Climate Disinformation Threatens National Security, Experts Warn

Climate change disinformation poses an increasingly significant threat to national security, according to defense and intelligence experts who have raised alarms about how deliberate misinformation campaigns undermine climate action and preparedness efforts.

The Pentagon has identified climate change as a “threat multiplier” that exacerbates existing security challenges, from resource conflicts to mass migration. Yet organized campaigns to deny or downplay climate science continue to hinder meaningful policy responses, creating vulnerabilities in America’s security infrastructure.

“Climate disinformation directly interferes with our ability to prepare for and mitigate security threats,” says Dr. Sherri Goodman, former Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Environmental Security. “When public understanding is clouded by false information, we see delays in critical infrastructure hardening and resource allocation.”

These concerns have gained urgency as intelligence agencies document coordinated efforts by foreign actors to amplify climate skepticism in Western democracies. A recent report from the Center for Strategic and International Studies found evidence that Russia has strategically promoted climate disinformation through social media platforms and state-sponsored content, aiming to disrupt climate policy formation among NATO allies.

The security implications extend beyond policy gridlock. Military installations themselves face direct climate threats, with over 60 percent of mission-critical bases vulnerable to recurrent flooding, drought, or wildfire risks. The Department of Defense’s 2021 Climate Risk Analysis highlighted how these vulnerabilities could compromise operational readiness if left unaddressed due to delayed action stemming from climate denialism.

“We’re seeing a dangerous convergence of factors,” explains retired Rear Admiral Ann Phillips, who now works on climate resilience planning. “As our bases experience more frequent extreme weather events, the infrastructure hardening needed to maintain readiness gets caught in political crossfire fueled by disinformation.”

Financial experts point to economic security dimensions as well. The Federal Reserve now recognizes climate change as a systemic risk to financial stability, while insurance markets are retreating from climate-vulnerable regions. The propagation of climate disinformation has complicated efforts to implement meaningful disclosure requirements for climate-related financial risks.

Former CIA analyst Rod Schoonover, who resigned after White House officials blocked his congressional testimony on climate security, notes the intelligence community’s growing concern. “Climate disinformation isn’t just a scientific or political issue—it’s increasingly viewed as an information security problem with direct implications for national resilience.”

The pathways of disinformation have evolved considerably. What began as outright denial of climate science has morphed into more sophisticated approaches aimed at delaying action, downplaying risks, or deflecting responsibility. Social media analysis shows climate disinformation now often focuses on undermining specific solutions rather than the underlying science.

“The tactics mirror those used in other national security contexts,” says Dr. Kate Starbird, who studies crisis informatics at the University of Washington. “We see the same patterns of amplification, coordinated inauthenticity, and strategic ambiguity used in election interference or pandemic disinformation.”

Military planners have begun incorporating climate disinformation scenarios into security exercises, recognizing how false information could hamper emergency responses during climate-intensified disasters or influence public support for military adaptation measures.

The National Security Council has established a working group to address the intersection of climate change and information warfare, while FEMA has updated its disaster preparedness materials to counter common climate myths that might reduce community readiness.

Admiral Samuel J. Locklear III, former commander of U.S. Pacific Command, summarized the concern in stark terms during recent congressional testimony: “When communities and leaders are misled about climate risks, our ability to protect American interests both domestically and globally is compromised.”

Security experts recommend a multi-pronged approach to address the threat, including greater transparency in climate risk assessments, improved public education on climate security connections, and stronger coordination between information security and climate resilience planning.

As climate impacts accelerate globally, the national security community increasingly views climate disinformation not as a partisan issue but as a concrete security vulnerability that requires strategic countermeasures.

“The science is clear, and the security implications are undeniable,” concludes Goodman. “Allowing disinformation to cloud public understanding of climate threats is not just environmentally reckless—it’s a security risk we cannot afford.”