Search Climate Insights Directory

The Council on Strategic Risks argues that the Trump Administration's proposed FY2026 budget for the State Department and USAID would undermine US national security by eliminating programs that build climate resilience, food security, and disaster preparedness. The document highlights how these cuts create strategic openings for China, particularly in Asia and the Pacific, and increase the risk of global instability and migration. It specifically calls for clarity on the implementation of the Global Fragility Act and the balance between the administration's goal of seabed mineral extraction and the simultaneous cutting of scientific funding for ocean exploration.

The Council on Strategic Risks warns that proposed efforts by the Trump Administration to eliminate or restructure FEMA pose a grave risk to US national security. The author contends that FEMA is essential for protecting American lives, preventing foreign and domestic exploitation during disasters, and supporting military readiness. The document highlights recent cuts to staff and the elimination of the Building Resilience Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) program as detrimental, suggesting that the agency requires modernization and investment rather than dismantling.

The document details Georgia's evolution into a regional biosecurity leader through long-term partnerships with the US Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) program, specifically the Biological Threat Reduction Program (BTRP). It highlights the establishment of the Richard Lugar Center for Public Health Research as a critical hub for disease surveillance and pathogen security in the Caucasus. However, the authors warn that recent domestic political turmoil—including a contested 2024 election, the 'foreign agents' bill, and the suspension of EU accession—combined with persistent Russian disinformation campaigns targeting Georgian labs, jeopardizes these security gains and global health security.

The Council on Strategic Risks asserts that NOAA provides indispensable data and infrastructure for US military operations, particularly in the Arctic and for naval navigation. The agency's science diplomacy strengthens ties in the Indo-Pacific and Caribbean, while its domestic services protect lives and livelihoods from extreme weather and support the US seafood industry. The document highlights that recent layoffs of approximately 880 staff members across six offices risk undermining these security and economic contributions.

The Council on Strategic Risks asserts that USAID's investments in climate adaptation and resilience are essential for US national security, citing their role in countering Chinese influence in the Indo-Pacific, preventing terrorism in the Sahel, and reducing irregular migration from Honduras.

The Council on Strategic Risks outlines a strategic roadmap for the US government to bolster biodefense, focusing on a 'deterrence by denial' framework. The recommendations are divided into immediate actions for the first month, the first 100 days, and the first year, emphasizing the need for expert leadership, increased budgetary investment, and the integration of AI safety. Key priorities include updating the National Biodefense Strategy, enhancing pathogen early warning systems, and strengthening international partnerships to counter biological weapons programs in countries such as North Korea and Russia.

The Council on Strategic Risks advocates for the restoration of Feed the Future and the Famine Early Warning Systems Network (FEWS NET), asserting that these programs mitigate national security risks by building food system resilience and providing critical forecasting for humanitarian responses. The text highlights that Feed the Future reduces migration intent in Honduras and that FEWS NET lowers the cost of humanitarian interventions. It references endorsements from former military commanders and bipartisan political support to emphasize that food security is an investment that prevents future conflict and reduces the need for costly US military or humanitarian spending.

The Council on Strategic Risks proposes that the next US administration create a task force with a 9-month deadline to recommend a structure for a centralized "Know Your Customer" (KYC) entity for nucleic acid synthesis screening. While the 2024 White House "Framework for Nucleic Acid Synthesis Screening" requires screening for federally funded programs, the author argues that a centralized approach is needed to address gaps in private industry and non-federally funded research. The proposal suggests the task force determine if the entity should be a government office, public-private partnership, or private entity, and recommends formally designating the FBI as the lead agency for investigating suspicious orders via its WMD coordinators.

The Council on Strategic Risks warns that the US administration's withdrawal from the Paris Agreement and the revocation of climate-focused executive orders create a 'blind spot' for foreign and security policy. The author asserts that climate hazards continue to threaten critical infrastructure, military readiness, and national security, citing recent wildfires in Los Angeles as an example. The document advocates for a common-sense approach to climate security, highlighting that the US military has deployed nearly 200 times in 12 countries over the last 2.5 years to respond to climate hazards.

The fifth meeting of the BWC Working Group, held in December 2024, failed to reach consensus on establishing an international cooperation and assistance (ICA) mechanism and a science and technology (S&T) mechanism due to a unilateral objection by the Russian Federation. While there is general agreement on the need for a verification regime, significant divergence remains regarding its definition, scope, and the relevance of the 2001 draft protocol. The author recommends that 2025 sessions focus on establishing a workplan, a 'North Star' ambition, and guiding principles before formal technical negotiations begin, and calls for a special conference in 2025 to ratify the provisional mechanisms.

The policy brief argues that climate change threatens US national security by damaging critical infrastructure, increasing state fragility, and intensifying geopolitical competition. It recommends that the US government implement a National Adaptation Plan, integrate 'Operational Resilience' into military budgets, scale up resilience funding for strategic allies, and strengthen interagency coordination on the food-climate-security nexus to protect US interests and economic competitiveness.

The document argues that while 'ecological security' is not yet widely recognized in Southeast Asia, it is essential for addressing interconnected threats like the Mekong polycrisis, green transition externalities, and environmental crimes. It highlights the tension between security services and civil society, the influence of US-China competition on resource extraction and infrastructure, and the need for a holistic framework that bridges the gap between political-security and environmental specialists.

The Commission on Nuclear Energy and American Leadership argues that reliable nuclear energy is essential for the US energy future, particularly to meet surging electricity demands from artificial intelligence and to reduce emissions. The report outlines a comprehensive 'game plan' for the next presidential administration, including a 'Day One' mandate to coordinate an all-of-government approach and a detailed set of actions for the first 100 days and first year. Key recommendations include increasing domestic uranium enrichment to end reliance on Russia, deploying advanced reactors for military and government sites, expanding nuclear exports to counter Chinese and Russian influence, and reforming multilateral development banks to support nuclear financing.

The Center for Climate and Security (CCS) has submitted comments on the Zero Order Draft of the First National Nature Assessment (NNA1), prepared by the US Global Change Research Program (USGCRP). CCS supports the draft's inclusion of anthropogenic ecosystems, biotic eruptions, and the link between global nature loss and U.S. security. However, CCS recommends that the NNA1 expand its analysis to include unprotected, privately owned nature as a source of hazard aversion and incorporate benefit-cost analyses comparing nature-based solutions with synthetic alternatives. Additionally, CCS urges the inclusion of maladaptation risks to human and national security, citing examples from São Tomé and Príncipe and Vanuatu where climate finance projects failed to account for social inequalities and power dynamics.

The Council on Strategic Risks outlines a phased implementation plan—spanning 'Day One', the 'First 100 Days', and 'Year One'—to strengthen US nuclear infrastructure and leadership. Key proposals include tripling nuclear energy capacity by 2050, deploying at least ten small and micro reactors for military base resilience, and establishing domestic uranium enrichment to end dependence on foreign state-owned materials. The blueprint also calls for the US to lead efforts to ensure multilateral development banks provide financial support for nuclear projects to meet the COP28 tripling pledge.

The author contends that the Drug Supply Chain Security Act (DSCSA), while a step forward, is too reactive because it only mandates tracking when a product is suspected of being counterfeit. To close this loophole, the paper recommends implementing 'end-of-commerce' scanning—proactive verification and decommissioning of serial numbers at the point of dispense. This is framed as a national security priority, particularly for the Department of Defense and HHS stockpiles, given that over 58% of US-procured pharmaceuticals originate overseas. The document suggests an Executive Order to mandate these practices across federal health systems by 2027 and calls for international collaboration and the re-shoring of pharmaceutical manufacturing to mitigate risks from adversarial nations.

The report details a scenario exercise conducted by the Council on Strategic Risks to explore how biodiversity loss in the Lake Victoria Basin (LVB) can trigger security crises. Using a hypothetical 2034 'Cichlid Collapse' as a starting point, the study identifies social resilience and economic stability as the primary drivers of future security outcomes. It presents four potential futures ranging from a virtuous cycle of cooperation to a 'death spiral' of widespread conflict and ecological collapse. The report argues that biodiversity loss exacerbates resource competition, governance fragility, and the influence of violent extremist organizations, recommending a 'whole of system' approach integrating defense, diplomacy, and development to mitigate these risks.

The Council on Strategic Risks outlines a strategic framework for the next US administration's nuclear posture, emphasizing the completion of current modernization plans, the preservation of international norms against nuclear testing and use, and the avoidance of provocative posture changes. It warns against 'entanglement' between conventional and nuclear systems and recommends maintaining the 'fundamental purpose' declaratory policy. The report specifically advises against rebuilding nuclear sea-launched cruise missiles (SLCM-N) and expanding the Sentinel ICBM program beyond its current 400-missile target.

The report examines how emerging technologies are being integrated into the civil nuclear sector to support the goal of tripling nuclear capacity by 2050. It highlights US-led diplomatic initiatives like the FIRST program, which promotes the export of next-generation reactors to counter Russian and Chinese influence. The text details technical advancements in neutron detection by the Bay Area Neutron Group and the IAEA's use of AI and satellite imagery for safeguards. It further explores the symbiotic relationship between AI and nuclear energy, where advanced reactors provide stable power for AI data centers while AI optimizes reactor design and safety through physics-informed machine learning and digital twins.

The report argues that ecological disruption is an underappreciated security threat and advocates for the integration of strategic foresight tools—such as horizon scanning, futures wheels, and scenario planning—into national security architecture. It identifies land/sea-use change and global atmospheric/oceanic warming as the primary drivers of ecological instability. Through four plausible mid-century scenarios, the document illustrates how these drivers can lead to systemic collapses, such as Amazon dieback or the failure of the Lake Victoria Basin, resulting in famine, pandemics, and geopolitical conflict. The author recommends that security stakeholders shift their risk calculus to include ecological decline and prioritize locally-led, indigenous stewardship in resource management.