When Words Are Treated as Dangerous
The Energy Department’s ban on using “climate change” is not about words—it is about dismantling science, silencing accountability, and protecting fossil fuel interests.
Setting the Stage
Politico reported that the Department of Energy, under the Trump administration, has issued an internal directive forbidding staff from using terms such as “climate change,” “carbon emissions,” and “net zero.” Officials framed this as an effort to keep the agency “apolitical,” but in practice it represents something much starker: an attempt to erase the language of climate science from federal policy altogether.
The fingerprints of Project 2025—the far-right policy blueprint Trump allies are using to reshape government—are all over this decision. If you remove the language of the problem, you erase the problem itself. And once the problem is gone on paper, there’s no need for policy, no need for regulations, no need to hold the fossil fuel industry to account.
This is not happening in a vacuum. House Republicans like Steve Scalise and Senators like Josh Hawley have long pushed to “end woke science.” But this is no longer rhetoric—it’s the machinery of government being retooled to deny the physical reality of our warming planet.
The Power at Play
Words are never just words in politics; they are levers of power. The ban is an extension of a decades-long campaign funded by oil and gas giants to sow doubt about climate change and slow down the energy transition. By forbidding terms like “climate change” or “emissions,” the Energy Department is engaging in what communication scholars call linguistic erasure. It’s the bureaucratic cousin of book banning, except instead of a school library, it’s the federal government’s scientific authority that’s being hollowed out.
We’ve seen this before. The George W. Bush administration edited climate science reports to downplay warming trends. Florida’s former governor Rick Scott instructed agencies not to use “climate change” in official communications. Each of these efforts chipped away at public awareness while insulating corporate polluters from accountability.
And history gives us even darker warnings. During the Soviet Union’s Holodomor famine, officials banned the use of the word “famine” itself, preferring euphemisms like “food difficulties.” This linguistic suppression allowed leaders to deny the scale of suffering and dodge responsibility, even as millions died. When governments control language, they don’t just change words—they can obscure reality itself.
Trust in science depends on honesty. The value of government scientists is that the public believes they are giving it to us straight. But once they are handed a list of words they cannot say, every statement becomes suspect. If “climate change” is forbidden, what else is being censored? Why would a scientific agency ever need a blacklist of words if its mission is truth? The mere existence of such a list undermines public trust and turns scientists into messengers for political spin rather than independent experts.
The stakes are enormous. The U.S. is the second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases in the world. Removing the very language of emissions from the nation’s top energy agency is like banning doctors from saying “cancer” while the tumor spreads. It doesn’t make the crisis less real. It just leaves us sicker and more vulnerable.
This is a very significant moment on the political spectrum. It signals that the Trump administration is moving beyond denial into enforced silence, where even acknowledging climate change inside government becomes an act of resistance.
A Lens of Justice
Climate change is not evenly distributed. The wealthy can buy air conditioning, higher ground, or private insurance. Poor communities, Indigenous nations, and coastal Black and brown neighborhoods cannot. By stripping federal documents of climate language, the administration is signaling whose lives count and whose don’t.
The erasure is not only about carbon; it is about power and equity. Women and children are more likely to be displaced by climate-driven disasters. Migrants fleeing droughts and storms are scapegoated as “security threats.” The language ban makes it harder to link their suffering to U.S. policy choices—choices that prioritize oil company profits over human survival.
Reframing the Debate
Conservatives want us to think this is about keeping science “neutral.” That’s the trap. Neutrality in the face of planetary collapse is not neutrality, it’s complicity. The real story here is that banning words is a political act designed to rig the system in favor of fossil fuels.
The progressive frame should be simple: If you can’t even say “climate change,” you’re not governing, you’re censoring. Science must speak plainly because lives depend on it.
Building the Conversation
When talking with friends or skeptics, emphasize that this is not an abstract fight about “terminology.” It’s about whether our government will name the threats that are burning down our towns and flooding our neighborhoods. Use stories: the farmer losing crops to drought, the family in Louisiana rebuilding after another storm, the firefighters working longer seasons.
Appeal to shared values. Most people, regardless of party, want clean air and safe communities. Ask: why would politicians want to ban words that describe what we can all see outside our windows? That helps shift the conversation away from partisanship and toward common sense.
The Counterpoint Trap
“Climate change is a partisan issue, not settled science.” → Hyper-Skepticism
This pretends the scientific consensus doesn’t exist. In reality, 99% of climate scientists agree it is human-driven.
Takeaway: Emphasize that consensus is overwhelming and denying it serves corporate polluters, not the public.
“We’re just trying to keep politics out of science.” → Euphemistic Reframing (Dog Whistles).
It frames censorship as neutrality.
Takeaway: Point out that banning words is political interference, not scientific independence.
“Carbon emissions are just one perspective, there are other causes of warming.” → Motte-and-Bailey Tactic.
Retreating to vague language when pressed.
Takeaway: Demand clarity: is the administration denying human-caused emissions? If so, say it plainly.
Deeper Dive
Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway, Merchants of Doubt – a landmark history of how industry funded denial campaigns.
Elizabeth Kolbert, Field Notes from a Catastrophe – accessible reporting on climate science and its human toll.
George Monbiot, Heat – a practical look at what radical decarbonization could look like.
Mary Annaïse Heglar’s essays on climate and justice – powerful personal writing connecting the crisis to race and equity.
The Last Laugh
Imagine banning the phrase “gravity” and expecting apples to stop falling. That’s the level of magical thinking on display here. The storms will still come, the seas will still rise, and the fires will still burn—whether or not the Energy Department is allowed to name them.