It feels like 2025 is a year of major shifts, doesn't it? From the halls of Ivy League universities to the boardrooms of tech giants, the Trump administration is making moves that are sparking some serious debate. We're seeing new directives aimed at overhauling college admissions and a bold government investment in a private company, all while a fierce battle over climate science is playing out in the public eye. Let’s dive in and unpack what’s really going on.
Key Highlights
- ✓ President Donald J. Trump signed a memo in August 2025 to increase transparency in university admissions.
- ✓ The administration announced it's taking a 10% stake in Intel, a move experts call "unprecedented."
- ✓ A Department of Energy climate report was heavily criticized by over 85 scientists for being "misleading."
- ✓ Attribution science now links specific numbers of deaths from extreme weather directly to human-caused climate change.
- ✓ Economic losses from climate-related health impacts are estimated to be in the tens of billions annually, with some figures approaching trillions.
Shaking Up the Ivory Tower
On August 7, 2025, President Trump signed a Presidential Memorandum that puts higher education admissions squarely under the microscope. The core idea is to force colleges and universities that get Federal funding to be way more transparent about how they decide who gets in. The plan is to revamp the online system known as the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), making it easier for parents and students to understand what’s happening behind the curtain.
This move doesn't come out of nowhere. It’s a direct follow-up to the landmark 2023 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that found considering race in admissions violates students' civil rights. The administration is concerned that without clear data, schools might still be using "diversity statements" and other hidden proxies for race. This new requirement aims to get the data needed to verify that admissions don't involve unlawful discrimination.
This is just one piece of a much larger puzzle. Back in January 2025, an Executive Order was signed to end DEI preferences. Then, in July, the administration secured settlements with Columbia and Brown to ensure they provide data to assess compliance with merit-based hiring and admissions. It’s clear there’s a concerted effort to hold elite universities accountable and push for what the administration calls fairness and merit.
The Government as a Shareholder? The Intel Deal
Just when we thought things couldn't get more interesting, the White House announced it was taking a 10% stake in the tech giant Intel. This is a pretty aggressive move, and it has people talking. According to Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, they're even considering similar deals with other companies tied to the defense industry. So, what happens when the government suddenly owns a piece of a major private company?
To get some perspective, NPR spoke with Michael Strain, the director of economic policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative-leaning think tank. His reaction? "Surprise and concern." He called it an "unprecedented action by the U.S. government outside of a crisis situation," which is a pretty strong statement. Strain's worry is that this could be bad for Intel in the long run.
Imagine this scenario: Intel needs to close a factory in a swing state to stay competitive. With the government as a 10% owner, the political pressure to keep that factory open could override sound business decisions. Strain argues this could also hurt the chip market, as businesses with government contracts might feel pressured to buy from Intel, even if it doesn't make the most sense for them.
A Bad Deal for the Taxpayer?
Of course, there's another side to this. White House economics adviser Kevin Hassett argued that in the past, "the federal government has been giving away money lickety-split to companies, and the taxpayers have received nothing in return." But Strain pushes back hard on this, saying it reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the government's role. He believes the government's job is to advance prosperity, not to act like another business competing in the market.
Ultimately, Strain concludes that this move will be a "bad deal for the taxpayer." He points out that the government has already given Intel billions, and this new relationship will just mean "more good taxpayer dollars will be chasing bad investments." For traditional conservatives who believe in free markets and limited government, he admits, it’s a "difficult moment."
The High Stakes of Climate Science
While these policy debates are unfolding, there’s a major scientific showdown happening. In July 2025, the Department of Energy (DOE) published a report from its Climate Working Group. This report made some pretty bold claims, like suggesting there are no trends in extreme weather and that carbon dioxide has broad benefits. But the scientific community wasn't having it.
In a powerful response, over 85 scientists came together to write a comprehensive review. They concluded that the DOE report's key assertions are "either misleading or fundamentally incorrect." The scientists accused the report's authors of "selective filtering of evidence ('cherry picking')," misquoting research, and basically ignoring decades of peer-reviewed science. The most damning comparison? They said the DOE report's approach "mirrors tactics previously employed by the tobacco industry to create artificial doubt."
This all feels even more significant when you consider that, according to two agency employees, the EPA has ordered scientists in at least one research office to pause almost all efforts to publish research. The group of 85 scientists made it clear that since the EPA's original 2009 Endangerment Finding, the evidence of human-caused climate change and its threats has only gotten stronger.
The Real-World Health Costs of a Changing Climate
So, what does that stronger evidence actually look like? A field called "attribution science" is now providing some startlingly clear answers. Researchers can now isolate the effects of human-caused climate change and quantify its real-world health impacts. The numbers are staggering. One global study looking at 43 countries between 1991 and 2018 estimated 271,656 deaths associated with heat were directly attributable to climate change.
And it’s not just about heat. Recent studies are linking climate change to a growing burden of mosquito-borne diseases, mortality from wildfire air pollution, and even population displacement from floods. The economic toll is just as shocking. Using a standard metric called the Value of Statistical Life (VSL), researchers are estimating these losses in the tens of billions of dollars every single year. One estimate for those 271,656 heat-related deaths puts the equivalent loss at a jaw-dropping $869.3 billion, and potentially as high as $3.1 trillion.
Here’s where it gets even more specific. A new frontier called "source attribution" is starting to quantify the contributions of major greenhouse gas emitters to these health impacts. For instance, one preprint study estimated that dozens of heat-related deaths in Switzerland between 1969 and 2018 could be attributed to specific fossil fuel companies, including Chevron (59 deaths), ExxonMobil (54 deaths), and Saudi Aramco (53 deaths). This kind of research could have massive implications for legal action against emitters.
An Uneven Burden
What’s also becoming clear is that these impacts aren’t felt equally. Research has shown that women and the elderly are disproportionately affected, with older women experiencing mortality from heat at 1.8 times the rate of the general population. There's also a deep inequity in the research itself. Almost all subnational studies have focused on high-income countries, and the research is overwhelmingly led by institutions in the "global north," even when the focus is on the "global south."
As one expert observed, "knowledge from the global South is in the global South." The scientific community acknowledges that the best way to understand the true global impact of climate change is to invest in research led by scientists and public health experts living on the frontlines of climate injustice.
Conclusion
When you step back and look at the landscape of 2025, it’s a whirlwind of bold policy changes and intense scientific debate. The administration is pushing for fundamental reforms in higher education and taking an unprecedented ownership role in the private sector with Intel. At the same time, the battle over climate change has reached a fever pitch, with one government report facing a massive backlash from the scientific community, which is simultaneously producing ever-more precise—and alarming—data on the real, quantifiable human cost of a warming planet. The outcomes of these parallel events will undoubtedly shape our path forward for years to come.
💬 We'd love to hear your thoughts! Join the charcha—keep it friendly, fun, and respectful.