With the United States Fiscal Year End coming, this is an opportune time to advocate for the integrity of science inquiry, facts, truth and evidence. It’s time to focus on members of the U.S. Congress.

In the first term of the Trump administration, in the early stages of the 2019 budget process, the Centers for Disease Control was handed a list of “forbidden” words to refrain from using in their funding request: included on the list were “evidence-based” and “science-based.” Wading through this fiscal year 2026 budget process, Trump administration actions have arguably cut much more deeply with current plans to dramatically slash science funding across the board, from basic to applied scientific research.

This second-term Executive Branch work involves hacking funding to programs and the agencies themselves that inform our decision-making at national, regional, state and local levels. Examples of programs include efforts to rescind Inflation Reduction Act funding, like a Green and Resilient Retrofit program, a sustainable aviation initiative, environmental and climate justice block grants, home energy-efficiency credits and clean electricity production credits. An example of agency losses includes a 59% cut to the National Science Foundation. The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) estimates that Trump Administration proposals would mark the lowest levels of U.S. federal government funding committed to scientific inquiry in the 21st century.

Yet, we must remember that the Legislative Branch of Congress continues to constitutionally control the purse strings, and the appropriations process for Fiscal Year 2026 has actively begun, with a deadline of October 1. Already, several GOP Senators have expressed hesitation to vote for the White House request to chop over $9 billion in already approved funding, including cuts to disaster assistance, global health funds, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the National Weather Service.

If senators cannot get the votes by the end of next week (July 18) and to President Trump’s desk, these funding requests effectively expire and the money is able to continue to be spent. If the Senate makes changes in the coming days and weeks, it will push things to the House once more for a final vote. Many senators — viewing ongoing funding benefits in both red and blue states — are pondering how reductions in these cuts may be received, so this is a good moment to exercise your rights in this democracy. The budget and appropriations process will continue through the end of the fiscal year, October 1.

As the Trump administration works to squander opportunities for ongoing scientific inquiry, AAAS has documented that China has concurrently increased science funding over the past twenty years, where investments now rival those here in the past. Tell your congresspeople what you think about this. These recent U.S. developments illustrate highly politicized, high-stakes and consequential decision-making at the confluence of science, policy and society. These contentious conflagrations have also been fueled by the carbon-based industry interests and activities — see Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 — that dunked advocacy for science and evidence into the choppy waters of political conflicts and “culture wars.”

“Advocacy” has been defined by the Cambridge Dictionary as “public support of an idea, plan or way of doing something.” There are many types of advocacy, including advocacy for particular policies. But this is a moment to advocate for maintaining the integrity of the processes of determining facts, evidence and truths.

Conflated worries about advocacy coarse through the veins of our politicized U.S. society and also then inhabit our psychology, where many scientists — and everyday people too — then “self-silence” in hopes of avoiding conflict, not rock the boat, side-step anti-intellectual pressures, or jeopardize things such as career advancement, credibility and authority, or strain family ties and friendships.

Yet no matter where we are in this shared world, we now must lean into conversations about science, environment, sustainability and climate change through active listening, dialogue and inquiries about how we individually and collectively act responsibly on this planet.

Congressional acquiescence to date puts sustainability and environmental sciences at risk (along with many other pressing funding concerns), and it’s time in the Congressional appropriations processes where elected officials need to hear your voices. The fiscal year end arrives in 81 days.

This is a biweekly sustainability and environment column authored by Max Boykoff. Boykoff is a faculty member at the University of Colorado Boulder, though these the views expressed here are based upon his scholarly expertise and research/creative experience as well as personal views and should not be considered the university’s official position on any specific issue.

Email: mboykoff@gmail.com.