

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 Nunes at UCS
asiefert@ucsusa.org
202-331-5666
Increases in potentially lethal heat driven by climate change will affect every state in the contiguous U.S. in the decades ahead, according to a new report and accompanying peer-reviewed study in Environmental Research Communications, both by the Union of Concerned Scientists, released today. Few places would be unaffected by extreme heat conditions by midcentury and only a few mountainous regions would remain extreme heat refuges by the century's end.
Without global action to reduce heat-trapping emissions, the number of days per year when the heat index--or "feels like" temperature--exceeds 100 degrees Fahrenheit would more than double from historical levels to an average of 36 across the country by midcentury and increase four-fold to an average of 54 by late century. The average number of days per year nationwide with a heat index above 105 degrees Fahrenheit would more than quadruple to 24 by midcentury and increase eight-fold to 40 by late century.
"Our analysis shows a hotter future that's hard to imagine today," said Kristina Dahl, senior climate scientist at UCS and co-author of the report "Killer Heat in the United States: Climate Choices and the Future of Dangerously Hot Days." "Nearly everywhere, people will experience more days of dangerous heat even in the next few decades. By the end of the century, with no action to reduce global emissions, parts of Florida and Texas would experience the equivalent of at least five months per year on average when the 'feels like' temperature exceeds 100 degrees Fahrenheit, with most of these days even surpassing 105 degrees. On some days, conditions would be so extreme that they exceed the upper limit of the National Weather Service heat-index scale and a heat index would be incalculable. Such conditions could pose unprecedented health risks."
In the U.S., these "off-the-charts" days now occur only in the Sonoran Desert--located on the border of southern California and Arizona--where historically fewer than 2,000 residents have been exposed to the equivalent of a week or more of these conditions per year on average. By midcentury, these "off-the-charts" conditions would extend to other parts of the country, and areas currently home to more than 6 million people would be subjected to them for the equivalent of a week or more per year on average. By late century this would increase to areas where more than 118 million people--over one-third of the U.S. population--live.
"We have little to no experience with 'off-the-charts' heat in the U.S.," said Erika Spanger-Siegfried, lead climate analyst at UCS and report co-author. "These conditions occur at or above a heat index of 127 degrees, depending on temperature and humidity. Exposure to conditions in that range makes it difficult for human bodies to cool themselves and could be deadly."
Overall, the study showed that the Southeast and Southern Great Plains would bear the brunt of the extreme heat. With no action to reduce emissions, areas of states in these regions would experience the equivalent of three months per year on average by midcentury that feel hotter than 105 degrees Fahrenheit, possibly as hot as 115 degrees, 125 degrees, or worse. In this time frame, parts of those regions and the Midwest would experience "off-the-charts" heat days for the first time. By late century, communities in each state in the contiguous U.S. would experience days with a heat index exceeding 105 degrees Fahrenheit, with nearly one-third of the population enduring the equivalent of two months of such heat. Similarly, "off-the-charts" heat days would spread to communities in 47 states.
In addition, the analysis found that by midcentury with no reduction in global emissions:
According to the analysis, by late century with no reduction in global emissions:
The analysis calculated the frequency of days with heat index thresholds above 90 degrees Fahrenheit--the point at which outdoor workers generally become susceptible to heat-related illness--as well as above 100 and 105 degrees Fahrenheit, when the National Weather Service (NWS) generally recommends issuing heat advisories and excessive heat warnings, respectively. The number of high heat-index days was calculated by averaging projections from 18 high-resolution climate models between April and October. The report looked at these conditions for three possible futures. The "no action scenario" assumes carbon emissions continue to rise and the global average temperature increases nearly 4.3 degrees Celsius (about 8 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels by century's end. The "slow action scenario" assumes carbon emissions start declining at midcentury and the global average temperature rises 2.4 degrees Celsius (4.3 degrees Fahrenheit) by century's end. In the "rapid action scenario," global average warming is limited to 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit)--in line with the Paris Agreement. All population data presented here, including for future projections, is based on the most recent U.S. Census conducted in 2010 and does not account for population growth or changes in distribution.
"The rise in days with extreme heat will change life as we know it nationwide, but with significant regional differences," said Rachel Licker, senior climate scientist at UCS and report co-author. "For example, in some regions currently unaccustomed to extreme heat--those such as the upper Midwest, Northeast and Northwest--the ability of people and infrastructure to cope with it is woefully inadequate. At the same time, people in states already experiencing extreme heat--including in the Southeast, Southern Great Plains and Southwest--have not seen heat like this. By late century, they may have to significantly alter ways of life to deal with the equivalent of up to five months a year with a heat index above--often way above--105 degrees. We don't know what people would be able and willing to endure, but such heat could certainly drive large-scale relocation of residents toward cooler regions."
The report notes that the rising heat could particularly affect outdoor workers and thus sectors depending on their labor.
"By the end of the century, on most days between April and October, construction workers in parts of Florida won't be able to safely work outside during the day because the heat index would exceed 100 degrees," said Dahl. "Likewise, agricultural centers such as Illinois and California's Central Valley could struggle to keep farm workers safe, with the heat index exceeding 90 degrees and 100 degrees, respectively, for the equivalent of about three months a year. If farm workers are unable to work as a result of extreme heat, this could affect the productivity of farming enterprises."
People exposed to the same heat event can have different levels of heat-related health risk, with children, elderly adults, people with special needs, and outdoor workers having higher risks of heat-related illness and death. City-dwellers contend with the urban heat island effect--a phenomenonwhere where heat-retaining materials and surfaces drive up temperatures, particularly at night--which can increase rates of heat-related illness. Meanwhile, residents of some rural areas may face higher risk of heat-related hospitalization and death given their distance from cooling centers and medical facilities.
"Low-income communities, communities of color and other vulnerable populations may be particularly at risk when exposed to extreme heat," said Juan Declet-Barreto, climate scientist at UCS and report co-author. "Longstanding social and economic inequities have led to these communities often having more limited access to transportation, cooling centers, and health care, and they may lack air conditioning, or the financial resources to run it."
The report clearly shows how actions taken, or not taken, within the next few years to reduce emissions will help determine how hot and humid our future becomes. The longer the U.S. and other countries wait to drastically reduce emissions, the less feasible it will be to realize the "rapid action scenario" analyzed.
"The best ways to avoid the worst impacts of an overheated future are to enact policies that rapidly reduce global warming emissions and to help communities prepare for the extreme heat that is already inevitable," said Astrid Caldas, senior climate scientist at UCS and report co-author. "Extreme heat is one of the climate change impacts most responsive to emissions reductions, making it possible to limit how extreme our hotter future becomes for today's children."
Governors and state legislators have begun moving toward 100 percent clean energy and Congress is considering a range of energy and climate policies--including renewable energy standards, climate resilient infrastructure and innovation incentives, which may see bipartisan support--that could help keep the worst at bay.
"To ensure a safe future, elected officials urgently need to transform our existing climate and energy policies," said Rachel Cleetus, lead economist and policy director at UCS and report co-author. "Economists have advised putting a price on carbon emissions to properly account for damages from the fossil-fuel-based economy and signal intentions to protect the environment."
The report includes a range of preparedness recommendations for governments, including: investing in heat-resilient infrastructure; creating heat adaptation and emergency response plans; expanding funding for programs to provide cooling assistance to low- and fixed-income households; directing the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to set up protective occupational standards for workers during extreme heat; requiring utilities to keep power on for residents during extreme heat events; and investing in research, data tools and public communication to better predict extreme heat and keep people safe.
To view the report PDF, click here.
Spreadsheets with our data on extreme heat are available and can be sorted by city, by county, by state, by region and by population.
To get the results for your city or county by using our interactive widget, click here.
To use the interactive mapping tool, click here. The map allows you to learn more about extreme heat in specific counties. When you zoom in, the maps become more detailed.
For all other materials, including regional press releases, our methodology document and Spanish-language materials, 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.
"Drug suspects should be arrested and prosecuted, not summarily executed," a human rights expert said.
The Trump administration continued its illegal bombing of small boats in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific on Friday, killing two and leaving one survivor in its third such strike in five days.
US Southern Command announced the attack on social media, claiming that "intelligence confirmed the vessel was transiting along known narco-trafficking routes in the Eastern Pacific and was engaged in narco-trafficking operations."
"Under [President Donald] Trump's illegal orders, the US military conducted its third boat strike in five days against supposed drug smugglers, killing at least two. Each of these is a murder. Drug suspects should be arrested and prosecuted, not summarily executed," former Human Rights Watch executive director Kenneth Roth wrote on social media Saturday in response to the news.
Friday's strike marks the 57th by the Trump administration and raises the death toll from the boat-strike campaign, which experts say is illegal even if every boat targeted is ferrying drugs, to 192.
"Really absurdly, there’s been no impact on flows of drugs toward the United States."
"What do you call a US citizen who smuggles drugs, SOUTHCOM? A 'narco-terrorist'?" social media user Andrew Marinelli said in response to the Southern Command announcement. "If a US citizen [allegedly] drove drugs into Canada and they blew him away with a drone strike, would you accept it?"
The administration has also not provided evidence for its claims that the boats belong to drug traffickers, and relatives of the victims say at least some of those killed were simply on the water to fish.
Friday's strike was notable in that it left behind a survivor and that US Southern Command said it had activated the US Coast Guard to conduct a search and rescue operation.
The announcement may reflect a response to backlash after news broke last year that, in the administration's first such strike, commanders had ordered a vessel bombed twice when it became clear there were survivors, in keeping with Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth's directive to "kill everybody."
Despite scrutiny, the campaign has continued and even escalated in the past few weeks. There have been three such bombings since the beginning of May, according to The Intercept: One on May 4 in the Caribbean that killed two, one on May 5 in the Pacific that killed three, and the Pacific strike on May 8 that killed two. The reported survivor remains missing.
While the Trump administration claims the strikes have dramatically reduced the flow of illegal drugs into the US, evidence reveals this is not the case, according to an Intercept analysis published May 4.
For example, Trump claimed that drugs entering the US by sea had decreased by 97%, but the administration's own data contradicts this claim, retired Rear Adm. William Baumgartner told The Intercept.
Adam Isacson, the director for defense oversight at human rights group Washington Office on Latin America, said, "Really absurdly, there’s been no impact on flows of drugs toward the United States,” noting that Customs and Border Protection seized 6,000 pounds more cocaine at all US borders in the seven months following the strikes than in the seven months before.
As Sanho Tree, who directs the Institute for Policy Studies' Drug Policy Project, put it, "It wouldn’t be the first time this administration just made up something out of whole cloth."
"Across the South, states are rushing to suppress Black voting power now that they mistakenly believe they can get away with it," one advocate said.
In the latest fallout from the Supreme Court's further weakening of the Voting Rights Act in Louisiana v. Callais on April 29, Alabama and South Carolina on Friday both took steps to further gerrymandering plans that would reduce representation for Black and Democratic voters in their states.
Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey signed legislation on Friday that would ignore the results of May 19 primaries and hold a new election if federal courts agree to rescind the creation of a second near-Black majority congressional district in the state.
At the same time, the South Carolina legislature held a meeting to consider creating new maps that could grant the Republican Party the chance to win all of the state's seven seats in the US House of Representatives by redrawing the state's only majority-Black district.
“I was out there in 1965 marching for the right to vote, and now we are back here in 2026 doing the same thing,” Betty White Boynton, who joined a protest outside the Alabama Statehouse on Friday, told The Associated Press.
“What happened here today is that we were set back as a people to the days of Reconstruction.”
The moves, with risk eroding the gains of the civil rights movement, also come in the midst of a redistricting battle set off when President Donald Trump called on GOP-led states to redraw their maps to help his party retain control of the House in the 2026 midterm elections
In Alabama, the Supreme Court case Allen v. Milligan led to the creation of a second district with close to a Black majority and the election of Democratic Rep. Shomari Figures. The new map would leave Black voters with a chance to elect a representative in just 1 of the state's 7 districts, despite the fact that they make up 30% of the population.
“Despite remaining under a court order that bars Alabama from redrawing its congressional map and that voters have already cast ballots in the state’s congressional primary elections, Alabama Republicans are desperately and shamelessly moving to pave the way for reversion to a map that robs Black voters of equal access to representation in the US House," John Bisognano, president of the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, said in a statement.
Bisognano continued: "What is happening in Alabama is not happening in a vacuum. Across the South, states are rushing to suppress Black voting power now that they mistakenly believe they can get away with it. The Alabama legislature’s fevered rush to diminish Black voting power in their state is clear proof that protections once afforded under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act remain vital still today. Alabamians across the state are rising up in protest to this immoral power grab—their voices must not be silenced.”
After the Republican-majority Alabama legislature passed the bill on Friday, state Sen. Rodger Smitherman (D-18) said, “What happened here today is that we were set back as a people to the days of Reconstruction,” according to AP.
However, it is unclear how successful the Republican effort will be in Alabama, given that the Supreme Court explicitly said in Louisiana v. Callais that its decision did not apply to Alabama, as Figures pointed out at a town hall Friday evening. Also on Friday, a three-judge panel refused to lift an injunction on changing the state's maps, meaning the decision will rest with the Supreme Court on Monday, May 11.
"I feel pretty confident that the lines will stay the same in the immediate future, but it has not changed the efforts of Republicans here in the state of Alabama and across the country," Figures said, as Alabama Reflector reported.
In South Carolina on Friday, legislators held a meeting that would be the first step toward redrawing their districts to eliminate the one currently represented by Democratic Congressman Jim Clyburn. While lawmakers agreed that the Supreme Court's ruling in Louisiana v. Callais would allow for the redistricting, some questioned the wisdom and morality of the act.
“I agree if the law allows us to do it, then we can do It,” state Rep. Justin Bamberg (D-90) said. “But I can slap somebody’s mama and it’s not the right thing to do.”
Bisognano also linked the South Carolina plan to Louisiana v. Callais:
Following the Supreme Court’s shameful decision to gut the Voting Rights Act, South Carolina Republicans are now racing to be second to push through an immoral gerrymander that would demolish the lone congressional district that gives South Carolina’s Black voters a meaningful opportunity for representation in the US House.
This gerrymander is a deliberate attempt by South Carolina Republicans to tear apart a long-standing Black-opportunity district and diminish their vote by spreading Black voters into six districts that stretch over a hundred miles in every direction. On this gerrymander, all South Carolinians would lose. South Carolinians deserve maps that respect communities of interest and protect the fundamental right to vote.
Rep. Clyburn, meanwhile, stood up for his district and criticized state Republicans for prioritizing loyalty to Trump over loyalty to voters.
"Republicans are trying to break apart South Carolina’s 6th District. Not because voters demanded it, but because Donald Trump requested it," Clyburn wrote on social media Thursday.
He continued: "This fight is bigger than one district. It’s about whether our democracy belongs to the people, or to politicians who change the rules when they don’t like the results. We cannot let them succeed."
The Alabama and South Carolina developments capped a dramatic week for national redistricting battles. On Thursday, the Tennessee House voted to break up the state's only Black congressional district. The Senate followed suit, and Gov. Bill Lee promptly signed the new map into law.
On Friday, the Virginia state Supreme Court dealt a blow to Democratic efforts to counteract the new Republican maps, striking down a voter-approved redistricting in Virginia that would favor Democrats.
They put me through a sham immigration process while guaranteeing the outcome in advance," Mahmoud Khalil said.
An immigration court decision that could hasten the deportation of Palestinian rights activist Mahmoud Khalil was marked by irregularities, including unusual speed and the recusals of several judges, The New York Times reported Friday.
The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which is housed in the Department of Justice (DOJ) but is legally enjoined to make independent decisions, ruled on April 9 that Khalil could be deported from the US. However, documents obtained by the Times show that the case was fast-tracked in a manner that experts say is unusual.
"This is the due process the administration is offering me, corrupt and unprecedented," Khalil posted on social media Friday in response to the Times' reporting.
Khalil, a student leader of Columbia University protests against the Gaza genocide, was an early target of the Trump administration's crackdown on pro-Palestinian speech when he was abducted by Department of Homeland Security agents while returning to his New York home in March 2025. Despite being a permanent resident married to a US citizen, Khalil was detained in Louisiana for over three months, where he missed the birth of his son.
“In all my decades as an immigration lawyer, I have never seen such a baseless and politically motivated decision."
Despite the BIA's ruling, Khalil cannot be deported while his separate habeas corpus case proceeds through federal courts. However, the Times' reporting raises questions about how fairly he is being treated by the Trump administration and how quickly he could face removal if the federal case falls through.
"This story proves that the Trump administration's treatment of my case has always been corrupt and retaliatory. They put me through a sham immigration process while guaranteeing the outcome in advance," Khalil wrote.
According to the Times:
The case was considered high priority even before the board officially received it. A note from an internal case-tracking file from June said that, even though Mr. Khalil had been released several days earlier, the case was to be handled as if he were still in detention, which would speed it along.
"Please process as quickly as possible,” said another note, from October. Another document shows that the court’s chair—its highest ranking member—oversaw the case from early on.
The decision was made nine days after all the paperwork was submitted, a timeline that Biden BIA appointee Homero López called "unprecedented," as the board often takes years to decide similar cases.
“It’s an insane turnaround, particularly for such a high-profile case on a novel legal issue,” López, who was fired under President Donald Trump, told the Times.
At the same time, people familiar with the situation told the Times that at least three judges had recused themselves from the case, one before it was decided and the others once it became clear it would be published, meaning it would be considered precedent setting.
Former board judge Andrea Sáenz, also fired by Trump, told the Times that judges often recuse themselves because they have somehow been involved with the case before it is appealed.
“How many people touched this case when the immigration judge was handling it the first time?” Sáenz asked.
Former DOJ official David McConnell, who has experience with the immigration appeals process, said that both the quick processing and the recusals were "very unusual." However, he added this did not mean the board necessarily did anything wrong.
However, the BIA's decision was heavily criticized by Khalil's legal team in April, as it upholds Secretary of State Marco Rubio's determination that Khalil could be deported because his activism posed a threat to US foreign policy, which a federal judge in New Jersey said was "likely" unconstitutional and could not be the basis for his detention or deportation. It also justified removal on the grounds that Khalil omitted certain details on green card paperwork, but the government only added those charges after Rubio's foreign policy gambit was challenged.
“In all my decades as an immigration lawyer, I have never seen such a baseless and politically motivated decision. The BIA's decision has absolutely no support in the record, violates a federal court order, and we’ll be fighting it until the end,” Khalil's lead lawyer Marc Van Der Hout said in a statement when the decision was first issued. “Federal courts have already agreed that Mahmoud was targeted for his speech, and there is likely much more evidence of the government’s unlawful retaliation that has yet to come to light. This is a clear continuation of the administration’s retaliation against Mahmoud for exercising his First Amendment rights.”
Responding to the new reporting on Friday, Van Der Hout told the Times that the case's handling suggests it “has been controlled from Day 1 by higher-ups in the administration.”