Trump Cuts Target US Arctic Research Commission to Reverse Course Days Later, Wilson Center’s Polar Initiative Also Affected

The slashing of U.S. government agencies and personnel by President Trump and the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) has reached the Arctic.

In an Executive Order published late on Friday President Trump ordered the elimination of all “non-statutory functions” of the Wilson Center, including its Polar Initiative.

While the Fact Sheet associated with the EO also included the U.S. Arctic Research Commission, the order itself did not, further highlighting the disorganized state of the Trump Administration’s efforts.

Altered

The order comes despite Trumps’ unrelenting interest to acquire the Arctic nation of Greenland. 

As with many previous efforts to eliminate Federal agencies by the Trump administration, the fact sheet was subsequently altered over the weekend to now no longer list the U.S. Arctic Research Commission among the affected agencies.

The Wilson Center, however, remains listed on both the EO and the Fact Sheet as of March 16.

Since 1968

As an independent federal agency USARC coordinates, promotes and communicates US Arctic research efforts and helps establish links between the federal government, the State of Alaska and international partners in Arctic sciences.

The Wilson Center is a DC-based think tank established by Congress in 1968. It is home to a number of programs and institutes, including for the Polar region as well as Canada. 

It wasn’t immediately clear to what extent the EO would have affected the operation of the USARC – if it is indeed included – or what it will mean for the Wilson Center. Trump’s directive eliminates non-statutory functions and reduces statutory functions to the minimum required by law.

Statutory requirements

For the USARC it appears that all of its work falls within the original mandate as a federal agency created by a Congressional law in 1984. 

“The [original] White House fact sheet states that the USARC will discontinue all non-statutory functions. However, literally every single thing that the USARC does is part of their statutory requirements,” explains Troy Bouffard, Director of the Center for Arctic Security and Resilience at the University of Alaska Fairbanks. 

For the Wilson Center the degree to which its work today goes beyond the statutory mandate may be less clear.

“The EO directs the same for the Wilson Center, and since they've grown to become increasingly purposeful over the years, there might be some aspects that aren't strictly statutory perhaps,” Bouffard continued.

Warnings

Across the Arctic research community most experts warned of the impact the EO would have on U.S. Arctic efforts.

“These are both powerfully effective organizations, and given growing U.S. interests in the Arctic, each needs to be strengthened as much as possible to ensure our national direction is well guided and informed,” Bouffard concluded. 

The USARC has operated effectively for decades on an extremely limited budget of less than $2 million, while the Wilson Center requested around $14 million in federal funding for the latest budget year.

Troy Bouffard, Director - Center for Arctic Security and Resilience (CASR) at University of Alaska, Fairbanks.

A real loss

“The Wilson Center’s Polar Institute has been an important intellectual centre for Arctic policy, in DC and for the whole Arctic community. This is a real loss, at a time when we needed a lot more dialogue and thought leadership in the region, not less,” concurs Heather Exner-Pirot, Director of the Energy, Natural Resources and Environment program at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, a Canadian think tank. 

However, not all agree that the two organizations have been effective tools in furthering the U.S.’ Arctic interests in a rapidly changing security environment.

Elizabeth Buchanan, a polar geopolitics expert at Australian Strategic Policy Institute, called it a necessary step to ensure American strategic interests in the Arctic.

“Neither polar-focused institutions grasped the geopolitical shifts occurring in the High North, nor welcomed contestable analysis, or provided innovative solutions to future-proofing strategic interests in the region,” Buchanan stated.

“Agile, innovative, and hard-power solutions are required to navigate the Arctic geostrategic reality,” she continued. This must also include an effort to pry Russia from China.

“We southern nations have warned of the perils of these two states partnering in polar endeavours, but the closed-minded Arctic watchers in DC supporting the status quo refused to listen,” she concluded.