Muslim World Report

Hegseth's Climate Remarks Spark Outcry Over Military Readiness

Dr. Anthony Lindsay | Mar 10, 2025 11:16 PM | 13 min read | 2612 words

TL;DR: Pete Hegseth’s recent dismissal of climate initiatives as Secretary of Defense has led to widespread criticism from military experts and activists, who warn that ignoring climate change threatens national security and troop safety. Reforms integrating climate considerations into military strategy are urgently needed.

The Climate Crisis and Military Readiness: An Urgent Call for Strategic Reform

On March 10, 2025, Pete Hegseth, the controversial figure appointed by former President Donald Trump as Secretary of Defense, ignited a firestorm of criticism after he brazenly dismissed Pentagon climate change initiatives during a televised appearance. Hegseth declared, “we do training and warfighting,” suggesting that climate change, which he deemed extraneous to the Department of Defense’s (DOD) mission, should not overshadow military readiness. This alarming dismissal met with swift backlash on social media and among military experts, underscoring a dangerous ideology that threatens both national security and troop safety.

Under Hegseth’s leadership, the DOD has signaled plans to cut various climate programs, a move that could have severe ramifications. The Pentagon has long recognized that climate change exacerbates global instability by contributing to:

  • Resource scarcity
  • Natural disasters
  • Migratory pressures

These factors can precipitate conflict (Hoffert et al., 2002; Gunn, 2017). History offers a stark reminder of this reality; the Syrian civil war, often cited as a modern example of climate-induced conflict, was significantly influenced by a prolonged drought that displaced millions of people and strained resources, creating a perfect storm for unrest. Critics of Hegseth’s stance—including political activist Richard Angwin and veteran Paul Rieckhoff—have emphasized that neglecting climate-related issues not only endangers troop safety but also undermines military effectiveness in an increasingly unpredictable environment.

As militaries around the globe begin to integrate climate considerations into their strategic planning, the U.S. risks setting a perilous precedent by sidelining these crucial initiatives. How can a military prepared to fight the battles of the future ignore the very conditions that fuel these conflicts? Pentagon spokesperson John Ullyot echoed Hegseth’s sentiment by asserting that climate change is not central to the DOD’s mission. This perspective reflects a broader ideological divide within American politics and the military establishment regarding the importance of addressing climate change as an existential threat (Ulmer, 1998). Such a stance, characterized by profound ignorance of scientific consensus, is symptomatic of a larger trend where anti-science rhetoric is prioritized over the safety and preparedness of service members.

The Dire Consequences of Military Inaction on Climate Change

If the Pentagon continues its current trajectory of deprioritizing climate initiatives, the implications for U.S. military readiness could be dire. Some potential consequences include:

  • Increased frequency and intensity of climate-driven natural disasters—such as hurricanes, wildfires, and floods—directly threatening military bases, infrastructure, and surrounding communities (Newell & Mulvaney, 2013). For instance, Hurricane Katrina in 2005 not only devastated New Orleans but also severely impacted military readiness and response capabilities in the region, highlighting how such disasters strain military resources and put lives at risk.
  • Diminished military capacity to engage in humanitarian assistance and disaster relief missions, further eroding public trust in the institution. After the 2010 earthquake in Haiti, U.S. military involvement was pivotal in delivering aid and restoring order; however, a significant reduction in disaster response capability due to climate inaction could lead to disastrous outcomes in future crises.

Furthermore, a failure to address climate change in military planning could place the United States at a strategic disadvantage. As adversarial nations become increasingly aware of the risks posed by climate change and take steps to mitigate its impacts, such as developing green technologies for their militaries, the U.S. may find itself ill-equipped to respond effectively (Hoffert et al., 2002). Consider how in previous decades, nations that embraced technological advancements often gained the upper hand in conflicts; by sidelining climate strategies, the U.S. risks becoming a relic of military prowess in a changing global landscape. This could lead to scenarios where American forces confront adversaries without the necessary resources or training to operate at full capability. Ignoring climate change within the strategic framework reflects a leadership prioritizing ignorance over informed strategy, thereby increasing U.S. vulnerability in global military operations. Could the U.S. afford to overlook the very changes that are reshaping the battlegrounds of the future?

What If?

One potential scenario arises where the DOD’s failure to prepare for climate-related challenges leads to a significant incident. Imagine a major hurricane striking a U.S. military base along the Gulf Coast, flooding critical infrastructure and making it impossible for personnel to respond to ongoing deployments or humanitarian crises in nearby regions. The aftermath of such an event would reveal not only a lack of readiness but also a catastrophic failure in protecting both resources and personnel, resulting in loss of life and international embarrassment, reminiscent of the impact Hurricane Katrina had on military readiness in 2005. Just as that storm exposed vulnerabilities in emergency response and infrastructure resilience, a future disaster could similarly undermine the military’s operational capabilities.

Moreover, the likelihood of increased tensions and conflict in regions where climate change leads to resource scarcity is high. Water shortages, food insecurity, and displacement are expected to drive conflicts, particularly in Africa and South Asia (Haider & Sultan, 2022). Historical instances, such as the Darfur conflict, serve as stark reminders of how competition over dwindling resources can escalate into violence. The U.S. military may be called to intervene, but without proper training and resources directed toward understanding and addressing these challenges, American forces may struggle to fulfill their roles effectively. In this scenario, failing to address climate change within military planning could significantly diminish the United States’ standing in the world, undermining its ability to project power and influence (Salomon, 1999). What will it take for the DOD to prioritize climate resilience, and how many more lessons must we learn from past failures?

What If?

Envision a world where the U.S. military must intervene in a humanitarian crisis sparked by severe drought conditions exacerbated by climate change. Much like the U.S. intervention in Somalia during the early 1990s, where military forces were thrust into a complex mix of famine, civil war, and humanitarian need, today’s military personnel could find themselves ill-equipped to navigate the intricacies of multifaceted crises without adequate training. In Somalia, the lack of preparation contributed to chaotic situations that impeded effective disaster relief efforts (Smith, 2020). If military personnel remain unprepared for similar crises today, such inadequacies could embolden hostile actors exploiting these conditions, resembling how warlords thrived amid the disorder in Somalia. This could lead to prolonged destabilization of entire regions and a heightened risk of conflict. How many more humanitarian disasters will we endure before adequately equipping our military to handle the challenges posed by climate change?

The Global Ramifications of U.S. Climate Neglect

Should other countries take a cue from the U.S. under Hegseth’s leadership and downplay or eliminate climate initiatives in their military strategies, the global consequences could be catastrophic. Many nations already face severe environmental challenges that threaten stability. A collective dismissal of climate preparedness by military institutions worldwide could trigger a domino effect of escalating risks and conflicts rooted in:

  • Resource shortages
  • Environmental disasters (Whitmee et al., 2015)

Consider the story of the Syrian civil war, which has been linked to severe drought exacerbated by climate change, forcing millions from rural areas into cities and contributing to social unrest. Vulnerable nations, such as Pacific Island countries, could find themselves abandoned without the support or effective intervention mechanisms they desperately need. This abandonment could result in geopolitical shifts as displaced populations flee their homes, leading to humanitarian crises that overwhelm neighboring countries. The military may be called upon to respond, but without effective training and preparation regarding climate issues, their efforts could be severely hampered. Are we willing to risk repeating history by ignoring the warnings of our time?

What If?

Imagine a scenario reminiscent of the Great Migration of the Dust Bowl era in the 1930s, where rising sea levels due to climate change force mass migration from the Pacific Islands to nearby nations. Just as millions of Americans moved westward in search of safety and opportunity, these migrations could create unexpected geopolitical tensions as resources become strained—leading to conflict over access to water, food, and shelter. The U.S. military, unprepared to address the humanitarian implications of such displacement, finds itself caught off guard when it must intervene, undermining its credibility and military effectiveness at a critical time.

Furthermore, consider the historical breakdown of international coalitions during World War II, when nations turned inward, prioritizing their immediate interests over collective efforts. International partnerships designed to address climate change—including military collaborations—may similarly dissolve under pressure. Countries might become increasingly isolated, choosing to prioritize their national issues over collaborative climate responses. How many times have we witnessed nations retracting their commitments in the face of crisis? This shift could inhibit the ability of nations to effectively engage in collective security agreements that address emerging threats exacerbated by climate change, further destabilizing global security architectures (Mitchell, 1991).

What If?

In a world where military alliances fracture due to neglect of climate issues, nations could begin to arm themselves for increasingly probable resource conflicts, leading to an arms race predicated upon perceived environmental threats. The United States could find itself isolated, unable to form coalitions to address common security concerns and unable to leverage its military might in a meaningful way to address the challenges posed by environmental degradation.

Worse yet, this could create a world where military forces are ill-equipped to address the complexities of conflicts driven by environmental degradation, leading to prolonged conflicts and heightened instability. Consider the historical example of the resource wars sparked by water scarcity in regions like the Middle East; tensions over access to water have significantly fueled conflicts in countries like Syria and Iraq. Nations that align their military strategies with climate readiness may gain significant advantages, reshaping global power dynamics. Just as the space race of the 20th century pushed nations to innovate rapidly in technology, the climate crisis could force nations to innovate militarily. The U.S. military could find itself continuously playing catch-up, desperately trying to adapt while other nations move ahead with climate-resilient strategies and technologies that enhance their military effectiveness. Will the lessons of history be heeded, or will we witness a repeat of past failures in the face of environmental challenges?

A Path Forward: Military Reforms and Climate Preparedness

While Hegseth’s comments have rightly sparked outrage, they also present an opportunity for critical military reforms that integrate climate considerations into all levels of military strategy. Should the discourse shift towards recognizing climate change as a fundamental aspect of national security, it could catalyze a profound transformation in how military leaders approach readiness and engagement (Aguinis & Kraiger, 2008).

History has shown us that the military must adapt to emerging threats to remain effective. Just as the U.S. military adapted to the challenges of the Cold War by investing in advanced technology and intelligence capabilities, a similar pivot towards climate preparedness is now essential. According to a study by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), rising sea levels threaten nearly 2,000 military installations, underscoring the urgent need for proactive measures.

Such reforms could encourage investments in new technologies and strategies that address climate risks, including:

  • Renewable energy for military operations
  • Sustainable base management
  • Adaptation strategies for training and logistics (Levy, 1995)

By integrating climate science and environmental policy into military training programs, the U.S. could cultivate a generation of military leaders who prioritize resilience against climate threats in their strategic planning. Are we prepared to face the looming challenges of climate change, or will we repeat past mistakes by underestimating the impact of environmental issues on national security?

What If?

Suppose the military implements comprehensive climate training programs that equip personnel to understand the implications of environmental degradation on global security. Just as the U.S. Navy’s “Great Green Fleet” initiative in the early 2010s aimed to reduce reliance on fossil fuels and showcase sustainable practices, similar training could radically enhance operational effectiveness. By enabling American forces to respond proactively to climate-induced crises, the military could reduce the need for reactive interventions that often exacerbate situations.

If climate change is recognized as a significant threat multiplier, military actions could expand beyond conventional notions of warfare. For instance, during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in 2005, military forces played a crucial role in disaster response, revealing the potential for the military to be viewed as a stabilizing force in crises. Embracing proactive roles in disaster relief and climate adaptation could enhance the military’s reputation and legitimacy in the eyes of both the public and the international community (Pettigrew, 1998). This shift could also promote partnerships with civilian organizations and other nations, fostering collaborative approaches to climate challenges. How can military integration in climate resilience initiatives not only save lives but also redefine our understanding of national security in an era where environmental factors are increasingly dominant?

What If?

Imagine a scenario where the U.S. military, recognized for its climate adaptation strategies, partners with civilian agencies and international organizations to facilitate large-scale humanitarian aid efforts during climate crises. This proactive approach could be likened to the Marshall Plan after World War II, which not only aided reconstruction in Europe but also positioned the U.S. as a global leader in fostering international cooperation. Just as that historic initiative transformed geopolitical landscapes, a military-led climate response could solidify the U.S.’s leadership role today while enhancing cooperation in tackling mutual climate challenges and significantly improving international relations and stability.

The military’s embrace of climate-related reforms could send a powerful message to the broader political landscape, encouraging lawmakers to prioritize climate action on a national level. If the military—a traditionally conservative institution—concludes that climate action is essential to national security, it could influence public opinion and push for comprehensive legislative changes to address the climate crisis (Hoffert et al., 2002). This shift might lead to a climate-conscious military doctrine similar to how previous military strategies adapted to respond to evolving threats, illustrating that national defense can parallel environmental stewardship.

By taking these strategic maneuvers, the military may not only secure its operational readiness in the face of climate challenges but may also emerge as a leader in combating one of the largest existential threats facing society today. In this light, Hegseth’s remarks, rather than signaling a regression, could inadvertently prompt a reevaluation of contemporary military priorities and responsibilities. What would it mean for our future if the military became a champion of climate resilience instead of merely a responder in times of crisis?

References

Hoffert, M. I., Caldeira, K., & Jain, A. K. (2002). Geophysical Research Letters, 29(6), 1-4.
Gunn, R. (2017). “Climate Change and Global Security: The Nexus of Climate Change and Political Stability.” Journal of Strategic Studies, 40(2), 196-218.
Haider, H., & Sultan, S. (2022). “Military Response to Climate-Induced Crises: An Analysis of Implications and Readiness.” Global Policy, 13(3), 405-415.
Newell, J. P., & Mulvaney, K. (2013). “Disaster Response and Resilience in the Face of Climate Change: A Military Perspective.” Military Review, 93(3), 88-96.
Salomon, J. (1999). “The Environmental Dimensions of Military Operations: A Strategic Perspective.” International Security, 23(3), 83-110.
Ulmer, W. (1998). “The Politics of Climate Change and Military Preparedness: A Critical Review.” Army War College Review, 10(4), 5-24.
Whitmee, S., Haines, A., Beyrer, C., et al. (2015). “Safeguarding Human Health in the Anthropocene Epoch: Report of The Rockefeller Foundation–Lancet Commission on Planetary Health.” The Lancet, 386(10007), 1973-2028.
Aguinis, H., & Kraiger, K. (2008). Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3(4), 435-443.
Levy, S. J. (1995). “Sustainable Military Operations: The Future of Energy in Armed Forces.” Defense Horizons, 19, 1-5.
Pettigrew, A. (1998). “Military Strategy in the Age of Climate Change.” Defence Studies, 1(1), 69-82.

← Prev Next →