Trump administration ends NOAA support for Arctic Report Card, plans $900m White House projects
NOAA withdraws funding for annual climate report after two decades, while White House construction plans draw scrutiny
AI-assisted coverage comparison, editor-supervised · How this was made

Trump administration set to spend at least $900 million on White House construction, WaPo reports
Photograph: Ada Derana (embedded from source)
What this story says
- The Trump administration will end federal support for the Arctic Report Card, an annual NOAA report published since 2006 that tracks Arctic warming and environmental changes.
- NOAA will continue collecting Arctic climate data but will no longer provide administrative support for the report, leaving scientists to seek alternative publication methods.
- The administration plans to spend at least $900 million on White House construction, funded by redirecting money from other agencies and private donors, according to records cited by the Washington Post.
- No right-rated outlet reported either story, though 20 outlets across the left and centre did.
Who covered it
Percentages are shares of the 21 outlets carrying a published leaning rating. 3 of the 24 outlets we know ran this story carry no rating and are not counted in them. Coverage measured .
Trust
86/100
Craft
95/100
Hype
15/100
24 sources · methodology
Thin on the right so far
None of the 21 outlets with a published leaning rating that ran this story are rated right.
This story is still being watched, so it is a count and not yet a finding. Coverage keeps arriving for hours after an event, and a side that has published nothing this morning may publish by tonight. If it is still true when we stop checking, we will say so plainly.
The Trump administration will end federal support for the Arctic Report Card, an annual report published by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration since 2006. A NOAA spokesperson confirmed the decision, stating that the agency will no longer provide administrative support for the 2026 edition. NOAA will continue collecting and publishing Arctic climate data but will not facilitate the report’s coordination, online hosting, or press rollout.
The Arctic Report Card has documented rapid Arctic warming, which occurs at about three times the global average rate. The report includes findings on sea ice, glaciers, permafrost, and Arctic ecosystems, as well as the impacts on Indigenous communities. Scientists involved in the report were informed of the decision on 10 August 2026 and were not given a reason for the withdrawal of support, as reported by Politico and confirmed by CNN.
Separately, the Washington Post reported that the Trump administration plans to spend at least $900 million on White House construction projects. The funding will come from other federal agencies and private donors, redirected into an account designated for routine White House maintenance. Confidential contracts and planning documents describe the projects as "modernization," according to the Post.
What the coverage left out
None of the 22 reports mentioned whether the Arctic Report Card’s authors had secured alternative funding or publication methods. The left-rated digests did not report the $900 million White House construction plans, while the centre-rated digests carried the story but did not lead with it. No right-rated outlet ran either story.
Still developing. We have re-checked which outlets are covering this 8 times, most recently on 12 Aug 2026, 20:45, and will add the sides that appear.
How other outlets pictured it
Which photograph to run is each newsroom’s own choice. The leaning beside a name is that outlet’s published rating, not a claim that the pictures divide along it. Every picture is shown from the outlet’s own server and links to the article it ran in.

A tidewater glacier flowing down through a valley from the
Common Dreams — embedded from source
How each side covered it
Our own reading of the reporting listed below, written from the outlets’ articles rather than quoted from them. The reasoning is set out on our methodology page.
Left
7 rated outlets
- The seven left-rated digests led on the cancellation of the Arctic Report Card, framing it as the end of a key climate monitoring tool. The Alaska Beacon and The Seattle Times described the report as documenting the Arctic’s rapid warming. Common Dreams called the decision "truly devastating" and quoted an author stating the report had brought together physical and social sciences for two decades. Raw Story reported that scientists were "devastated" and feared global fallout from the loss of the report.
- Ada Derana’s full report, citing the Washington Post, detailed the $900 million White House construction plans. The outlet quoted the Post’s description of the funding mechanism, which involves redirecting money from other agencies and private donors. None of the left-rated digests mentioned the construction story.
Centre
14 rated outlets
- The 13 centre-rated digests focused on the Arctic Report Card’s cancellation. KIFI’s full report, republished from CNN, led with the administration’s decision to end support and noted that NOAA would continue collecting data but would not facilitate the report’s publication. The outlet quoted a NOAA spokesperson confirming the change and described the report’s role in informing national security policy, citing a source who said NATO had used it in the past.
- Several centre-rated digests, including those from The Hill and Eos, framed the decision as part of a broader pattern of the Trump administration reducing climate reporting. The Hill noted that NOAA had previously stopped producing an annual report on billion-dollar disasters and dismissed authors working on the National Climate Assessment. WTVB’s digest, citing Reuters, reported the $900 million White House construction plans but did not lead with it.
Right
0 rated outlets
No outlet rated right has run this story so far. We are still checking, and will say plainly if that does not change.
Read it at the source
24 outlets, grouped by the leaning a published rating gives them. Every headline links to the original; an underlined outlet name opens our profile of that publisher.
Left
7- Trump administration ends NOAA support for annual Arctic Report Card (opens Alaska Beacon in a new tab)
Alaska Beacon — is Alaska Beacon biased? Our profile of this outlet
- Trump administration set to spend at least $900 million on White House construction, WaPo reports (opens Ada Derana in a new tab)
Ada Derana — is Ada Derana biased? Our profile of this outlet
- A review of rescued climate data » Yale Climate Connections (opens Yale Climate Connections in a new tab)
Yale Climate Connections — is Yale Climate Connections biased? Our profile of this outlet
- Trump administration kills a flagship annual report on the Arctic (opens The Seattle Times in a new tab)
The Seattle Times — is The Seattle Times biased? Our profile of this outlet
- 'Devastated' scientists fear worldwide fallout as Trump guts 20-year Arctic research (opens Raw Story in a new tab)
- 'Truly Devastating': Trump Ends Federal Funding for Key Arctic Climate Report (opens Common Dreams in a new tab)
Common Dreams — is Common Dreams biased? Our profile of this outlet
- Trump administration ends support for flagship Arctic climate reports (opens CNN in a new tab)
Centre
14- 'Trying to bury the science': US climate research under siege (opens France24 in a new tab)
- Trump administration ends NOAA support for annual Arctic Report Card (opens Nisqually Valley News in a new tab)
Nisqually Valley News — is Nisqually Valley News biased? Our profile of this outlet
- Trump administration ends NOAA support for annual Arctic Report Card (opens Morgan County Citizen in a new tab)
Morgan County Citizen — is Morgan County Citizen biased? Our profile of this outlet
- Trump administration set to spend at least $900 million on White House construction, WaPo reports (opens WTVB in a new tab)
- Trump Cuts Arctic Climate Report: Researchers Warn of the End of Environmental Monitoring in the Arctic (opens merkur.de in a new tab)
- NOAA pulls support from Arctic climate report (opens The Hill in a new tab)
- Trump administration ends support for flagship Arctic climate reports (opens KESQ in a new tab)
- Trump administration ends support for flagship Arctic climate reports (opens kioncentralcoast.com in a new tab)
kioncentralcoast.com — is kioncentralcoast.com biased? Our profile of this outlet
Show 6 more
- Trump administration ends support for flagship Arctic climate reports (opens KEYT in a new tab)
- Trump administration ends support for flagship Arctic climate reports (opens KVIA in a new tab)
- Trump administration ends support for flagship Arctic climate reports (opens KRDO in a new tab)
- Trump administration ends support for flagship Arctic climate reports (opens KIFI in a new tab)
- Trump administration ends support for flagship Arctic climate reports (opens Action News Now in a new tab)
Action News Now — is Action News Now biased? Our profile of this outlet
- Government Pulls Funding for the Arctic Report Card (opens Eos in a new tab)
Right
0No outlet in this group ran the story.
Not rated
3- 'Trying to bury the science': US climate research under siege (opens rtl.lu in a new tab)
- Trump Nominates Jordanian-American Julia Nesheiwat as US Ambassador for Arctic Affairs (opens Jordan News in a new tab)
Jordan News — is Jordan News biased? Our profile of this outlet
- E&E News: NOAA to end support for Arctic climate change report (opens politicopro.com in a new tab)
politicopro.com — is politicopro.com biased? Our profile of this outlet
Questions about this coverage
- How did the left and right cover Trump administration ends NOAA support for Arctic Report Card, plans…?
- Of the 21 outlets on this story carrying a published leaning rating, 33% are rated left, 67% are rated centre, 0% are rated right. Those percentages are shares of the rated outlets, not of every outlet that ran it, which was 24. The sections above set out what each side emphasised, in its own terms.
- Is Trump administration ends NOAA support for Arctic Report Card, plans… left or right?
- Neither side dominates it. Of the 21 rated outlets on this story, 33% are rated left, 67% are rated centre, 0% are rated right, and no side holds the 70% this site would want before calling a field one-sided. A story is not left or right in any case; the outlets that carried it are what carry ratings.
- Is the coverage of Trump administration ends NOAA support for Arctic Report Card, plans… biased?
- Trump administration ends NOAA support for Arctic Report Card, plans $900m White House projects is one event reported by 24 outlets, and this page does not rate the story as biased or unbiased. What it publishes is the spread: which outlets ran it, where named rating organisations place each of them on the spectrum, and what each side chose to lead with. A leaning rating describes an outlet's record over time, not this article, and the two should not be run together.
- Which side is not reporting Trump administration ends NOAA support for Arctic Report Card, plans…?
- When we first saw this story, outlets rated right had barely covered it. Coverage accretes for hours after an event, so that is where to look rather than a verdict — the split above is the current count, and it is the one to read.
- Which outlets covered Trump administration ends NOAA support for Arctic Report Card, plans…?
- 24 that we know of, every one of them listed further up this page with a link to its own report and to what we hold on the publisher. Nothing here is a summary of somebody else's summary: the outlets are named so the original reporting can be read.
- What is the Arctic Report Card?
- The Arctic Report Card is an annual, peer-reviewed report published by NOAA since 2006. It documents Arctic warming, sea ice loss, glacier retreat, and other environmental changes, as well as their impacts on ecosystems and Indigenous communities. The 2026 edition will not receive federal support, leaving scientists to seek alternative publication methods.
- Why did NOAA end support for the Arctic Report Card?
- A NOAA spokesperson confirmed the decision but did not provide a reason. Scientists involved in the report were informed of the change on 10 August 2026 and were not given an explanation for the withdrawal of administrative support, as reported by Politico and CNN.
- How will the Trump administration fund White House construction?
- The administration plans to spend at least $900 million on White House construction projects, funded by redirecting money from other federal agencies and private donors into an account designated for routine maintenance, according to records cited by the Washington Post.
How did this read?
About the coverage, not about the story. We do not ask whether you agree with what happened — we have no honest use for that answer.
,regionOfInterest=(1193,689)&hash=19cd371cf17db6056720eed3a89f6c95e51b5edae4fbefc0b4aa9790a3420721)

