

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

Ashley Siefert, asiefert@ucsusa.org, +1 952-239-0199
More than 90 U.S. communities already face chronic inundation from rising seas caused by climate change, and the number could jump to nearly 170 communities in less than 20 years and as many as 670 by the end of the century, according to a study by analysts at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) published in the peer-reviewed journal Elementa today. The analysis is the first to look at the entire coastline of the lower 48 states and identify communities that will experience flooding so extensive and disruptive that it will require either expensive investments to fortify against rising seas or residents and businesses to prepare to abandon areas they call home. The analysis projects when communities can expect to see this degree of flooding and which cities and towns might avoid such flooding if the long-term temperature goals of the Paris climate agreement are achieved.
The study was published on the same day a 2,200 square mile iceberg--one of the largest ever recorded and nearly the size of Delaware--broke off from an ice shelf in Antarctica, highlighting how quickly the planet is warming.
The analysis defines a threshold above which flooding becomes unmanageable for people's daily lives. The threshold--10 percent or more of a community's usable, non-wetland area is flooded at least 26 times per year or the equivalent of a flood every other week--was determined after consulting technical experts and residents of communities currently experiencing disruptive flooding. Once a community--delineated by the Census Bureau as county subdivisions--crosses this threshold, it is considered "chronically inundated." To put it in perspective, Miami Beach--widely considered a poster child for rising seas--has not yet reached the 10 percent threshold set in this analysis, but is already facing tough, costly choices.
"Some 90 communities, mostly in Louisiana and Maryland where the land is also sinking, are already facing chronic inundation from sea level rise," said Erika Spanger-Siegfried, senior analyst in the Climate and Energy Program at UCS and a report author. "As global temperature increases sea level rise, several hundred coastal communities are looking at the same kind of chronic flooding around the middle of the century--from beach vacation destinations like the Jersey Shore and the Gulf Coast of Florida to larger cities, including Boston, Galveston, Savannah and Fort Lauderdale. By late century, four of the five boroughs of New York City (excluding the Bronx) would be chronically inundated. We hope this analysis provides a wake-up call to coastal communities--and us as a nation--so we can see this coming and have time to prepare."
The UCS study assessed three sea level rise scenarios: The "low scenario" assumes carbon emissions decline steeply, sea level rise is driven primarily by ocean warming with very little ice loss, and warming is limited to less than 2 degrees Celsius--in line with the primary goal of the Paris Agreement. The "intermediate scenario" projects carbon emissions peaking around mid-century and about 4 feet of sea level rise globally, with ice melting at a moderate rate that increases over time. In the "high scenario," emissions rise through the end of the century and ice melts faster to yield about 6.5 feet of sea level rise. Recent studies suggest the high scenario is increasingly plausible due to accelerating ice sheet loss. In fact, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration recently released a substantially higher scenario.
The UCS analysis found:
The chronically inundated communities in 2035--mainly on the Jersey Shore, mainland side of North Carolina's Pamlico Sound, southern Louisiana, and Maryland's Eastern Shore--are mostly clustered together in places already experiencing regular tidal flooding, or neighboring such places. By 2060, entirely new stretches of coastline become chronically inundated under both the intermediate and high sea level rise scenarios, including the greater Boston area and northern New Jersey, as well as additional communities along the northern coast of Texas, and Louisiana and Florida's Gulf Coasts.
"By 2060, hundreds of U.S. coastal communities--cities and towns of all kinds--face chronic inundation," said Kristy Dahl, a report author and climate scientist consultant to UCS. "In Texas, for example, bigger cities and industrial centers like Galveston and Sabine Pass become chronically inundated by mid-century. So do many tourist destinations, such as Sanibel and Captiva Islands in Florida, Hilton Head in South Carolina, Ocean City in Maryland, and more than a dozen towns along the Jersey Shore."
Chronic flooding becomes a problem for many major cities in the coming decades, but at the end of the century with the high scenario, that number tops 50 communities--both big cities and large county subdivisions--with populations over 100,000, including Boston, Newark, Fort Lauderdale, and four of the five boroughs of New York City. Residents in these cities will need to grapple with the question of whether to adapt or relocate. And while the West Coast was previously able to escape mostly unscathed, by 2100 the San Francisco Bay and greater Los Angeles areas join the ranks of the chronically inundated.
The communities that will be affected have three basic strategies to cope with rising seas: defend, accommodate and retreat. Some East and Gulf Coast communities are already employing defensive and accommodation measures such as seawalls, tide gates, levees, elevated homes and large-scale pumping systems. Efforts to accommodate or keep out water may stall the inundation projected by this analysis, but often at great cost and for a limited time. That means hundreds of communities along the coasts, from Maine to the state of Washington, will be forced to make difficult choices about how much to invest in flooded areas versus when to retreat from them. Likewise, residents in affected areas will be forced to decide their tipping point for remaining at home or relocating.
"By making sound decisions soon, communities can prepare for chronic inundation in the time they have," said Shana Udvardy, report author and climate preparedness specialist at UCS. "This could help them avoid serious losses not only of homes, schools, businesses, and other infrastructure, but also of regional history, sense of place, local culture, and the community's way of life."
The analysis also highlights that some Americans will be harder hit than others. By using a previously published index of socioeconomic vulnerability, the study identified that nearly 60 communities facing chronic inundation in the next 20 years are also contending with social and economic challenges that may leave them with fewer resources to plan or adapt, and thus exposed to disproportionate harms. While equitable solutions to chronic inundation will require inclusion of all voices, people of color and low-income people are too often excluded from decisions affecting their neighborhoods and communities, and face significant hurdles accessing federal and state programs, as well as funding.
The analysis makes a number of policy recommendations to help coastal communities at risk of chronic inundation, including phasing out policies that encourage risky coastal development, and bolstering existing policies or enacting new ones that would bring about investments to make communities more resilient to sea level rise. But it's achieving the long- term temperature goals established in the Paris Agreement and limiting global ice loss that could have the greatest effect. Holding warming to between 1.5 and 2 degrees Celsius by the end of the century could spare between roughly 200 and 380 U.S. coastal communities, including nearly 50 major U.S. cities and many more cities worldwide, from chronic flooding and possible retreat, depending on the amount of sea level rise.
"Meeting the long term goals of the Paris Agreement would offer coastal communities facing chronic flooding their best chance to limit the harms of sea level rise," said Rachel Cleetus, lead economist and climate policy manager at UCS. "Despite President Trump's attempts to undermine near-term federal action on climate change, other countries as well as U.S. states, cities, businesses and citizens are showing firm resolve to fulfill the promise of Paris. They understand that if we fail to limit warming, we're committing a great many people to a future of flooding and inundation, and the hard choices and significant costs that come with it."
To view the report PDF, click here.
The Elementa journal article can be found by clicking here.
To view a spreadsheet that sorts the chronically inundated communities by state, click here. To see the communities sorted by year, click here.
To use the interactive mapping tool, click here. The various tabs allow you to explore the amount of land area flooded, and the communities that are affected by the rising seas--including the ones that may have fewer resources to cope with chronic inundation, and ones that could avoid such flooding if the Paris Agreement's temperature goals were achieved. By scrolling, you will see buttons for each time frame examined in the report for both the intermediate and high sea level rise scenarios. As you zoom in, the maps become more detailed. You can also click on a specific community for more details about it.
For state-specific fact sheets, community case studies, Spanish language materials, blogs and a video, click here.
The Union of Concerned Scientists is the leading science-based nonprofit working for a healthy environment and a safer world. UCS combines independent scientific research and citizen action to develop innovative, practical solutions and to secure responsible changes in government policy, corporate practices, and consumer choices.
“We are currently concentrated on ending the war in the region, including in Lebanon,” said Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei, who added that "no nuclear negotiations” are happening at this stage.
A spokesperson for Iran's Foreign Ministry on Sunday said the Iranian leadership is reviewing the response issued by the US government over the weekend following a 14-point plan offered by Tehran to bring the unpopular war started by President Donald Trump—now in its third month—to an end.
“The Americans have given their answer to Iran’s 14-point plan to the Pakistani side, and we are currently reviewing it,” Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei said in an interview with Iranian television.
Baghaei said that the offered framework is strictly focused on ending the immediate hostilities and that the plan contains "absolutely no details regarding the country’s nuclear issues," which he suggested could be discussed at a later time.
“We are not currently engaged in any negotiations over the nuclear issue, and decisions about the future will be made in due course,” he said, even though Trump and US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth have continued to claim the preventing the Iranians from having a nuclear weapons program—which Tehran denies having and US intelligence assessments have shown does not exist in the manner that US officials describe it—is central to their war aims.
“I will soon be reviewing the plan that Iran has just sent to us," Trump said in a social media post on Saturday, "but can’t imagine that it would be acceptable in that they have not yet paid a big enough price for what they have done to Humanity and the World, over the last 47 years."
Despite some reporting examining what's purportedly in the Iranian proposal, the exact details of the 14-point plan remain murky or contentious, depending on who you ask. Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, gave his assessment of the current situation on Sunday by saying:
Overall, the Iranians appear to be pursuing a grand bargain—without labeling it as such. This is not merely a proposal aimed at securing a ceasefire, or even a formal end to the current conflict, but rather an attempt to resolve the broader US-Iran antagonism that has persisted for the past 47 years. Implicit in this approach is an expectation that both sides would also restrain their respective regional partners and proxies (Israel, Hezbollah, etc.). In many respects, framing the proposal in this way may align more effectively with Trump’s instincts and psychology.
Meanwhile, a poll out Friday showed that 61% of Americans believe Trump's launching of the war was a mistake, and an even higher number (66%) disapprove of how he's handling the conflict. The same ABC News/Washington Post/Ipsos poll also showed that Trump is now facing the lowest approval ratings of his presidency.
Speaking with Al-Jazeera over the weekend, Parsi explained that Trump's maximalist demands, including the blockade that it has tried to impose on Iran near the Strait of Hormuz, have made negotiations much more difficult:
Trump had time on his side during the ceasefire - until he imposed the blockade per the recommendation of FDD, Israel, and Lindsey Graham. Though the blockade is hurting Iran, it has ended up hurting Trump more, with oil prices now exceeding where they were even during the war… pic.twitter.com/wNSbvjtwSz
— Trita Parsi (@tparsi) May 3, 2026
Over the weekend, archival footage from the 1990s shared online by journalist Séamus Malekafzali showed former Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps commander Hossein Salami, who was killed by US-Israeli forces last year, talking to the IRGC's staff college about the country's strategy of "asymmetric warfare" if and when it ever faced an opponent that was perceived to have military superiority over it.
Fascinating footage released by the IRGC of a class at the org's staff college in the 90s, where future IRGC leader Hossein Salami teaches a course on asymmetric warfare, teaching officers how to drag out a war with the US by driving up economic costs and political turmoil. pic.twitter.com/et5ZVFIEMi
— Séamus Malekafzali (@Seamus_Malek) May 2, 2026
"The chance of conflict with American forces is very possible," Salami says in the video, according to the English subtitles provided, but the "possibility of victory really exists" if Iranians are able to move the conflict toward "the area of our capabilities into the area of America's weaknesses."
That strategy, as Malekafzali paraphrases it, is "to drag out a war with the US by driving up economic costs and political turmoil," thereby draining the US and sapping its power by inflicting economic pain and political pressure.
As many foreign policy observers have pointed out since Trump launched the war, the strategy of Iran to inflict pain on US allies in the region and economic pain at a global level—such as has been achieved by the closing of the Strait of Hormuz—is very much what Salami describes.
As geopolitical analyst Misbah Qasemi explained, Salami's point was basically this: "Don't match their strength (air power, technology). Attack their weaknesses (economic endurance, political will, domestic opinion). Drag them into your terrain—maritime, cyber, proxy networks—where their advantages neutralize themselves."
This point was made explicitly by Harrison Mann, a fellow with the advocacy group Win Without War, during a Sunday appearance on CNN, where he explained how this plays out in practical terms.
Told @brikeilarcnn: The "good news" is Iran won't become another quagmire because, unlike other countries the US has picked on in the region, Iran can actually inflict pain back on the US. In this case via economic warfare, which is not sustainable for Trump in the long run. pic.twitter.com/lwySB2BLca
— Harrison Mann (@Harrison_J_Mann) May 3, 2026
"Iran can actually inflict pain back on the US," said Mann. "In this case, via economic warfare, which is not sustainable for Trump in the long run."
"The vaults are open and the arms trade is thriving before the war and after it," said one Nobel Peace Prize laureate.
As the US voting public continues to express its discontent over the disastrous war of choice against Iran that US President Donald Trump launched just over two months ago, fresh criticism followed after weekend reporting revealed the administration skirted congressional review to approve an $8.6 billion weapons deal with the United Arab Emirates and other allies in the Middle East.
Announced Friday night quietly by the US State Department, as the New York Times reports, the "sales would entail the transfer of rockets to Israel, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates and air-defense equipment to Qatar and Kuwait."
According to the Times:
Under the terms of the deal with Qatar, the Gulf country would pay more than $4 billion for American-made Patriot missile interceptors — global stockpiles of which have dwindled during the war with Iran.
Israel, the Emirates and Qatar would receive an Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System, which fires laser-guided rockets. Kuwait also purchased an advanced aerial defense system for about $2.5 billion.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio expedited the deals under an emergency provision allowing the “immediate sale” of the weapons, the State Department said, bypassing standard congressional review and prompting criticism from Democratic lawmakers. This is the third time the second Trump administration has invoked an emergency authorization during the Iran war to bypass Congress on arms sales.
"No comment," said Mohamed ElBaradei, a Nobel Peace Prize winner and the former head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), in an eye-rolling response to the news on social media.
After a commenter suggested that "America opened the door to war for [the countries taking part in the sale] so they would open their treasuries and the Israeli-American arms trade would boom after a slump," ElBaradei seemed to agree.
"The vaults are open, and the arms trade is thriving before the war and after it," he said.
Kenneth Roth, former executive director of Human Rights Watch and now a visiting professor at Princeton University, said: "Trump is bypassing Congress to fast-track arms sales to the United Arab Emirates, apparently without receiving any promise that the UAE would stop arming the genocidal Rapid Support Forces (RSF) in Sudan."
The RSF has been accused of atrocities in the ongoing Sudanese civil war, and the backing it has received from the US, with the UAE as its closely allied proxy, has been the source of outrage and criticism.
"Over and over again, the Trump administration is exposing private Social Security data," said one watchdog group who called the leak of personal information "a goldmine for identity thieves" and other fraudsters.
A newly reported failure of the Trump administration's ability to handle sensitive private information in the social programs it is tasked with operating triggered a fresh wave of anger over the weekend after it was revealed that healthcare providers' Social Security numbers were made public as part of a faulty Medicare portal rollout.
The Washington Post discovered the compromised database and alerted the administration last week, before publishing a story about it on Friday, after efforts had been made to protect the sensitive information from further compromise.
According to the Post:
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) last year created a directory to help seniors look up which doctors and medical providers accept which insurance plans, framing it as an overdue improvement and part of the Trump administration’s initiative to modernize health care technology.
But a publicly accessible database used to populate the directory contains some of the providers’ Social Security numbers, linked to their names and other identifying information. For at least several weeks, CMS made the database available for public use as part of its data transparency efforts.
While the reporting noted that the files were "not immediately visible to users who [visited] the provider directory," lawmakers and experts said the compromised information would be a treasure trove for fraudsters.
“The more we learn about how the Trump Administration handles the people’s most sensitive data, the clearer their incompetence becomes."
Critics pounced on the new reporting, calling it "yet another mess-up by the Team Trump" and only the latest evidence that the administration cannot and should not be trusted to protect the nation's most successful anti-poverty programs or the sensitive personal data of the American people who entrust the government with that information.
"Over and over again, the Trump administration is exposing private Social Security data," said Social Security Works, an advocacy group that serves as a public watchdog for the nation's social programs.
The compromised database, said the group, "is a goldmine for identity thieves, scammers, and foreign governments. And it is undermining the very foundation of our Social Security system."
"This is a failure by this administration," said Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) in response to the reporting. "Exposing Social Security numbers, whether patients or providers, is unacceptable."
Rep. Richard Neal (D-Mass.), the ranking member of the House committee that oversees the Medicare program, put the onus on his Republican colleagues in Congress.
“The more we learn about how the Trump Administration handles the people’s most sensitive data, the clearer their incompetence becomes,” Neal told the Post in a statement. “Do House Republicans need to see their own data exposed before they do right by their constituents and act?”
In March, as Common Dreams reported at the time, a whistleblower filed a complaint with the Social Security Administration accusing a former staffer with Trump's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), run for a time by right-wing billionaire Elon Musk, of trying to share information from SSA databases with his private employer.
Since the outset of Trump's second term, DOGE's meddling with Social Security and Trump's undermining of the program have been the source of deep anger and concerns among the program's defenders.
In a social media post on Saturday citing the whistleblower allegations from March, Rep. John Larson (D-Conn.) said, "For more than a year, 'DOGE' has been combing through the American people's records. They want to use your data to overturn elections and profit in the private sector. Enough! This administration must be held accountable for this massive data breach!
On Friday, responding to the Post's new reporting about the compromised database of physicians' private information, Larsen condemned Republicans for their ongoing and pervasive failures in the face of Trump's malfeasance and incompetence.
DOGE, said Larsen, "has been in your data for more than a year. We just learned that physicians' Social Security numbers were publicly exposed in an online portal launched by ‘DOGE’ officials."
"If this isn't enough for Republicans to act," he asked, "where will they draw the line?"