The National Climate Assessment (NCA) report, produced by the U.S. Global Change Research Program, has been a flagship of American alarmism for 25 years. However, with the Trump administration's revamp and the appointment of skeptic Matt Wielicki as its head, a skeptical NCA is in the offing. This development raises concerns about the potential risks and consequences of a reality-based assessment. The significance of this change lies in its potential impact on climate research and policy-making. The alarmist NCA has been criticized for its lack of scientific rigor and its focus on human-caused climate change, which may not accurately reflect the natural variability of climate systems. A skeptical NCA could lead to a more nuanced understanding of climate change, acknowledging both natural and human-induced factors. However, this shift also poses risks, such as potentially undermining the credibility of climate science and delaying necessary policy actions. The implications of this development are far-reaching, affecting not only climate research but also investors, regulators, communities, and the environment. A reality-based NCA could lead to a more informed discussion about climate change, its causes, and its consequences. However, it may also be met with resistance from those who benefit from the current alarmist narrative. The potential for increased transparency and accountability is significant, but so are the risks of politicization and polarization. In conclusion, the revamp of the National Climate Assessment report has significant implications for climate research, policy-making, and sustainability. While a reality-based assessment may lead to a more nuanced understanding of climate change, it also poses risks and challenges that must be carefully considered.