Today on The BradCast: While Trump’s mass deportation boondoggle gets worse, more cruel, more corrupt, more unlawful and more unconstitutional by the day, the increasing threat to U.S. national security, thanks to his Administration’s unprecedented censorship of climate science, may soon collide with a “physical reality” that may make ALL of our problems far worse — including immigration. [Audio link to full show follows this summary.]
FIRST UP… The Administration continues to characterize those being deported as criminal felons and sexual assaulters who entered the U.S. unlawfully, even if available evidence often suggests otherwise. Moreover, the convicted criminal felon and adjudicated sexual assaulter in the White House continues violate the law and Constitution himself with each passing day. He should be deported — though allowed the due process of law he has always received, even as he denies it for everyone else.
Unlike the Administration, we offer evidence in support of our serious allegations: As the New York Times reported last night, emails from Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard‘s Chief of Staff reveal that her office attempted to manipulate a national intelligence analysis they didn’t like — which revealed Trump to be a liar — regarding migrants from Venezuela and Trump’s unlawful invocation of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to remove them without due process.
That news comes on the heels of a stunning new analysis from the right-leaning Cato Institute finding that at least 50 of the Venezuelans Trump deported to a maximum-security torture prison in El Salvador were in the U.S. lawfully. They included construction workers, cooks, delivery drivers, a soccer coach, a veterinarian and a makeup artist, most of whom used the U.S. Customs and Border Protection app, called CBP One, to schedule an asylum appointment from outside of the country to seek lawful entrance into the U.S. That’s 50 out of just 85 migrants whose entrance circumstances Cato was able to figure out. More than 200 migrants have been sent to El Salvador without Constitutional due process and in violation of court orders.
And all of that preceded still-breaking news over the past 24 hours or so that the Administration has violated yet another judge’s orders by sending migrants from Myanmar, Laos, Vietnam, Cuba and Mexico to South Sudan, a nation in the middle of a bloody civil war, where the U.S. State Department warns Americans “Do Not Travel”, and where those migrants are not from. They were reportedly given less than 24 before being sent to a third country in violation of orders from the U.S. District judge overseeing their cases.
THEN… While the Administration is pretending to combat national security issues by deporting make-up artists and soccer coaches, actual national security issues are being exacerbated by their censorship and attempts at unpublishing climate science that you and I have paid for.
As my guest today recently explained, writing on the “silencing and censoring of environmental threats to U.S. national security” for the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (the keepers of the infamous Doomsday Clock), for well over half a century, U.S. intelligence and military agencies, under Presidencies of all political stripes, have been documenting and warning about changes to the climate that threaten national security. Now, Donald Trump is attempting to “cancel” climate science — actually censoring the words “climate change” from all government documents — and ignoring and/or shutting down internal warning mechanisms regarding increased environmental threats to national security.
Our guest today is renowned climate scientist DR. PETER GLEICK, who is attempting to sound the alarm about the Administration’s “silencing and censoring of environmental threats to US national security.” He is an author and co-founder of the non-profit Pacific Institute research center, a member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, a McArthur Fellow, and much more that I don’t have space to list. (But see his website!) He has written dozens of scientific articles over the decades and has testified about the related matters before Congress.
“From a political point of view, between Democrats and Republicans, there’s a very strong difference and emphasis on energy policy, on environmental policy,” Gleick tells me when I ask about the timeline of the rise of climate denialism. But, he adds, it was “nothing like we’re seeing today. What we’re seeing today is fundamentally different than anything we’ve seen before.”
“Even throughout both Democratic and Republican administrations in the past, the military and intelligence community have been very good about this. They see their job fundamentally as understanding and preparing for threats to the United States. All of those defense and intelligence assessments, throughout those administrations (since President Johnson), have repeatedly highlighted a clear understanding of two factors: One is how environmental issues may cause U.S. forces to get involved in conflict — with failed states, with population displacements and migration, with impacts that lead to threats to our own security.”
“The other category is how environmental threats may affect US military forces and bases and operations. Sea level rise we know is already flooding the naval bases in Norfolk. They are raising docks because they know sea level rise is a reality. They’ve seen extreme events damaging air force bases and destroying airplanes. They are aware of those threats, and they have been very good, throughout almost all administrations, about highlighting those threats in the national security assessments to the public,” says Gleick.
But now, under Trump, things have very much gone sideways. We’ve got a Sec. of Defense who doesn’t seem to understand that national defense is about more than simply cultivating manly warriors to fight on battlefields. And, for the first time, climate threats are no longer even being mentioned in National Security Strategy reports. The Congressionally-mandated National Climate Assessment may not even been published by the Administration at all when it is legally next due, in 2027. Gleick has worked on previous Assessments and is a member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences which advises on the project. But says, this time, the scientists who volunteer to work on the report are being dismissed and that there may or may not even be a new report. “The Trump Administration doesn’t seem to pay much attention to the law at the moment.”
“If there isn’t one, we know what the science of climate change says. What we’ll be missing are just the latest updates, the most recent climate science that tells us even more about what the consequences of climate change will be,” he explains.
We discuss a number of concrete ways in which the climate crisis is already a threat to national security, from conflicts over water and water systems; the disappearance of Artic ice leading to expanded military basis by Russia; decreased agriculture productivity resulting in famine and, yes, mass migration that the U.S. has already begun to deal with.
“Climate is no longer a hypothetical threat to the world, national security, and international security,” he argues. “It’s increasingly an important component of that threat, whether you believe in it or not.”
But, Gleick offers some hope. Scientists, including himself, have been diligently working to prevent the “wholesale deletion” of government climate data; he believes that “the remarkable revolution we are seeing in the renewable energy industry is unstoppable” and while Trump may want to “revive the coal industry, that’s just not going to happen”; and whether Trump hopes to “cancel” climate science or not on behalf of the fossil fuel industry, he will be unable prevent the world from seeing the unavoidable physical reality of what lies ahead.
“Physical reality will happen,” he laments. “Bad things that otherwise would not have happened are going to happen. People are going to get sick and die. There will be conflicts we are not prepared for that we could have been prepared for. Whether those realities swing the pendulum far enough back so that some sort of rationality can be re-established — I hope that’s the case. But I think it’s dangerous times.”
Lock him up!
Disruption to container ship volume will increase by tariff loving politicians and by sea level change (Calculating Port Dangers – 4).