The protectors of Santa Monica Bay are caving to Trump’s dangerous demands
- Share via
Even as many businesses and universities rush to abandon their climate goals, diversity commitments and small-d democratic values for fear of reprisal from an increasingly authoritarian Trump administration, you might think an environmental group based in progressive West Los Angeles, at least, would hold firm to its principles.
Alas, you’d be mistaken.
You're reading Boiling Point
Sammy Roth gets you up to speed on climate change, energy and the environment. Sign up to get it in your inbox twice a week.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.
The Bay Foundation — a high-profile nonprofit that works with government officials to protect and restore one of Southern California’s most beloved natural resources, Santa Monica Bay — has been quietly scrubbing references to climate change, environmental justice and diversity initiatives from working documents and its website.
A page on the Bay Foundation’s website that previously explained how climate change is affecting the watershed — as seen on the Jan. 21, 2025, version of the page, available via the Internet Archive — was rewritten to delete all references to climate. The group also removed its Justice, Equity, Diversity & Inclusion page, which had previously pledged its commitment to “equity and inclusion across race, gender, age, religion, identity, and experience.”
Also alarming: a draft work plan presented last month to the Santa Monica Bay Restoration Commission.
Before the Environmental Protection Agency doles out federal funding for Santa Monica Bay restoration, it must approve a work plan written annually by the commission and the Bay Foundation, then submitted to the EPA.
Normally it’s a simple process. But with President Trump and his science-denying appointees attempting to hold back money for anything related to climate or environmental injustice — despite clear evidence that the planet is warming, and that low-income families and people of color are especially at risk — this year, changes to the draft plan suggest that the protectors of Santa Monica Bay decided they couldn’t risk incurring Trump’s wrath.
Outside of a list of acronyms, every use of the words “climate change” in this year’s draft plan has been struck through with a single black line. Also axed: an action item to “support efforts of disadvantaged communities to achieve healthy habitats, implement green infrastructure, and reduce pollution.”
Last year’s work plan, meanwhile, featured a section on equity in underserved communities.
In this year’s plan, it’s nowhere to be found.
“This is probably only the beginning. We’re only a little more than a month into the [Trump] administration,” said Walter Lamb, a local environmental activist, who brought the deletions to my attention.
“This sends a pretty amazing message, that a local restoration commission that has climate change written right into its mission would scrub it right out of its work plan,” he added.
I asked Tom Ford, the Bay Foundation’s chief executive, for an explanation. He gave me a straightforward answer: Under Trump, he said, there are “new rules by which federal funding is made available” — and they don’t allow spending money on climate initiatives, or programs that support diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI).
“We’re stepping in line,” Ford said.
Where to begin with such a terrifying confession?
To start: Under the U.S. Constitution, the executive branch enforces the law. But Congress writes the law. And the judicial branch interprets the law, settling disputes between Congress and the president.
When I asked Ford to back up his claim that Trump forced the group’s hand, he sent me a Jan. 27 memo from the White House budget chief. The memo ordered a wide-ranging spending freeze, specifically calling out “the use of Federal resources to advance Marxist equity, transgenderism, and green new deal social engineering.”
The thing is, two federal judges have issued preliminary injunctions blocking the spending freeze, in response to lawsuits claiming the president has no authority to block money approved by Congress. Last week, a judge wrote that the freeze “fundamentally undermines the distinct constitutional roles of each branch of our government.”
Ford also sent me a memo from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management stemming from Trump’s order to end DEI programs at federal agencies. That order, too, has been temporarily blocked by a federal judge.
Ford addressed criticisms of the Bay Foundation’s decisions at a public workshop last month. He said he and the nonprofit have been “feeling the weight of these challenges that are being put in front of us.”
“None of this has been easy on us. And I certainly don’t expect it to be easy on anybody else,” he said.
I’m sympathetic, to an extent. The Bay Foundation relies on federal grants for the vast majority of its funds.
But this is how democracies wither and die. Academic experts are increasingly warning that when critics muzzle themselves, it’s a clear sign of rising authoritarianism. It’s happening now in the U.S., with examples as varied as billionaire media executives killing opinion pieces critical of Trump and environmental nonprofits referring to the Gulf of Mexico as the “Gulf of America” because Trump has decreed it must be so.
Yale University historian Timothy Snyder, author of the bestselling book “On Tyranny,” has drawn a crucial lesson from his extensive research into Nazi Germany and other authoritarian regimes: “Do not obey in advance.”
“Most of the power of authoritarianism is freely given,” he writes. “In times like these, individuals think ahead about what a more repressive government will want, and then offer themselves without being asked. A citizen who adapts in this way is teaching power what it can do.”
That’s exactly what the Bay Foundation is doing. Just like all the other businesses and institutions that should be standing up for climate progress and democracy and the downtrodden, it’s choosing risk aversion — and inviting Trump and Elon Musk to escalate their attacks on science and basic human decency.
Jon Christensen, a UCLA environmental historian, said it’s especially important for California to stand strong.
“If we can’t stand by our decades-long commitments to addressing climate change [when] we’ve spent billions of dollars on it, and if we can’t stand by our decades-long commitments to equity, who is going to?” he asked.
But even here, some officials are caving to Trump.
After several months groveling to the president in hopes of eventually securing federal relief for wildfire-ravaged Los Angeles County, Gov. Gavin Newsom has started gabbing with MAGA leaders on his new podcast. In the first episode, he reneged on his past support for the LGBTQ community, saying it’s “deeply unfair” when transgender women participate in women’s sports — mirroring a key talking point of Trump’s presidential campaign.
Several Democratic politicians, to their credit, spoke out against Newsom’s harmful remarks.
But when members of the public spoke up about the deletion of equity and climate commitments at last month’s Santa Monica Bay Restoration Commission meeting, commission board members said nothing in response.
When I reached out to board member Bruce Reznik, he expressed sympathy for both sides. Reznik, executive director of advocacy group LA Waterkeeper, told me he understands why the Bay Foundation “feels like they have no choice but to appease this administration.” He also hopes to see more nonprofits, companies and community leaders “stand up against these absurd and draconian directives.”
“It is infuriating that we have a federal administration where nonprofits working towards a more just and resilient society have to fear retaliation just for doing their jobs,” Reznik said in an email.
Hopefully, Reznik and other board members will insist at a future commission meeting that staff restore climate change and environmental justice initiatives to the work plan. If Trump’s EPA insists on testing the bounds of the Constitution and tries to withhold federal funding, the commission should take it to court.
Whatever happens next, Ford said the Bay Foundation is still committed “to diversity, to equal opportunity and a culture of belonging.” Those values are crucial to mapping out the future of Santa Monica Bay, in part because of the long history of race- and class-driven exclusion and displacement along the California coast.
And although Ford wouldn’t assure me that the group will still be thinking about climate change explicitly, he did say that ocean acidification, sea level rise, worsening drought-flood whiplash and rising temperatures — some of the main climate change effects on Santa Monica Bay — will be front and center in its programs.
I hope that’s true. But UCLA’s Christensen has his doubts.
“Without written commitments, we just have informal promises, and too often no accountability,” he said.
A single nonprofit can’t turn the tide of authoritarianism on its own. But historically, self-censorship and science denial don’t lead to good places. Instead of obeying in advance, the Bay Foundation should set an example.
ONE MORE THING
When I wrote a column last year calling on Dodgers owner Mark Walter to drop 76 gasoline owner Phillips 66 as a Dodger Stadium advertiser, I had no idea whether my idea would get any traction.
The Dodgers still haven’t acted on my suggestion. But this week, one of California’s top politicians, state Senate Majority Leader Lena Gonzalez (D-Long Beach), embraced my pitch. In a letter to Walter, she urged him to end all sponsorship deals with oil and gas companies, writing that “continuing to associate these corporations with our beloved boys in blue is not in our community or the planet’s best interest.”
More details here in my story for The Times. The Dodgers didn’t respond to my request for comment.
This is the latest edition of Boiling Point, a newsletter about climate change and the environment in the American West. Sign up here to get it in your inbox. And listen to our Boiling Point podcast here.
For more climate and environment news, follow @Sammy_Roth on X and @sammyroth.bsky.social on Bluesky.
Insights
L.A. Times Insights delivers AI-generated analysis on Voices content to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear on any news articles.
Perspectives
The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.
Ideas expressed in the piece
- The author asserts that The Bay Foundation (TBF) has removed references to climate change, environmental justice, and diversity initiatives from public documents and its website, aligning with Trump administration policies to avoid federal funding retaliation[1][2]. For example, a webpage detailing climate impacts on Santa Monica Bay was revised to omit “climate change,” and a Justice, Equity, Diversity & Inclusion (JEDI) pledge was deleted[1][3].
- TBF’s draft work plan for federal funding excluded commitments to “support efforts of disadvantaged communities” and struck through all mentions of climate change, despite prior mission-driven focus on these issues[1][4]. Critics argue this self-censorship reflects broader authoritarian compliance, with activists like Walter Lamb condemning the deletions as antithetical to TBF’s original goals[1].
- The article frames these changes as part of a dangerous trend of institutions preemptively surrendering democratic and scientific principles, citing UCLA environmental historian Jon Christensen’s warning that erasing written commitments undermines accountability[1][5].
Different views on the topic
- TBF CEO Tom Ford defends the deletions as necessary compliance with federal funding restrictions, citing Trump-era memos targeting climate and DEI programs[1][6]. Ford asserts that TBF remains committed to addressing climate-linked challenges like sea level rise and drought-flood cycles, even without explicit terminology[1].
- Bruce Reznik of LA Waterkeeper acknowledges TBF’s dilemma, expressing sympathy for their need to navigate federal constraints while urging broader resistance against “absurd and draconian directives”[1].
- Despite the controversy, TBF’s ongoing projects—such as dune restoration and kelp forest rehabilitation—continue to advance climate resilience objectives, demonstrating implicit adherence to ecological goals[2][5]. For instance, UCSB researchers confirmed that restored dunes at Santa Monica Beach effectively buffer against storms and sea level rise[2][5].
Toward a more sustainable California
Get Boiling Point, our newsletter exploring climate change, energy and the environment, and become part of the conversation — and the solution.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.
