Of all the work-force cuts by the Trump administration, none could top slashing the National Weather Service and its parent, the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, for affecting as broad a swath of the American people. Climate change is affecting lives and increasing the frequency of weather disasters, so weakening the United States’ ability to prepare is foolhardy in the extreme. At the onset, we note that one might get in touch with Representative Nick LaLota’s office to help focus the congressman’s attention on this issue of grave importance.
If there is one single agency that touches all of our lives, every day of the year, it is the Weather Service, which, according to the American Meteorological Society, costs taxpayers about $4 annually. Nonetheless, orders have come from the White House that NOAA and the Weather Service must be reduced, if not eliminated. The administration’s playbook, Project 2025, called NOAA “one of the main drivers of the climate change alarm industry” and argued that it should be dismantled. But focusing on its climate research is just a small part of the $6.8 billion agency’s broad portfolio.
Staff reductions so far have hit about 20 percent of NOAA’s workers. Among the effects, a Weather Service union says the cuts could make it impossible to keep data and forecasting offices open on a 24-hour basis. This includes managing weather satellites, upon which so much of the forecasting infrastructure is dependent. Satellites are something states could not likely replicate, nor would it be covered if the Weather Service is privatized, as some have suggested. Some things must be considered at macro scale, like the weather, which knows no borders.
In addition to its weather and climate roles, NOAA is responsible for ensuring that seafood populations remain viable and that there will be fish and shellfish around for future generations. NOAA fisheries personnel have already suffered deep losses, putting into question annual harvest quotas and seasonal openings and closings, as well as if there will be enough inspectors to ensure compliance with food quality and safety standards. It may be difficult to grasp the scale of the firings from relentless news reports, but when it affects the food on our plates, the point hits home.
Nor is it entirely about the money; even largely volunteer oversight boards have been curtailed. Terminations have included the head of NOAA’s marine carbon dioxide removal office and the director of its ocean acidification program, both of which deal with issues critical to the fishing industry and its viability.
In another critically important federal agency, the U.S. Geological Survey, about 240 people have been let go, potentially threatening its role monitoring natural hazards like volcanoes and earthquakes. But the U.S.G.S. is also one of the nation’s most important agencies for climate research. And the geological survey operates a national stream gauge system that alerts communities to floods and affects water deliveries to cities and farms. These are not incidental government functions.
A letter co-signed by more than 100 public and private organizations, from the Sierra Club to the Peconic Baykeeper, asks Congress to step in. It explains how harming NOAA’s critical services could endanger the economy, health, public safety, and national security. “Climate-related natural disasters and extreme weather cost Americans over $182 billion last year,” the letter reminds lawmakers.
It is clear that the people doing the cutting have little idea of what the agencies actually do and how that impacts actual people. It is difficult to argue against federal government staffing getting a comprehensive review, but supporting the willy-nilly slashing of employees in critical programs is indefensible.