Stanford University is investing up to $100,000 in new research, through special Environmental Venture Projects (EVP) grants, to urgently track the unfolding consequences of shifting U.S. policy on environmental and human wellbeing. Awarded by the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment beginning January 26, 2026, these grants will fund teams examining impacts across climate, health, food, and water systems. The EVP program recognizes that “federal priorities related to environmental protection…have shifted rapidly over the past year, with potentially far-reaching consequences,” demanding real-time analysis of policy implementation. Building on a history of supporting interdisciplinary research – with over $35 million awarded to 207 teams in 37 countries – these grants aim to build more resilient and equitable environmental outcomes.
Stanford EVP Grants Address Shifting U.S. Environmental Policy
Rapid alterations in U.S. federal environmental priorities are prompting a surge in targeted research, as evidenced by Stanford University’s investment in Environmental Venture Projects (EVP). These grants, of up to $100,000 over two years, directly address the urgent need to understand how policy shifts impact both ecosystems and public wellbeing. Researchers are focusing on areas experiencing particularly acute changes, including climate, health, food systems, and biodiversity, recognizing that “these changes represent a marked departure in U.S. policy direction,” necessitating real-time impact assessment. A key focus is tracking the on-the-ground consequences of altered land management.
Kate Maher, Earth System Science, will be building a system to monitor new forest projects, flagging instances where “key safeguards like public input and scientific review are being bypassed or weakened.” Simultaneously, her team will establish ecological baselines to quantify the effects of these changes on forest health. Other projects are investigating the sociopolitical ramifications of cancelled clean-energy projects, with Sara Constantino, Environmental Social Sciences, aiming to understand “why policies with broad material benefits remain politically vulnerable.” Her study will employ a geographically targeted longitudinal survey to assess public attitudes in affected communities.
Beyond domestic impacts, EVP funding extends to understanding the interconnectedness of U.S. policy and global wellbeing. Claire Adida, Political Science, is examining how changes to immigration and foreign aid are affecting families in climate-vulnerable regions of Guatemala, noting that declining remittances and NGO funding exacerbate challenges in coping with climate shocks. Furthermore, researchers are analyzing the potential consequences of weakening protections for marine life, with Jeremy Goldbogen, Oceans, forecasting the impacts of rolling back the Marine Mammal Protection Act and Endangered Species Act.
Since their launch, the EVP and Realizing Environmental Innovation Program (REIP) have collectively awarded over $35 million, supporting 207 teams across all seven Stanford schools in 37 countries, and leveraging over $100 million in additional funding.
Forest Management & Clean Energy Policy Impact Assessments
A wave of research is now focused on quantifying the repercussions of rapidly shifting U.S. federal environmental policies, with significant funding allocated to understanding the impacts on both ecosystems and human populations. The Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment has responded by awarding special Environmental Venture Projects (EVP) grants – up to $100,000 over two years – to teams investigating these complex interactions, recognizing a “marked departure in U.S. policy direction” necessitates real-time tracking of implementation and outcomes.
These projects span critical areas from climate and clean energy to food security and biodiversity, aiming to build more resilient and equitable environmental futures. One crucial area of investigation centers on forest management, where researchers like Kate Maher, Earth System Science, are developing tools to monitor changes in public lands management.
Aidee Guzman, Biology, will focus on the effects of altered farming and pesticide regulations on soil health and small farmers in California’s San Joaquin Valley, seeking “practical tools for farmers and science-based guidance for policymakers.” These diverse projects, alongside studies of whale protection rollbacks and flood impacts on human health, demonstrate a concerted effort to translate policy shifts into quantifiable ecological and social consequences.
Guatemala Climate Migration & California Flood Health Risks
Shifting U.S. policy is prompting focused research into interconnected environmental and human challenges, including climate-driven migration from Guatemala and escalating health risks from flooding in California. policy direction” and the need to track impacts in real time. One project, led by Claire Adida of Political Science, examines how alterations to U.S. immigration and foreign aid are impacting rural Guatemalan families already vulnerable to climate change. As “remittances decline and NGO funding is cut,” households struggle to adapt to increasingly frequent climate shocks, necessitating documentation of effective and failing programs.
The research will leverage a large-scale household survey conducted with Mercy Corps to understand adaptation strategies and inform more effective policies. Simultaneously, researchers are confronting the immediate health consequences of extreme weather events closer to home. Steve Gorelick, Earth System Science, is leading a project focused on inland and coastal flooding in California, aiming to establish causal links between inundation and public health outcomes, including mortality and disease spread. “Although floods pose serious health risks, their direct health impacts are not well understood because of limited data and lack of strong causal analysis,” highlighting a critical gap in preparedness.
This project utilizes human-centered machine learning, combining health data, flood records, remote sensing, and modeling to produce “reliable, actionable policies for flood preparedness and health risk management.” The resulting maps and policy briefs will pinpoint high-risk areas and guide mitigation strategies, with potential for nationwide application.
These changes represent a marked departure in U.S. policy direction and create an urgent need for research that can track how new policies are implemented and how their impacts unfold in real time.
Whale Protection Rollbacks & Soil Health for Farmers
Recent shifts in U.S. policy are driving a wave of urgent research, with scientists racing to understand the consequences of altered environmental protections and agricultural guidelines. A project led by Jeremy Goldbogen will specifically investigate how proposed rollbacks to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) and Endangered Species Act (ESA) could jeopardize whale populations and the economies that depend on them. These laws, he notes, have been instrumental in whale recovery since the 1970s, “supporting billions of dollars in economic activity and thousands of jobs in the Blue Economy.” The research will focus on humpback whales along the U.S.
West Coast, modeling population outcomes under various policy scenarios and predicting future habitat suitability. Goldbogen’s team will also assess the escalating threat of fishing gear entanglements, already exceeding sustainable levels for endangered populations. “Climate change is making these risks worse by pushing whale prey closer to shore and reducing its nutritional value,” he explains, highlighting the complex interplay between environmental stressors and policy decisions. Simultaneously, research is focusing inland on the vital link between farming practices and soil health.
The administration’s mixed messaging – supporting soil health while simultaneously cutting climate programs and loosening pesticide regulations – creates significant uncertainty, potentially jeopardizing the livelihoods of those reliant on healthy soil. The project will investigate how pesticide use and practices like crop diversity affect soil health, biodiversity, and long-term farm resilience. These parallel investigations—one focused on oceanic giants, the other on terrestrial ecosystems—underscore the broad reach of U.S. policy changes and the critical need for rapid, data-driven assessments of their impacts.
The current administration sends mixed signals: supporting soil health in some areas while cutting climate programs and allowing greater pesticide use in others.
Aidee Guzman
