Across the country, the Trump administration’s threats to defund programs that mention diversity, equity, or climate change have not only chilled open dialogue—they’ve made self-censorship the headline. From universities to environmental agencies, stories of institutions backing away from core values have dominated the news. At Columbia, at UCLA, and beyond, it’s not defiance but retreat that’s making waves—administrators preemptively scrubbing language, sidestepping controversy, and prioritizing federal dollars over principle. Even in the most progressive corners of the country, institutions are quietly rewriting their missions out of fear, not necessity.
One recent and alarming example of self-censorship is happening right here on the Westside of Los Angeles. On March 21, the Executive Committee of the Santa Monica Bay Restoration Commission (SMBRC) convened a meeting that should have been a routine public review of its annual work plan. Instead, it became a case study in how institutions contort themselves to appease political threats—even when those threats have no real legal teeth.
At issue were references to “climate change” and “disadvantaged communities” throughout the draft plan. Rather than standing by this language—language deeply embedded in the Commission’s scientific and environmental mission—board members and staff scrambled to replace it with euphemisms. “Climate change” became “recurring extreme weather events” or “coastal adaptation.” “Disadvantaged communities” were erased altogether, replaced by vagaries like “green spaces” or “community benefits.”
Why the sudden sanitization? Staff at the Santa Monica Bay Foundation cited warnings from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under the Trump administration that use of such terms could lead to the plan being rejected. Yet this fear-based reasoning falls apart under even light scrutiny. Multiple federal court rulings have already blocked the Trump administration from enforcing freezes or bans on funding tied to climate or DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) language. Moreover, the EPA does not have unilateral authority under the Clean Water Act to reject a local work plan unless it violates the law, applicable regulations, or the National Estuary Program’s own strategic priorities. The original draft language—centered on protecting vulnerable coastal communities and addressing scientifically recognized threats—did neither.
And yet, instead of challenging the premise, the Commission’s leadership accepted it wholesale. This sort of self-censorship completely undermines the institution’s credibility. Here was a public body, tasked with safeguarding one of Southern California’s most precious natural resources, contorting its science and equity commitments to appease an administration that lacks the authority to enforce its ideological agenda.
What makes this case particularly alarming is the geography. If unfounded self-censorship can take place in LA—a city that prides itself on progressive values, scientific leadership, and environmental justice, what does that say about the climate for truth elsewhere? By choosing fear over fact, and silence over science, the Santa Monica Bay Restoration Commission has sent a chilling message to marginalized communities and frontline environmental advocates: your needs and realities are negotiable. Your words are liabilities. Your inclusion is conditional.
This moment demands clarity, not compromise. Climate change is real. Marginalized communities are disproportionately impacted. Erasing these truths from official documents doesn’t protect funding—it undermines public trust, future resilience, and moral clarity. The Santa Monica Bay Restoration Commission still has a chance to course-correct. It can reinstate the original language, defend its commitments in public, and call the administration’s bluff if necessary. Because if institutions like this one won’t speak plainly about the crises we face, who will?