One of the most consequential actions of the first 18 months of the second Trump administration has been the dismantlement of the federal workforce. At the center of the storm was the climate workforce, spanning a wide range of federal functions. The implications of those decisions extend far beyond the halls of federal agencies and firmly into the day-to-day lives of people around the world.

The scale of dismantlement was not incremental. Federal science agencies lost 117,840 employees between September 2024 and February 2026. Thousands of science roles across agencies such as NOAA, EPA, NASA-related programs, and the National Park Service were eliminated or suspended. More than 100 climate-focused National Science Foundation (NSF) grants were cancelled -- amounting to tens of millions in funds slashed for research projects related to climate change. 

The stated rationale was efficiency. The outcome was anything but. The need to respond to climate change hasn't changed with the political winds. If anything, the risks are accelerating. What has shifted, however, is the balance of responsibility: from the world's most powerful government to a disparate network of companies, NGOs, and individuals now left to manage the fallout. With that shift comes an irony. The same dismantlement that scattered a generation of climate expertise has made that expertise newly available to the private sector -- at precisely the moment the private sector needs it most.

A surplus of high-quality talent should, in theory, be good news for the private sector. As climate risk intensifies and organizations across industries build out climate functions, often for the first time, a market flooded with highly specialized, readily available talent would seem to present an obvious opportunity. And yet, from where I sit, as a former USAID technical specialist -- and proud diaspora of the USG climate community -- and now the CEO of a climate-focused executive search firm, the private sector is struggling to take advantage of the opportunity.

It is not, in my view, because they don’t understand the problem. Rather it's because the circumstances have short circuited the labor market.

First is the sheer volume of dislocation. A large, highly specialized workforce entered the labor market all at once rather than through normal attrition. Organizations are overwhelmed by hundreds, if not thousands, of applicants, many with impressive credentials. Hiring managers lack the capacity to review the volume, internal HR teams lack the technical expertise to distinguish between superficially similar candidates, and today's LLM-based screening tools are not yet capable of making those judgments reliably.

Add to this mix the effect of generative AI, which has removed any barrier to entry in the application process. Polished cover letters and tailored resumes can now be produced in seconds, dramatically increasing the volume of applications employers receive. A public posting generates a volume of applications that will make it harder, not easier, to identify the right person. Jobs that should take weeks to fill are instead taking months as hiring teams struggle to distinguish fit from increasingly homogeneous applications.

But the biggest barrier for organizations looking to capitalize on this moment is a lack of internal clarity, compounded by funding uncertainty and a regulatory environment that offers little guidance on what's coming next. Organizations building climate functions don't always fully understand what they need, and are often unsure how to evaluate professionals whose entire career was built outside the private sector. 

It is one of the most common conversations I have. Take a financial institution building its first physical climate risk function: does that role call for an atmospheric modeler with a background in climate science? An adaptation specialist with grounded experience helping communities manage risk? A policy expert who understands how regulation translates into operational exposure? Making these determinations is pivotal for shaping organizational response; getting the answer wrong could cost billions.

The acknowledgment of risk is nearly universal. According to analysis by the University of Zurich and highlighted in reporting by Climate Proof, physical climate risk has become nearly universal in corporate disclosure -- cited in nine of ten U.S. 10-K filings -- yet only one in five names a single concrete adaptation measure in response. For forward-thinking organizations, getting smart on climate means getting the right people in the right seats. That has rarely been more achievable than it is right now.

But the path forward requires a delicate balance of speed and intention.

Before writing a job description, organizations need to precisely define the problem the role will solve, and get clear on what kind of authority the role will bring. Climate risk touches capital allocation, supply chain strategy, and operational planning -- decisions that are typically owned by the CFO, COO, or board. If those stakeholders have not explicitly agreed to bring the climate function into those conversations, any climate expertise hired will not have the authority or capacity to influence the decisions they were brought in to inform. This is an organizational design problem rather than a hiring problem, and it needs to be resolved before the search begins.

Second, organizations would be well advised to leverage climate expertise to hire climate expertise. The full extent of climate risk (and, more broadly, environmental risk) is highly complex and nuanced. Hiring managers and HR teams without deep domain knowledge may be ill-placed to distinguish the best candidates and appropriately match expertise.

Third, organizations need to develop a literacy for public sector experience. The strongest candidates in this talent pool may not look like conventional private sector hires. A senior USAID climate advisor, a NOAA research scientist, or an EPA program director will not have P&L responsibility or corporate titles on their resume. What they will have is deep technical expertise, and a perspective that can only be earned through their years of grounded service.

The talent is here, but it won’t be here forever. The companies that recognize this moment for the window of opportunity that it is will build climate resilience and gain an important advantage for years to come. The remainder will find themselves planning for a future that no longer exists.

A few things in progress that you can expect to see in future issues:

A close look at critical minerals workforce needs: One of the most technically complex and least-served talent markets in the climate space. We've been watching it closely, and it’s clear the sector is moving faster than its hiring strategy. We’ll share an analysis imminently.

Continued search work with our anchor clients: Active searches in permitting, critical minerals, social performance, and commercial development, among others. More on what we're seeing across these roles in a future issue.

A recap of our first year: BeechTree turned one this summer. We marked it with our first team retreat -- and 22 sheep, brought in to clear invasive honeysuckle and wisteria from the property. They also escaped twice, delighted the neighborhood kids, and befuddled unsuspecting motorists.

As always, if you're navigating a senior climate or environment hire, or you know someone who is, we're easy to reach.

Daniel Abrahams
BeechTree Search
[email protected]

BeechTree is an executive search and advisory firm specializing in senior technical and leadership roles across climate, environment, and critical minerals. Founded by practitioners.