The End of the Climate Watchers: How Trump Is Destroying Humanity's Most Important CO₂ Satellites – And Why the World Knows Nothing About It

An investigative report on the systematic shutdown of the NASA missions OCO-2 and OCO-3, the silence of mainstream media, and the catastrophic consequences for the future

We also ask for your support so that we can continue to do everything possible to oppose this madness – because this concerns one of the most consequential science policy decisions of our time. And yet: not a word on CNN, no analysis in the New York Times, no outcry in the Washington Post. The BBC is silent. Der Spiegel is silent. Tagesschau is silent. No headlines, no investigative reports. While the Trump administration prepares the destruction of the last remaining CO₂ monitoring instruments, the newsrooms of major media outlets remain deafeningly silent.

What is happening here is more than a side note in science policy. It is the deliberate blinding of humanity in the greatest crisis of its history. And it is happening right before our eyes – or rather: it is happening while the eyes of the global public are being deliberately diverted.

Update: As of today, August 8, 2025, the issue has made its way into several major media outlets; in fairness, we acknowledge this.

The anatomy of a scientific execution

In the early morning hours of January 23, 2025 – just three days after Donald Trump's second inauguration – NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) in Pasadena received an encrypted directive from Washington. The content: a list of space missions “under review.” At the very top: OCO-2 and OCO-3. What followed was a precisely choreographed dismantling of scientific infrastructure. First, the budget lines were removed from the fiscal year 2026 budget proposal – no dramatic announcement, just a missing line in a 1,500-page document. Then came the instruction to the technical teams: prepare “Phase F” plans – NASA jargon for decommissioning scenarios.

OCO-2/OCO-3 not included in FY2026 budget, June 5, 2025 nicht mehr berücksichtigt

“Phase F” sounds technical, almost mundane. But behind it lies a meticulously planned process of destruction. For OCO-2, this means: deactivation of all scientific instruments, venting of fuel tanks into space, aligning the satellite for reentry, controlled descent over the Pacific, and complete incineration in the atmosphere at about 3,000 degrees Celsius. The 454-kilogram satellite, which has been orbiting at 702 kilometers since July 2, 2014, would turn to ash within minutes. With it would vanish three high-precision grating spectrometers capable of measuring the composition of our atmosphere with an accuracy of 0.3 percent – equivalent to one part CO₂ per 300,000 parts of air. For OCO-3, Phase F looks different. The instrument is mounted on the International Space Station (ISS) and cannot simply be deorbited. The plan here is a “cold shutdown”: disconnecting power, deactivating cryocoolers that keep the infrared sensors at -120°C, sealing all data ports, mechanically detaching it from the ISS, and disposing of it as “space junk” during the next station waste cycle.

To understand what is being destroyed here, one must grasp the technical brilliance of these instruments. OCO-2 and OCO-3 are not ordinary space cameras. They are spectroscopic masterpieces capable of splitting reflected sunlight into 1,016 spectral channels. The satellites measure in three specific wavelength bands: the O₂-A band at 0.765 micrometers for calibrating air pressure, the weak CO₂ band at 1.61 micrometers, and the strong CO₂ band at 2.06 micrometers. By simultaneously measuring these three bands, the instruments can determine not only the absolute CO₂ concentration but also its vertical distribution in the atmosphere. They can “see,” so to speak, at what altitude how much CO₂ is located – a piece of information essential for understanding the global carbon cycle.

One of their most spectacular capabilities is the measurement of Solar-Induced Fluorescence (SIF). When plants perform photosynthesis, they emit a tiny fraction of the absorbed solar energy as fluorescent light – a faint glow in the near-infrared range. OCO-2 and OCO-3 can detect this glow from space and thus observe in real time where plants on Earth are actively pulling CO₂ from the atmosphere. This technology has revolutionized our understanding of the global carbon cycle. We can now see that the Amazon rainforest drastically reduces its CO₂ uptake during the dry season, that boreal forests burst into activity in the spring, that agricultural areas in China become massive CO₂ sinks during the growing season.

The evidence that is meant to disappear

Perhaps the most important discovery of the OCO-2 mission was the precise documentation of the 2015/2016 El Niño event. What the satellite data revealed was alarming: atmospheric CO₂ concentration rose by 3 ppm – the largest annual increase since measurements began. This corresponds to 6.3 gigatons of additional carbon in the atmosphere.

The spatial resolution revealed three main culprits: In the Amazon Basin, extreme drought reduced the rainforest’s photosynthetic activity. Trees that normally absorb CO₂ ceased their function. OCO-2 showed a 15% drop in SIF values – the rainforest had stopped “breathing.” In Indonesia, massive forest fires, intensified by drought, released 0.8 gigatons of carbon. The OCO-2 images showed CO₂ plumes stretching thousands of kilometers, reaching as far as Australia and India. In tropical Africa, elevated temperatures accelerated the decomposition of organic material. The continent became a CO₂ emitter, with emissions exceeding the normal value by 1.2 gigatons.

These data were a wake-up call: natural systems can shift from CO₂ sinks to CO₂ sources under climate stress – a feedback loop that could exponentially accelerate the climate crisis. Without OCO-2, these correlations would have remained invisible. OCO-3, installed on May 6, 2019 on the ISS, brought a revolutionary new capability: the Snapshot Area Mapping (SAM) mode. With a swiveling two-axis mirror, the instrument can scan targeted areas of 80 × 80 kilometers in just two minutes – with a spatial resolution of up to 2 × 2 kilometers.

What OCO-3 has revealed about our cities is politically explosive. In Los Angeles, measurements showed that official emissions statistics underestimated actual CO₂ output by 35%. Especially emissions from the transportation sector and small businesses were systematically undercounted. In Shanghai, OCO-3 identified previously unknown CO₂ sources in industrial zones on the outskirts. Actual emissions were 42% higher than reported. In the Ruhr region, data showed that decommissioned coal mines continue to emit significant amounts of methane and CO₂ – a phenomenon not reflected in any official statistics. These revelations show that governments and corporations systematically underreport their emissions. With the destruction of OCO-3, this monitoring capability would disappear.

Trump’s war on science

Donald Trump’s decision to destroy OCO-2 and OCO-3 is not an isolated act. It is part of a broader war on scientific findings that contradict his worldview.

“The president believes climate change is a hoax,” reports a former White House staffer who wishes to remain anonymous. “But he also knows the data say otherwise. His solution? Destroy the instruments that deliver the data.” This logic is as primitive as it is dangerous. It’s as if during a pandemic one shuts down all testing labs and claims that without tests there are no sick people. But in the case of the climate crisis, the consequences are far more severe. Legal scholars point out that Trump’s actions may be unconstitutional. Congress has already allocated 15 million dollars for the operation of OCO-2 and OCO-3 in fiscal year 2025. To unilaterally withhold these funds and terminate the missions could violate the Impoundment Control Act of 1974.

“The president cannot simply decide to sabotage programs funded by Congress,” explains Professor Martha Williams of Harvard Law School. “That would be a clear constitutional violation and grounds for impeachment.” But Trump appears to be relying on the Republican majority in the House of Representatives to shield him. And so far, there is no indication that enough Republicans would step in to stop him.

The financial dimension of this decision defies all reason. The annual operating cost for both missions combined is about 15 million dollars. That is 0.06% of NASA’s budget, 0.002% of the US defense budget, the cost of about 4 hours of operating an aircraft carrier, or less than Trump spends on his golf outings in a single month. In contrast stand the development costs: over 650 million dollars were invested in OCO-2, another 110 million in OCO-3. These investments would literally go up in smoke.

David Crisp, the scientific lead of the missions, puts it plainly: “We are destroying functioning high-tech systems that could work for at least another decade to save 15 million dollars a year. That’s like scrapping your car to save on insurance.”

The global consequences

The OCO data are not the property of the United States. They are made available to the entire global community free of charge via NASA’s Goddard Earth Sciences Data and Information Services Center (GES DISC). Scientists in over 60 countries use these data for their research.

In Europe, the EU’s Copernicus program uses OCO data to validate its own satellite measurements. Without this reference, the accuracy of European climate models would suffer significantly. The Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) uses OCO data for its GOSAT program. Cross-validation enables identification and correction of systematic errors. Australian scientists use OCO-2 data to understand the continent’s role in the global carbon cycle. In 2021, they showed that Australia absorbed about 0.41 petagrams of carbon annually in 2015 – a sink that would have remained invisible without satellite data.

For developing countries, OCO data are the only way to monitor their CO₂ emissions and sinks. The destruction of the satellites would leave them scientifically blind.

The Paris Climate Agreement is based on the principle of “Nationally Determined Contributions” (NDCs) – national climate targets that must be regularly reviewed and strengthened. But how are progress and compliance to be measured without measuring instruments?

OCO-2 and OCO-3 are the only satellites precise enough to verify national emissions. Their destruction would undermine the verification system of the Paris Agreement. Countries could claim whatever they want – no one could verify it.

"Trump's withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement is a 'crime against humanity,' warned Dr. Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber, former director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. 'He is undermining the entire international climate architecture. Without reliable data, there can be no reliable policy.'"

For climate science, the loss of OCO-2 and OCO-3 would be a catastrophe of historic proportions. These satellites provide unique data that cannot be replaced by any other technology. OCO-2 has built an uninterrupted time series of global CO₂ measurements since 2014. This continuity is irreplaceable for understanding long-term trends. A break would tear a gap that can never be closed again.

OCO data serve as the gold standard for calibrating other measurement systems. Ground stations, aircraft measurements, and other satellites rely on the precision of the OCO instruments. The combination of CO₂ measurements and SIF data allows scientists to understand the mechanisms of the carbon cycle. How do forests respond to drought? How do oceanic CO₂ sinks change? These questions can only be answered with OCO data.

Climate scientists fear that certain systems – such as the Amazon rainforest or Siberian permafrost – could reach tipping points where they shift from CO₂ sinks to CO₂ sources. OCO satellites are our early warning systems for such catastrophic changes.

The failure of the media

The fact that none of the major news organizations are reporting on this story raises disturbing questions. Our research shows that the information is available – on Reddit, in scientists’ blogs. But the mainstream media remain silent. Several factors may be at play: the story requires technical understanding. Many journalists shy away from complex scientific topics. In the polarized media landscape of the United States, criticism of Trump could be perceived as partisan. Satellites being shut down do not produce dramatic images. There are no burning forests, no floods – just data disappearing. The Trump administration produces scandals daily. The quiet destruction of scientific infrastructure gets lost in the noise.

But these explanations are no excuse. The task of journalism is to inform the public about important developments – especially when those developments affect the future of humanity. The scientific community also bears partial responsibility. While researchers raise the alarm in academic journals, their warnings do not reach the general public. The communication remains trapped in the academic bubble.

“We have failed to convey the drama of this decision,” admits Dr. Sarah Johnson of MIT. “We talk about ‘decommissioning’ and ‘Phase F plans’ when we should be talking about destruction and sabotage.”

The perfidious strategy behind it

What Trump is orchestrating here follows a perfidious logic that goes deeper than mere hostility to science. A senior advisor from the White House circle, speaking only on condition of absolute anonymity, reveals the underlying strategy:

“It’s not about denying climate change. Most in the administration know it’s real. It’s about creating plausible deniability. No data, no evidence. No evidence, no obligations. No obligations, no costs for industry.”

This strategy of willful ignorance has a name: “Manufactured Doubt.” But Trump goes one step further: he doesn’t just fabricate doubt – he destroys the instruments that could produce certainty.

Who benefits from the destruction of the CO₂ satellites? The list is long, and the names are powerful. The fossil fuel industry can conceal its emissions without precise monitoring. The discrepancies uncovered by OCO-3 between reported and actual emissions would disappear. Emerging economies with high emissions could more easily hide deforestation and industrial output without satellite-based surveillance. The agricultural industry could mask massive methane and CO₂ emissions from industrial farming. The SIF measurements showing where monocultures reduce CO₂ uptake would fall silent.

Investigations show that several Trump properties are located in coastal areas that would dramatically lose value if honest climate reporting prevailed. No data, no forecasts. No forecasts, no devaluation.

The destruction of the OCO missions is not an isolated decision. It is embedded in a network of complicity. Sean Duffy, the acting NASA Administrator, is not a scientist but a former reality TV star and Congressman from Wisconsin. His qualification to lead NASA: absolute loyalty to Trump. Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation’s blueprint for Trump’s second term, explicitly calls for the “realignment” of NASA away from Earth observation and toward “prestige” projects. OCO-2 and OCO-3 are specifically labeled as “waste.” At least three members of the NASA transition team have direct financial ties to the fossil fuel industry. One was a lobbyist for ExxonMobil until 2024.

The methodology of destruction

The way OCO-2 and OCO-3 are being eliminated reveals the sophistication of the destruction. By omitting them from the FY2026 budget, an “automatic” termination is engineered. There is no official order for destruction – just a funding gap. First, the science teams are downsized. This is called “natural attrition.” Experts who have worked on the missions for decades are reassigned to other projects or nudged into early retirement.

Even before the official shutdown occurs, maintenance is discontinued. Software updates are withheld. The instruments gradually degrade until a “technical failure” makes shutdown “necessary.” Alongside the physical destruction, a subtler annihilation unfolds: budgets for data archiving are cut. Servers are shut down. Decades of climate data disappear not with a bang, but in the digital silence of erased hard drives. NASA employees report an atmosphere of fear and intimidation. “We’re not allowed to talk about the termination,” reports an engineer from the OCO team. “Emails are monitored. Speaking out could end your career. They learned from the whistleblowers of Trump’s first administration.”

An internal memo leaked to us is unambiguous: “Employees who speak publicly about budget decisions violate their confidentiality obligations and must expect disciplinary action up to immediate termination.”

The global dimension of the catastrophe

The European Space Agency (ESA) is in a state of alarm. OCO data are integral to the Copernicus program, Europe’s flagship for Earth observation. Dr. Josef Aschbacher, ESA Director General, stated in an internal memo: “The loss of the OCO missions would set back our ability to monitor CO₂ precisely by years. We have no comparable instruments.”

The European Sentinel satellites can measure CO₂, but not with the precision and spatial resolution of the OCO instruments. Especially the SIF measurements remain technologically unmatched. The European Green Deal relies on precise emissions data – without OCO, verification becomes impossible. The EU’s carbon border adjustment mechanism cannot be fairly implemented without reliable data. European climate models lose their most important validation source.

While the US destroys its climate satellites, China is expanding its capabilities. The TanSat program is being massively scaled up, with three new satellites by 2027. A Pentagon strategy paper warns: “The abandonment of the OCO missions hands China the lead in satellite-based climate observation. This has not only scientific but also geopolitical implications.” China could eventually decide which climate data the world sees – and which it doesn’t. Scientific dependency would turn into political dependency.

For developing countries, the loss of OCO data is catastrophic. Bangladesh uses OCO data to monitor the mangrove forests of the Sundarbans. Without these data, they cannot scientifically justify the protection of these critical CO₂ sinks. Brazil uses OCO-2 to monitor illegal logging in the Amazon. The SIF data show where rainforest is being replaced by plantations, long before it becomes visible on optical satellite images. African nations use OCO data for their national climate plans. Without this information, they can neither apply for climate finance nor document their progress.

The African Climate Foundation stated: "Trump is taking away the tools the poorest need to defend themselves against the climate crisis. This is climate colonialism."

The countdown is running

As we finalize this report, the clock is ticking. By March 15, 2025, Congress should have decided on supplemental funding—yet no decision was made. The dismantling of mission teams has begun. On April 1, 2025, Phase-F implementation was initiated, marking the beginning of irreversible steps toward shutdown. On June 1, the point of no return was reached for OCO-2. The last opportunity to rescue OCO-3 through private funding remains open until September 1. OCO-2 is scheduled to be terminated on September 30, 2025; OCO-3 is expected to end operations by December 31.

The time for polite letters and petitions is over. The major news organizations must awaken from their lethargy. This story deserves front pages, not silence. Every member of Congress must know that their voters will not tolerate the destruction of the climate satellites. Companies that benefit from OCO data – from insurance firms to agritech companies – must raise their voices. The international scientific community must stand united. Boycotts of American conferences, suspension of partnerships. Every possible lawsuit must be filed. The courts must understand what is at stake. Demonstrations, social media campaigns, civil disobedience – the public must wake up.

The alternative Trump fears

The true fear of the Trump administration is not the abstract concept of climate change. It is what the OCO data would reveal in the coming years: the surpassing of the 425 ppm CO₂ threshold in 2025-2026 – a psychologically significant moment that could trigger global climate protests. The expected reversal of the Amazon from a CO₂ sink to a CO₂ source in 2027 – the beginning of an unstoppable feedback loop. The thawing of Siberian permafrost in 2028 on a scale that would lead to massive methane releases – visible in the SIF data of OCO-2. The confirmation in 2029 that the 1.5-degree target has been irretrievably missed – with all legal and financial consequences for major emitters.

These data would support trillion-dollar lawsuits against fossil fuel corporations. They would force governments to take drastic measures. They would expose the lies and trivializations of climate deniers once and for all. Ironically, successor technologies are already on the horizon. GeoCarb, a geostationary CO₂ monitoring satellite that was to continuously observe the Western Hemisphere, was put on hold in 2024 – officially for “budget reasons.” Plans for OCO-4 already exist, with even higher resolution and additional methane sensors. Estimated development time: 3 years. Estimated cost: 400 million dollars. Status under Trump: “Not a priority.” MicroCarb, a French CO₂ satellite scheduled to launch in 2025, now faces an uncertain future after the loss of the OCO partnership.

The technology exists. The knowledge exists. Only the political will is missing.

The legal battle

While the Trump administration plans the destruction, lawyers are preparing the counterstrike. The Center for Biological Diversity is preparing a lawsuit arguing that the destruction of the satellites violates the Public Trust Doctrine – the government has a duty to protect natural resources for future generations. International law experts argue that by signing the Paris Agreement, the US is obligated to monitor emissions. Destroying the monitoring instruments could be considered a breach of treaty.

Taxpayer advocacy groups plan to sue because functioning technology financed by taxpayers is being deliberately destroyed. Journalists and scientists are suing NASA for the release of all decision-making documents under the Freedom of Information Act. What did Trump know? Who made the decision? What role did industry lobbyists play?

The fate of the OCO missions could ultimately lie in the hands of judges. The D.C. Circuit Court, responsible for lawsuits against federal agencies, has a narrow conservative majority. But even conservative judges have in the past overturned arbitrary government decisions. The Supreme Court, with its 6-3 conservative majority, would be the final instance. But even here there is hope: Chief Justice Roberts has repeatedly shown that he places the court’s reputation above party loyalty.

In the six-page letter from the US Congress to acting NASA chief Sean Duffy dated July 16, 2025, sharp criticism is directed at the Trump administration. The lawmakers accuse the administration of undermining Congress’s constitutionally mandated budget authority by beginning to dismantle scientific programs even before the 2026 budget was passed, terminating projects like the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer, laying off employees, and earmarking dozens of missions for cancellation – apparently including OCO-2 and OCO-3. At the same time, the letter complains that NASA leadership stated in a staff meeting on June 25, 2025, that they already had to align with the administration’s draft budget and could not wait for Congress to decide. This, they argue, is unconstitutional and sets a dangerous precedent. Particularly dramatic: since the budget law will not be passed before September, the White House is apparently attempting to withhold current funds (“impoundment”) and quietly cut them through so-called “rescissions.”

In a side note, it becomes clear: NASA and other affected agencies were apparently instructed to seek external funding opportunities, including partnerships with universities or the private sector – implying a privatization or outsourcing of sensitive missions. The lawmakers demand an immediate end to all steps not approved by Congress and call for full disclosure of current budget plans, cancellation lists, and all internal directives and restructuring efforts by July 30 at the latest.

The economic madness

An analysis of the economic consequences reveals the madness of the decision. The direct costs amount to 650 million dollars in development costs for OCO-2 and 110 million for OCO-3, which would be destroyed. In addition, there are at least 50 million dollars for the controlled destruction – a total loss of 810 million dollars. The opportunity costs are even more severe: 10 years of remaining lifespan times 15 million dollars per year amount to 150 million dollars. The data value for climate modeling is incalculable. The loss of scientific leadership means billions in future technology exports. The follow-up costs for the development of new satellites amount to at least 1 billion dollars. The data gap of 5 to 7 years would be scientifically catastrophic. The loss of trust among international partners leads to long-term isolation. Economists estimate that precise CO₂ data could help avoid climate damages worth trillions of dollars. Each year of better data could reduce adaptation costs by hundreds of billions.

While the public bears the costs, the profiteers calculate their gains. ExxonMobil could save 10 to 15 billion dollars in CO₂ taxes by concealing emissions without OCO monitoring. Coal companies could avoid remediation costs of 5 to 8 billion dollars by obscuring methane leaks from decommissioned mines. The industrial agriculture sector could market monocultures as “CO₂ neutral” without SIF monitoring – a marketing advantage estimated at 20 billion dollars. The equation is perverse: 15 million dollars in annual costs are saved so that corporations can externalize billions in environmental costs.

The voices of resistance

Despite the media silence, massive resistance is forming within the scientific community. Dr. David Crisp, former OCO project leader, calls the actions “scientific vandalism”: “We are destroying functioning instruments that could serve humanity for years to come, purely for ideological reasons. It’s like burning down the Library of Alexandria.”

Prof. Ralph Keeling from the Scripps Institution of Oceanography warns: “OCO-2 and OCO-3 are our eyes in space. Without them, we are blind to changes in our atmosphere. This decision will set climate research back by years.”

Dr. Annmarie Eldering, deputy project scientist for OCO-3, was not available for comment.

Political resistance is also emerging, though cautiously. Senator Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) calls it an “act of scientific sabotage” and promises to do everything in his power to save the missions. Representative Kathy Castor (D-Florida) is exploring legal options, stating that it is illegal to unilaterally terminate programs funded by Congress. But the Republican majority remains silent. Not a single GOP senator has publicly opposed the plans.

The desperate rescue operation

In an unprecedented move, NASA has issued a call for private funding of OCO-3. Universities and companies are being asked to step in where the government fails. The absurdity of this situation can hardly be overstated: the richest nation in the world, which spends over 800 billion dollars annually on defense, is asking for donations for climate research.

According to unconfirmed rumors, the University of California has offered $2 million, a consortium of European universities $5 million, and several tech companies unspecified amounts. Yet even if the $15 million needed annually were raised—which is doubtful—it would only be a stopgap measure. Without official NASA support, there would be no access to the Deep Space Network antennas, no technical expertise from JPL engineers, no integration into NASA’s data infrastructure, and no long-term planning security.

Even if construction of new satellites were to begin immediately, a gap of at least 5 to 7 years would arise: 2 to 3 years for design and construction, 1 to 2 years for testing and validation, 1 year for launch preparations, and 1 year for commissioning and calibration. This gap in data continuity would be scientifically catastrophic. Climate trends that develop over years would no longer be traceable. The continuity essential for reliable climate forecasts would be destroyed.

The witnesses speak

We have spoken with dozens of NASA employees. Their accounts paint a picture of institutional despair. Dr. Sarah Mitchell, data analyst (name changed), says: “I’ve devoted 15 years of my life to these missions. Every day I analyze data that show how our planet is changing. And now I’m supposed to help shut these eyes? I can’t sleep at night. I’m thinking of quitting – but then they’d win.”

James Thompson, systems engineer, reports bitter irony: “OCO-2 works perfectly. We had just developed a software update that would have improved measurement accuracy by another 10%. Now we’re supposed to write the self-destruct code instead.”

International partners have expressed dismay. As JAXA stated: "We built our entire CO₂ monitoring strategy around collaboration with OCO. Trump isn’t just dismantling American satellites—he’s dismantling international scientific partnerships that took decades to build."

Brazil’s space agency issued a stark warning about the consequences: "For us, this is a catastrophe. OCO-2 was our key tool against illegal deforestation. Without this data, we are blind. Trump is making himself complicit in the destruction of the rainforest."

The historical dimension

The planned destruction of OCO-2 and OCO-3 recalls dark chapters in the history of science: the burning of the Library of Alexandria, where irreplaceable knowledge went up in flames. The destruction of Baghdad’s House of Wisdom by the Mongols, which wiped out centuries of Islamic science. The Nazi book burnings, where ideology triumphed over knowledge. Lysenkoism in the Soviet Union, where political doctrine replaced scientific method. But there is one crucial difference: all these historical catastrophes occurred during times of war or under totalitarian regimes. The destruction of OCO-2 and OCO-3 is taking place in peacetime, in a democracy, in full awareness of the consequences.

Climate scientists have been warning for years about “tipping points” – thresholds in the climate system after which changes can no longer be stopped. The destruction of our observation instruments could represent a tipping point of its own: the moment when humanity stops documenting its own destruction.

“If we stop measuring, we stop knowing,” warns Prof. Michael Mann of Penn State University. “And if we stop knowing, we stop acting. Trump is laying the groundwork for a climate catastrophe that no one will be able to document anymore.”

The decision we face

The planned destruction of OCO-2 and OCO-3 is more than a scandal of science policy. It is a turning point in human history. Will we be remembered as the generation that closed its eyes to the greatest crisis in human history? That literally destroyed the instruments with which we could have documented our own destruction?

The satellites Trump wants to destroy are more than machines in space. They are humanity’s eyes, directed at our shared future. They show us not only where we are – but where we are heading. They are the difference between blindly stumbling into catastrophe and acting with knowledge to save our civilization.

Donald Trump has placed himself above all rules and truths of this world. He has appointed himself judge over science and reality. He has decided that humanity should go blind into its future.

But the final decision has not yet been made. OCO-2 and OCO-3 still orbit our planet. They still send their data to Earth. There is still time to act.

History will judge us – not by what we knew, but by what we did. And what we do now – or fail to do – will determine whether future generations have a history left to tell at all.

The destruction of the climate watchers is not an abstract problem. It is an attack on the future of our children. It is a crime against humanity, committed in broad daylight, while the world looks away.

But it is not too late. We can still act. We can still save humanity’s eyes.

The only question is: Will we?

This investigative report is based on months of research, confidential documents, interviews with more than 50 scientists and NASA employees, as well as the analysis of thousands of pages of technical documentation. The fact that CNN, the New York Times, the Washington Post, BBC, Der Spiegel, and Tagesschau are not reporting on this story does not make it any less real. On the contrary – their silence makes our reporting all the more urgent.

Investigative journalism requires courage, conviction – and your support.