​​Ideology over technique – the Milei government’s banned glossary

At times it seems like an anecdote, an exaggeration from social networks, an administrative misunderstanding. But no – in Javier Milei’s Argentina, there are words which no longer exist within the state’s vocabulary. Not because science has refuted them, not because they have been technically overtaken, but because they are annoying ideologically. And when a government starts arguing about technical words, the problem is no longer semantic – it is political. And it is serious.

The first case to ring the alarm comes from Argentina’s Servicio Meteorológico Nacional (National Weather Service, or SMN). Workers from the body denounced in local media that they were told to avoid using the terms “cambio climático” (“climate change”) and “calentamiento global” (“global warming”) in reports, press releases and institutional dissemination pieces. There was no decree published in the Official Gazette, there was no signed resolution. It was more efficient than that: an informal order handed down. “Don’t write it like that”; “Find another way”; “That’s out.”

The result was immediate: reports which historically talked about climate change began referring to “variabilidad climática” (“climate variability”), “eventos extremos” (“extreme events”) or other neutral descriptions, without any conceptual framework. 

The result is damning: the technical body in charge of studying the climate had to swerve past a core concept which explains what it is studying. It’s not a scientific discussion – it’s an ideological decision.

Government officials, quoted by La Nacion, responded to the claims by saying that “it may be that they have used the term climate change in some publications and we have asked them to change the word, but we have never removed them.”

But the Servicio Meteorológico Nacional is not a one-off occurrence. Invisible lists of uncomfortable words have also started appearing at other state bodies.

At the Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (National Agricultural Technology Institute or INTA), workers and unions denounced a ban or discouragement of such terms as: "agroecología" (“agroecology”), "sustentabilidad" (“sustainability”), "biodiversidad" (“biodiversity”), "huella de carbono" (“carbon footprint”), "género" (“gender”), Prohuerta (an Argentine pro-orchard programme) and "cambio climático" (“climate change”).

Concepts which were not born in an activists’ meeting, but in scientific papers, international agreements and decades of applied research have been rejected. There were no written resolutions; there were editorial corrections. Rejection of publications, administrative silences. The logic was clear: if it sounds environmental, social or multilateral, it is suspect.

Some cases have been more explicit. The Milei government formally banned the use of inclusive language throughout the entire public administration. No gender-inclusive language in Spanish. No “todes.” No use of “@” or “x.” 

The official argument is that “the State must use language in accordance with the rules of the Royal Spanish Academy.” The real argument is that inclusive language is ideology and ideology must be eradicated. The paradox is obvious: the same government which claims to combat indoctrination imposes its own view while holding power.

If they were isolated events, they could be attributed to the chaos of the adjustment, but they are not. There is a pattern: portfolios linked to gender, diversity or the environment are eliminated, technical bodies are emptied out and programmes with a territorial impact are closed. Words are erased – not because they cost money, but because they represent a way of looking at the world which the government considers to be wrong.

For Mileism, terms like climate change, sustainability or agroecology are not technical concepts: they are ideological markers. The problem for them is that reality does not change just because it is called something different. Science works with consensus, evidence and permanent review. 

Ideology adopts previous certainties. When a meteorologist cannot say “climate change,” when an agronomist cannot write “agroecology,” when a technician has to rewrite their work so it is not politically uncomfortable, technique is no longer the boss – the story is.

For a State, that has consequences: worse diagnoses, poorly designed public policies and decisions based on dogmas, not on data. It is nothing new perhaps, but it always ends badly.

Today it’s words, tomorrow it could be numbers. Then, conclusions. The question is not whether climate change exists or not. The question is a different one: What state can work properly if its technicians have to think about government ideology first and the truth of their findings afterwards?

Because when power starts to erase words, what it is trying to erase, in actuality, is reality. And reality, sooner or later, always comes back to the fore. With droughts, with floods, with crises.  And without asking for permission to be named.