When Hurricane Michael ripped through Tyndall Air Force Base in October 2018, it destroyed or damaged nearly every structure on the Florida installation, causing an estimated $5 billion in reconstruction costs. The storm did not just flatten hangars and rip roofs off dormitories. It exposed a deeper problem: the Pentagon had spent decades designing and maintaining its worldwide network of roughly 1,400 installations based on historical weather patterns, not the intensifying climate that scientists had long warned was coming.
Seven years later, the Department of Defense has built new tools, published planning frameworks, and launched a screening system meant to assess climate exposure across its entire global footprint. But as of spring 2026, the effort faces a fundamental tension: the data and planning architecture exist, yet consistent adoption across all military branches remains uneven, and shifting political winds have cast doubt on whether the momentum will hold.
The gap the auditors found
In June 2019, the Government Accountability Office published a report on climate resilience at DoD installations that laid bare a structural weakness. Installation planners had been relying on past weather experience rather than forward-looking climate projections when making decisions about construction, maintenance, and long-term master plans. The GAO recommended that the department update its planning and design guidance to require formal climate risk assessments and incorporate climate projections into facility designs.
The finding was significant because military bases are not short-term investments. Buildings, runways, piers, and utility systems are designed to last 30 to 50 years or more. Planning them around weather that has already occurred, rather than conditions projected for mid-century, meant the Pentagon was systematically underestimating the flooding, extreme heat, drought, and wildfire risks its infrastructure would face over its operational life.
A follow-up GAO report in October 2020 (GAO-21-46) tracked the department’s progress and found that while DoD had taken initial steps, full implementation of the 2019 recommendations was still incomplete.
The Navy moved first
Before the GAO published its audit, the Navy had already begun building its own solution. In January 2017, the Naval Facilities Engineering Command released a climate change planning handbook that gave installation master planners a structured process for evaluating how rising seas, intensifying storms, and temperature shifts could affect base infrastructure.
The handbook was unusually detailed for a military planning document. It included worksheets, staged assessment processes, and sector-by-sector guidance that walked planners through adaptation alternatives, from elevating critical structures and hardening utilities to relocating assets away from vulnerable shorelines. For a service branch with major installations in flood-prone coastal areas like Norfolk Naval Station in Virginia and Naval Base San Diego, the stakes were immediate and concrete.
The Navy’s early action demonstrated that integrating climate science into everyday installation planning was technically feasible. It also raised an uncomfortable question: if one branch could build a workable framework years before the rest of the department acted, why was adoption not faster across the Army, Air Force, and Marine Corps?
A department-wide screening tool
The Pentagon’s answer came in April 2021 with the launch of the Defense Climate Assessment Tool, known as DCAT. According to the department’s official announcement, DCAT provides climate hazard exposure data across approximately 1,400 DoD sites worldwide. The tool was designed to give installation leaders standardized information about which bases faced the greatest exposure to specific threats, including flooding, heat, drought, and wildfire.
DCAT was explicitly tied to Executive Order 14008, President Biden’s January 2021 directive on tackling the climate crisis, and to the Pentagon’s broader argument that climate change is a readiness issue, not merely an environmental one. In the months that followed, DoD released installation-level climate exposure assessments and each military branch published its own climate adaptation strategy during 2022, creating at least a paper trail of coordinated planning.
The Tyndall rebuild offered a real-world test case. The Air Force committed to reconstructing the base to higher resilience standards, incorporating stronger building codes and infrastructure designed to withstand Category 5 winds. That project became a visible example of what climate-informed military construction could look like when funding and political will aligned.
Where progress stalls
Tools and handbooks, however, do not by themselves change how the Pentagon spends money. The department’s budgeting and programming system is notoriously complex, with construction timelines stretching years into the future and budget cycles that often prioritize immediate operational needs over long-term resilience investments.
No comprehensive public accounting shows how many of the 1,400 installations screened by DCAT have translated their exposure assessments into funded construction projects, updated master plans, or changes to day-to-day operations. A screening tool can flag that a base sits in a wildfire corridor or a flood zone, but it cannot guarantee that those risks get prioritized in budget requests or survive the congressional appropriations process.
The political landscape has also shifted. The second Trump administration, which took office in January 2025, has moved to rescind or scale back climate-related executive orders and federal programs. Executive Order 14008, the directive that underpinned DCAT’s launch, is among the policies targeted for rollback. While Congress has embedded some climate resilience requirements into National Defense Authorization Act provisions in recent years, the executive branch’s posture toward climate planning within DoD has changed markedly.
That creates a paradox. The physical threats to military installations are not receding. Flooding along the mid-Atlantic coast continues to worsen. Wildfire seasons in the western United States have grown longer and more destructive. Extreme heat events strain power grids and limit outdoor training at bases across the South and Southwest. The climate data that DCAT was built to deliver does not become less relevant because political priorities shift.
What service members and taxpayers should watch
For the roughly 2.1 million active-duty and reserve personnel who live and work on DoD installations, and for taxpayers funding a military construction budget that runs into the tens of billions annually, several questions will determine whether the Pentagon’s climate resilience push amounts to lasting change or a stalled initiative.
First, whether DCAT and the branch-level climate strategies survive the current administration’s policy reviews. If the tools are defunded or sidelined, the department risks reverting to the pre-2019 approach the GAO flagged as inadequate.
Second, whether climate exposure scores become a formal, required factor in military construction funding decisions, not just an optional input that planners can consult or ignore.
Third, whether the lessons from high-profile rebuilds like Tyndall translate into standard practice across all branches, or remain isolated showcases.
The GAO identified the gap. The Navy built an early framework. The Pentagon created a screening tool and each branch drafted a climate plan. That progression represents real institutional work. But the distance between publishing a handbook and hardening a base against a Category 5 hurricane or a record wildfire season is measured in years of sustained funding, consistent policy, and leadership willing to treat climate risk as a core operational concern, not a political football. For service members at flood-prone coastal installations or bases ringed by fire-prone wildlands, that distance is not abstract. It is the difference between a facility that holds and one that does not.
More from Morning Overview
*This article was researched with the help of AI, with human editors creating the final content.
