved in the South were dyeing cotton with indigo. There’s also its association with the brusque masculinity of James Dean and cowboy ruggedness, itself an extension of the gold rush and Manifest Destiny. The fabric, in many ways, is a stand-in for the contradictions, hypocrisies, and unreachable desires so bound up in American life.
While researching the visual language of Americana in 2018, Doyle came upon a roll of denim discarded by a fashion designer moving out of his building. “At the time, I had no money, so I was making work out of material I found in the garbage or at my local hardware store,” he shares. “As I was pulling [the roll] out of the trash, I noticed a network of ideas connecting in my brain… I felt the material reflected the historical complexities I was seeing in my research, as well as being reflected in my own familial history.”
This encounter was one of those providential moments that set off an enduring fascination. In his solo exhibition Collective Hallucinations, on view at Perrotin, Doyle presents the latest of his denim sculptures, including stylized cacti, landscapes cordoned off by chainlink fences, and more mystical objects like tarot cards and a life-sized fortune teller’s shop.
The show contains myriad symbols of American exceptionalism and individualism, presented in the heritage fabric of the nation. Doyle shares:
Over the last few years, my conception of American mythology has only become more complex… I think in a lot of ways what we’re experiencing now is a breakdown of these mythologies. They are in direct conflict with the current political reality, yet they are summoned as if it is business as usual. The world’s image of America has changed, but our country’s nostalgia for itself is making us late to the party. There’s tragedy in vanity.
Collective Hallucinations presents these unrealized dreams and confrontations in varying shades of blue, rendering what appears to be individual moments as simply different washes of the same story.
In addition to his practice, Doyle will soon open the second iteration of a kink bar called Human Resources at Basel Social Club and is working toward a fall exhibition of paper collages and prints at Pace. If you’re in New York, Collective Hallucinations runs through May 30. Otherwise, find more on Instagram.
Do stories and artists like this matter to you? Become a Colossal Member today and support independent arts publishing for as little as $7 per month. The article Collaged Denim Sculptures by Nick Doyle Unravel American Mythology appeared first on Colossal.
Brazilian financial markets posted one of their best sessions of the year on Monday after President Donald Trump announced a five-day postponement of strikes against Iran's energy infrastructure, citing “productive conversations” with Tehran.
Across the western United States, wildfires are increasing in size and intensity. As the climate continues to warm, more extreme wildfires will reshape landscapes and pose a growing risk to human health and natural ecosystems throughout the West.
Climate models, used to predict other effects of climate change, are unable to directly simulate wildfires. Instead, researchers link previously burned areas to climate variables such as temperature, precipitation, drought, and evaporation, then apply those relationships to future climate projections.
Many recent studies have connected higher vapor pressure deficit (VPD)—a measure of atmospheric dryness—to more area burned in previous fires. VPD increases as the temperature rises, so models that rely on it generally predict an increase in wildfire activity as the climate warms.
Cheng et al. raise questions about the role VPD plays in modeling wildfire, suggesting that VPD is a poor measure of fuel dryness at larger scales and overestimates potential burned areas under significant warming conditions. Instead, researchers suggest soil moisture could be a more reliable indicator of fuel dryness and lead to more moderate projections of wildfire increases.
The researchers looked at five forested ecoregions in the western states. Using the Western US MTBS-Interagency wildfire dataset from 1984 to 2020 combined with climate data (temperature, VPD, and soil moisture), the researchers analyzed drivers of the area burned from May through October. They connected this information with output from climate models to look at future burn potential.
VPD-based wildfire predictions increase sharply under warming conditions. These predictions showed that under 3°C of average global warming, 16 times as much land would burn by the end of the century, compared to historical levels. Under 4°C of warming, up to 66 times more land would burn by the end of the century. This “truly massive” increase, the authors say, would mean fires consuming vegetation almost as soon as it regrows.
Soil moisture, on the other hand, provides a more moderate, though still concerning, picture. Under the same warming scenarios, soil moisture changes would lead to an increase in burned area of only 2–3 times that of the historical period. The researchers argue that projections relying on VPD severely exaggerate wildfire risk. (AGU Advances, https://doi.org/10.1029/2026AV002350, 2026)
—Rebecca Owen (@beccapox.bsky.social), Science Writer
Hotter, drier conditions in the western United States have led to a rise in wildfire activity that has damaged or destroyed infrastructure, natural ecosystems, and entire towns across the region. As fires grow larger and more destructive, the cost of managing them rises as well.
Fire management agencies in the United States have been feeling the pressure. Between 2014 and 2023, fire management agencies across all levels of government experienced a 131% increase in total area burned and a 268% increase in total fire spending adjusted for inflation compared to the period between 1985 and 1994.
Today, federal agencies like the Department of the Interior (DOI) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service (USFS) continue to invest in aiding states and managing hazardous fuel growth on public land, as well as suppressing active fires. Policymakers and federal agencies alike must decide how to manage limited budgets while protecting people, property, and natural resources.
Prestemon et al. built statistical models based on historical data to examine the potential increase in spending by the DOI and the USFS between now and 2100. Their models link wildfire activity to climate variables such as temperature and water vapor deficit and then connect fire activity to suppression costs. To capture a range of possible future conditions on federal lands, the study predicts 10 fire and suppression spending scenarios by applying five different climate models to two different warming pathways (the moderate Representative Concentration Pathways (RCP) 4.5 scenario and the high-emissions RCP 8.5 scenario).
The results varied by region and scenario, but each of the 10 scenarios suggested a rise in area burned as well as inflation-adjusted fire suppression spending, with higher fire activity translating to higher costs. Projected changes in DOI and USFS land burned increased 80% by mid-century and 208% by late century.
By the middle of the century, both agencies are projected to see spending increases: about 0.65% per year for DOI spending and about 0.87% per year for USFS spending from 2020 to 2100. Although uncertainty increased with time and outcomes varied across climate models and warming pathways, the largest increases in both cost and wildfire activity were consistently projected for the northwestern United States. (Earth’s Future, https://doi.org/10.1029/2025EF007985, 2026).
—Rebecca Owen (@beccapox.bsky.social), Science Writer
Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva was received on Thursday by his American counterpart Donald Trump at the White House, in his first official visit to Washington since his return to power in 2023 and the second face-to-face meeting between the two leaders, following a brief 45-minute encounter on the sidelines of the ASEAN summit in Kuala Lumpur last October. The meeting, formalized as a working session rather than a state visit, seeks to consolidate the fragile bilateral truce reached after one of the most severe diplomatic crises in two centuries of relations between the two most populous democracies in the Americas.
More U.S. scientists are running for state and federal office in the U.S. midterm elections than ever before, Nature reports. Scientist-candidates represent an array of parties, although most profiled in Nature identify as Democrats.
314 Action, an organization focused on getting Democrats with scientific backgrounds elected to public office, offers financial support and training to candidates who apply for it. This year, the organization told Nature, they’ve received nearly three times as many applications as usual.
Sam Wang, a neuroscientist at Princeton and director of the Princeton Gerrymandering Project, is running to represent New Jersey’s 12th Congressional District.
“Usually, scientists stick with a specialized field,” Wang, a Democrat, wrote in an opinion for The Daily Princetonian. “However, I am deeply unhappy with how unequally power is divided in our society. So I have used my statistical abilities to level one part of democracy’s playing field: by repairing unfair elections.”
This year, Democratic candidates appear to be motivated by cuts to federal science programs, grants, and agencies, Nature reports, while Republican candidates like Jeff Wilson, who is running to represent the 13th district of Illinois, cite the pursuit of energy independence. Third-party scientist-candidates have also run, and scientists are entering local and municipal arenas, too.
Specifically, with the recent repeal of the Endangerment Finding, loosened restrictions on pollution, and plans to break up the National Center for Atmospheric Research, some candidates and their supporters think science needs a more prominent position in public policy.
The rise in scientist candidates may also be part of an ongoing trend. More than 200 STEM professionals ran for office in the 2024 election, as Eos reported in October 2024.
“There are a lot of people who believe that science can help us live better lives and that science really does need to be front and center when we’re making public policy,” Jess Phoenix, a volcanologist, science advocate, and former Democratic candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives told Eos at the time.
In March, thousands of people attended Stand Up for Science rallies across the country to protest the misuse of science in federal policy and extensive staffing and funding cuts to scientific agencies. Since President Trump took office in 2025, more than 10,000 PhD-level scientists have left the federal workforce, Science reported in January.
Pew research data shows that public trust in scientists has declined since the COVID-19 pandemic, but it has seen modest improvements since 2023. The latest poll, released in January, found that 77% of adults in the United States have a great deal or a fair amount of confidence in scientists to act in the public’s best interest, compared to 73% in 2023. The percentage is consistently higher among Democrats than Republicans: 90% versus 65%, in 2026. In contrast, only 27% of respondents reported at least a fair amount of confidence in elected officials.
“The last thing I want [is] to become a politician,” wrote one Redditor in response to the Nature story. “But at this rate I may not have a choice if current politicians keep screwing it up.”
—Emily Gardner (@emfurd.bsky.social), Associate Editor
Every chip fabricated in a semiconductor plant needs ultrapure water. Most nuclear reactors need water as a coolant and neutron moderator. Every artificial intelligence (AI) data center drinks between 1 million and 5 million gallons of water a day, with thirst often peaking during drought.
Water runs through every technology priority the United States has named, yet the word does not appear once in “Launching the Genesis Mission,” an executive order (EO) released in November 2025. As described in the EO, the Genesis Mission is a “dedicated, coordinated national effort to unleash a new age of AI-accelerated innovation and discovery that can solve the most challenging problems of this century.”
Led by the Department of Energy (DOE), the initiative aims to build an integrated AI framework that would harness federal scientific datasets to accelerate breakthroughs in advanced manufacturing, biotechnology, critical materials, nuclear fission and fusion energy, quantum information science, and semiconductor development. The scope of the mission is comparable to that of the Manhattan Project.
Since the announcement, the DOE has listed “Predicting U.S. Water for Energy” among its 26 Genesis Mission Science and Technology Challenges. The project is also soliciting proposals in three water-related focus areas.
This framework provides a foothold for hydrology in the Genesis Mission, but it is scoped narrowly around water as a supply variable for energy production.
In reality, water is a crosscutting constraint that will help determine whether the mission’s priorities translate into deployable outcomes. The hydrology community now has a seat at the table, and if it moves first and positions water security as one of the “most challenging problems of this century,” the Genesis Mission can become the sandbox in which AI reshapes how the country measures, models, and manages water.
Making this happen will require that the DOE and the Office of Science and Technology Policy charter a hydrology workstream inside the Genesis Mission, with interagency delivery involving the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), NOAA, the Bureau of Reclamation, the EPA, and partners at state, regional, and community levels. Here is what we think that workstream should look like:
While the existing challenges reflect some of these components, others will require coordinated effort from the hydrology community to bring into the Genesis Mission’s scope.
The Genesis Mission EO instructs the DOE to create an American Science and Security Platform to provide the public, scientists, agencies, and policymakers access to crucial scientific datasets.
The good news is that accessible water data systems already exist across several federal agencies and academic research centers. The USGS National Water Information System tracks real-time and historical water quality and use across the country. NASA’s Earth Science Data Systems Program provides open access to Earth science observations. NOAA’s National Water Center, the first federal facility dedicated to national water resource forecasting, operates the National Water Model, which continuously forecasts flows on 2.7 million stream reaches across the continental United States. The Catchment Attributes and Meteorology for Large-Sample Studies (CAMELS) dataset, currently hosted by the National Center for Atmospheric Research, provides data tailored for hydrological research on hundreds of river basins, and the Caravan framework pulls together multiple large-sample meteorological and hydrological datasets at a global scale.
What is missing is a unified, AI-ready repository that brings federal, state, and community data together.
What is missing is a unified, AI-ready repository that brings federal, state, and community data together. Building one is hard. Water data are fragmented, inconsistent, and often entirely absent. Consistent, reliable data for groundwater, withdrawals, reservoir operations, and water quality are especially difficult to obtain.
Local resistance to sharing data is real. In Texas, for example, landowners hold private property rights over groundwater and have opposed metering and reporting requirements imposed by groundwater conservation districts. In California, agricultural well owners fought metering mandates for years before the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act compelled local agencies to begin tracking withdrawals. Tribal nations face a different concern: Water data collected on Indigenous lands has been misrepresented in federal datasets that were modeled without accounting for Indian country, leading many nations to restrict access to their data as an exercise of sovereignty.
Practical steps toward building a unified AI-ready repository include tiered access and licensing for different stakeholders, clear provenance tracking for all data reported, financial and educational incentives for stakeholders for reporting, and targeted gap filling. Where measurements are missing, AI can fuse remote sensing with gauged records and operational logs—but only if the results carry honest uncertainty estimates tied to real decisions.
Get the corpus right, and it will outlive any single program name. It becomes infrastructure the country can lean on.
The Genesis Mission EO directs the DOE to provide “domain-specific foundation models across the range of scientific domains covered.”
Hydrology has a head start. Long short-term memory (LSTM) networks are a key type of neural network designed to last thousands of time steps. Hydrology LSTMs trained on CAMELS data have already matched traditional conceptual models for daily streamflow discharge prediction. Open-source Neural Hydrology tools serve as baselines for regional runoff prediction. These predictions may serve as precursors to the foundation models the Genesis Mission envisions and building blocks from which they could be developed.
The process of scaling up these tools is not straightforward, however. A hydrologic investigation of snowmelt-driven streams in Colorado will not require the same spatiotemporal data as tile-drained fields in Iowa, for example. A hydrology-specific foundation model must take nuanced requirements into consideration and provide a clear path for managing and exploiting a variety of datasets.
Google’s Flood Hub shows what is possible: Its AI-enabled flood forecasts now cover more than 80 countries. However, Flood Hub’s core model code and trained weights remain proprietary, meaning researchers can use the forecasts but cannot rebuild or adapt the underlying models. Genesis, if well positioned, can fill that accessibility gap by producing foundation models for water that are reusable, reliable, and openly governed.
The EO prescribes an integrated AI platform combining foundation models with simulation tools to stimulate AI-enabled innovations.
That architecture is exactly what a digital twin requires. Europe’s Destination Earth initiative is already building digital twins for weather extremes and nonstationary conditions on the Large Unified Modern Infrastructure (LUMI) supercomputer. The United Nations–led AI for Good initiative has prioritized water applications, warning that fragmented national efforts risk duplicating work.
If the United States aims for global strategic leadership in AI-accelerated science, water infrastructure cannot be an afterthought.
A water digital twin earns its keep when it makes the consequences of choices visible, in terms of flows, levels, temperatures, and risks to people and ecosystems.
Rather than starting from scratch, a water-centric Genesis Mission would unite existing federal models—the National Water Model, reservoir simulators, and groundwater codes—in a single digital twin. AI can become the thread that stitches them together, correcting biases and providing numerical solvers to enforce mass and energy balance.
What should this twin actually do? Help a dam operator decide whether to release water ahead of a storm. Tell planners where a new data center can draw cooling water without drying up a stream. Flag which coastal defenses will fail first under rising seas.
A water digital twin earns its keep when it makes the consequences of choices visible, in terms of flows, levels, temperatures, and risks to people and ecosystems.
The Genesis Mission promotes AI-directed experimentation and directs the DOE to keep a record of robotic laboratories and production facilities in which such experimentation could be conducted. Hydrological field sites belong in that inventory. The National Ecological Observatory Network already operates 81 sites with standardized measurements of meteorology, surface water, groundwater, and biodiversity. The Critical Zone Collaborative Network instruments catchments to track water-soil-vegetation interactions over decades.
Formalizing these networks as AI test beds would link field observations back into the water digital twin so that experiments and models continually sharpen each other. Imagine mobile sensors steered by AI agents during a storm or aquifer recharge experiments designed by algorithms and verified in real time. That feedback loop is what separates a useful model from a decorative one.
Allowing water security to flow through the diverse components of the Genesis Mission would benefit both the policies championed by the mission itself and the hydrology community.
The Genesis Mission gets real-world, noisy test beds where AI proves value beyond benchmarks, a domain to stress test climate and infrastructure investments, and scientists trained in both AI and the stubborn realities of rivers, aquifers, and pipes.
Hydrology gets resources for shared data infrastructure, foundation models and instrumented basins no single lab can support, a seat when rules for AI and national scientific infrastructure are negotiated, and a chance to reset practices around openness, collaboration, and equity.
Earlier this year, the DOE released 26 Genesis Mission Science and Technology Challenges, and “Predicting U.S. Water for Energy” was among them. The accompanying funding call (DE-FOA-0003612) solicits proposals on cloud microphysics, coupled surface water–groundwater modeling, and seasonal to multiyear prediction, all framed around energy needs and flood resilience.
These inclusions are a significant win for a hydrology component to Genesis, but several urgent challenges sit outside their scope. Can AI close the gap between a flood forecast issued 12 hours out and the 48 hours emergency managers actually need? Can it map compound extremes, in which drought, heat, and infrastructure failure collide in the same week? Can it redesign monitoring networks so that coverage follows risk rather than where gauges happened to be installed a century ago? Integrating energy and water systems is equally urgent: Floods have caused 80% of major U.S. grid outages since 2000, while drought-driven water stress curtails cooling at thermoelectric plants and reduces hydropower output, exposing how deeply energy infrastructure depends on hydrologic extremes.
The water footprint of new AI infrastructure deserves a place on that list. A separate executive order (14318, “Accelerating Federal Permitting of Data Center Infrastructure”) is already fast-tracking expansion of data center construction, and a single hyperscale facility can consume 1 million to 5 million gallons of water daily. Emerging research shows how withdrawals at that scale can push streams below ecological thresholds during low flows.
The EO directs the DOE to set data access rules and clarify policies for ownership, licensing, trade secret protections, and commercialization of products and tools associated with it.
Three principles should anchor such policies for AI use in water security.
First, Indigenous and community data rights must be embedded in every major AI water security effort, in line with the collective benefit, authority to control, responsibility, and ethics (CARE) principles for Indigenous data governance.
Second, AI’s own water footprint, through electricity generation and cooling, must be treated as a design constraint. Transparent reporting, stress-based siting, and efficiency targets will prevent hydrology in Genesis from being self-defeating.
Third, the DOE should define what failure looks like. Missing a flood crest portends loss of lives and livelihoods and breaches of treaties. Accountability standards must be measurable, and they must ask not just how accurate the forecast was on average, but who bore the cost when it was wrong.
A single executive order will not solve the country’s water security problems, and a single challenge topic will not either.
But the Genesis Mission has provided a seat at a table that did not exist 6 months ago. Whether the hydrology community treats it as a ceiling or a foundation depends on what happens next. Europe’s Destination Earth and the United Nations’ AI for Good water initiatives are already moving.
American hydrology now has a seat at the table. We should take it.
Carroll, S. R., et al. (2020), The CARE principles for Indigenous data governance, Data Sci. J., 19, 43, https://doi.org/10.5334/dsj-2020-043.
European Commission (2023), Destination Earth: Digital Twins and the Digital Twin Engine, Publ. Off. of the Eur. Union, Luxembourg, destination-earth.eu/destination-earth/destines-components/digital-twins-digital-twin-engine/.
Google Research (2024), Flood forecasting and Flood Hub, Google Research Technical Overview, sites.research.google/gr/floodforecasting/.
International Telecommunication Union (2024), AI for Good: Water and sanitation, aiforgood.itu.int/aifg-course/harnessing-ai-for-sustainable-innovation-sdg6-advancing-clean-water-and-sanitation/.
Kratzert, F., et al. (2019), Toward improved predictions in ungauged basins: Exploiting the power of machine learning, Water Resour. Res., 55, 11,344–11,354, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019WR026065.
Kratzert, F., et al. (2023), Caravan: A global community dataset for large-sample hydrology, Sci. Data, 10, 61, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-023-01975-w.
Li, P., et al. (2023), Making AI less “thirsty”: Uncovering and addressing the secret water footprint of AI models, Commun. ACM, 66, 28–31, cacm.acm.org/sustainability-and-computing/making-ai-less-thirsty/.
The White House (2025a), Accelerating Federal Permitting of Data Center Infrastructure, Executive Order 14318, Washington, D.C., www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/07/accelerating-federal-permitting-of-data-center-infrastructure.
The White House (2025b), Launching the Genesis Mission, Executive Order 14363, Washington, D.C., www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/11/launching-the-genesis-mission.
Xiao, T., et al. (2025), Environmental impact and net-zero pathways for sustainable artificial intelligence servers in the USA, Nat. Sustainability, 8, 1,541–1,553, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-025-01681-y.
Zhang, L., et al. (2025), Foundation models as assistive tools in hydrometeorology: Opportunities, challenges, and perspectives, Water Resour. Res., 61, e2024WR039553, https://doi.org/10.1029/2024WR039553.
Amobichukwu C. Amanambu (acamanambu@ua.edu), Department of Geography and the Environment, The University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa; and Jonathan Frame (jmframe@ua.edu), Department of Geological Sciences, The University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa
Bogotá, Colombia – Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum has demanded that United States authorities provide evidence for their claims that several senior politicians have ties to drug cartels.
Yesterday, the U.S. Justice Department indicted Sinaloa Governor Ruben Rocha, Senator Enrique Inzunza, and eight other current and former officials for drug trafficking and weapons offenses.
Sheinbaum said that without proof, the charges would be treated as politically motivated, marking the latest flashpoint in tense relations between the two neighbors.
“If there isn’t clear evidence, it is obvious that the objective of these indictments by the Department of Justice is political,” said Sheinbaum at a press conference this morning.
Her statement came a day after the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York announced the indictments against the ten officials from Sinaloa.
In addition to the governor and senator, justice officials charged Sinaloa’s deputy attorney general, several former police officials, and the current Mayor of Culiacán – the state capital.
“These politicians and law enforcement officials have abused their authority in support of the cartel, exposed and subjected victims to threats and violence, and sold out their offices in exchange for massive bribes,” read the indictment.
Rocha was charged with narcotics importation conspiracy and weapons possession, which carry a minimum sentence of 40 years and up to life in prison.
In the indictment, authorities accused the governor of receiving help from a faction of the Sinaloa cartel in his 2021 election campaign.
They alleged that “Los Chapitos”, a group run by the sons of jailed kingpin Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman, had kidnapped and threatened Rocha’s political rivals in exchange for guarantees of impunity.
But Rocha denied the charges, writing on X, “They lack any truth or foundation whatsoever.”
Both the governor and Senator Inzunza are members of Sheinbaum’s ruling Morena party, threatening to embarrass the president as she leads a crackdown on organized crime.
In February, authorities killed “El Mencho”, the head of the powerful Jalisco New Generation Cartel (CJNG), in an operation with U.S. intelligence assistance. Last week, they took out a possible successor to lead the CJNG, alias “El Jardinero”.
The Mexican government’s offensive comes amid U.S. pressure to deliver results on drug trafficking as the Donald Trump administration takes a renewed interest in tackling hemispheric organized crime.
During his election campaign, Trump pledged to stop the flow of illegal drugs, primarily Fentanyl, which contributed to the nearly 80,000 deaths from overdose in the U.S. in 2024.
In addition to pressuring regional governments to take firmer action against organized crime, Washington has overseen a boat bombing campaign in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific aimed at stopping drug trafficking.
But drug experts note that the use of military force has failed to stem the illegal narcotics trade during the decades-long U.S.-led ‘war on drugs’.
Featured image description: Claudia Sheinbaum pictured at her desk on April 30, 2026.
Featured image credit: @Claudiashein via X.
The post Mexico’s Sheinbaum calls for proof after US authorities accuse senior politicians of narco ties appeared first on Latin America Reports.
WASHINGTON, June 6 — The United States announced Friday its approval of a US$1.98 billion (RM7.98 billion) arms sale to Kuwait, one of the Gulf countries hit by Iranian strikes during the Middle East war.
In a statement, the US State Department said it would allow purchases of counter-drone technology from defence company Anduril, which was founded by a supporter of President Donald Trump.
“This proposed sale will support the foreign policy and national security objectives of the United States by improving the security of a major non-Nato ally that has been an important force for political stability and economic progress in the Middle East,” the statement said.
Earlier this week, Kuwait officials “condemned Iranian aggression” when a drone strike on its international airport killed one person and injured 63 others.
Tehran denied involvement in the attack, saying it was “an error in the American Patriot systems,” referring to a US anti-missile battery.
The attacks came despite the April 8 ceasefire that paused the war sparked by the February 28 US-Israeli bombing of Iran, and has largely held despite sporadic exchanges of fire. — AFP
Login