1. What are the proposed budget cuts to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Weather Service (NWS)?
The Trump administration's proposed 2026 budget for NOAA involves significant cuts, amounting to a 27% reduction from current spending levels, bringing the agency's funding down to $4.5 billion. A major target for these cuts is NOAA's Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR), which faces complete elimination.
This would result in the termination of over $700 million in spending and the firing of several hundred scientists and staff, as well as the cessation of millions of dollars in university research funding. Specific programs and facilities targeted for elimination include all climate, weather, and ocean Laboratories and Cooperative Institutes, regional climate data and information, climate competitive research, the National Sea Grant College Program, Sea Grant Aquaculture Research, and the National Oceanographic Partnership Program. The Mauna Loa laboratory in Hawai'i, crucial for atmospheric CO2 measurements, is also slated for closure.
Additionally, funding for the replacement of NOAA's aging aircraft, essential for flood planning and hurricane forecasting, is eliminated. The National Severe Storms Laboratory, which developed critical flash flood forecasting tools, would be shut down, with only a few severe weather research programs transferred to the NWS.
The proposed cuts also include a 26% reduction to NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information, where most U.S. weather data is housed. Furthermore, the Trump administration plans to halve NASA's science division budget, specifically targeting climate research and satellites used for weather prediction and monitoring.
2. How might these proposed cuts impact weather forecasting and disaster preparedness?
These proposed cuts are expected to severely degrade the nation's ability to forecast and respond to extreme weather events, potentially leading to increased casualties and property damage.
Eliminating OAR means halting research and development of new weather forecasting technologies and methods, including critical tools for flash flood and hurricane predictions
The closure of labs like the National Severe Storms Laboratory, which developed the FLASH tool crucial for flash flood warnings, would compromise future improvements in forecasting accuracy and lead times.
Cuts to satellite observations and the elimination of funding for Landsat satellites would compromise real-time weather monitoring and future flood prediction capabilities. Staffing reductions due to firings, early retirements, and hiring freezes at the National Weather Service offices have already left many understaffed, with some unable to operate 24/7 or conduct routine weather balloon launches, which are vital for reliable model forecasts.
The loss of experienced personnel and the lack of new recruits (due to the dismissal of probationary employees) pose a significant danger, making it difficult to attract new talent to a field where science is seemingly undervalued.
Furthermore, the suspension of travel funding for warning coordination meteorologists could lead to breakdowns in communication between forecasters and local emergency managers, hindering effective public warnings and evacuation plans.
3. What is the administration's stated rationale for these budget cuts?
The administration argues that these cuts are part of an effort to "cut through bureaucratic bloat and politically driven programs that dilute our impact" and to focus on "delivering actionable science that protects lives and property and boosts economic prosperity.
Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem has suggested that the National Weather Service's systems are "ancient" and needed upgrading, claiming that the administration has been working on this.
However, critics argue that the proposed cuts would destroy the very research apparatus needed for such upgrades. A key aspect of the rationale, aligning with the Project 2025 blueprint, is the intent to privatize the National Weather Service. This vision suggests that private companies provide more reliable forecasts and aims to shift weather data delivery to for-profit firms, potentially requiring the public to pay for information currently provided free of charge.
The administration also seeks to dismantle FEMA, shifting primary responsibility and costs for disaster response to states, with reduced federal funding allocated directly from the president's office.
4. What concerns have been raised about the privatization of weather forecasting?
Concerns about the privatization of weather forecasting are significant. Experts warn that turning the National Weather Service into a "subscription streaming service" would disproportionately harm those facing financial strain who may not be able to afford commercial weather data, creating a two-tiered system for access to life-saving information.
Most private forecasting firms and broadcast meteorologists currently rely heavily on the weather modeling and insights provided by the National Weather Service, suggesting that privatizing the NWS would diminish the foundational role the federal government has played since the 1800s.
There are also potential conflicts of interest, as some Trump appointees have ties to companies that stand to benefit from such privatization, including those involved in weather derivatives marketplaces or offering natural disaster imagery and weather data contracts. Critics argue that relying on private companies for forecasts without a robust public research infrastructure could lead to a degradation of overall forecast accuracy and responsiveness, ultimately costing lives.
5. How does the recent Texas flooding disaster relate to these proposed cuts?
The deadly flash floods in central Texas on July 4, 2025, which killed over 100 people, have brought the implications of these proposed cuts into sharp focus. While the National Weather Service issued appropriate and timely warnings for the Texas floods, raising questions about whether local officials or the public received or heeded them, experts emphasize that these accurate forecasts were made possible by sophisticated NOAA weather models and the expertise of its staff.
The disaster occurred despite existing NWS staff shortages, with some offices operating with vacancies in key positions like warning coordination meteorologists, whose role is to liaising with local emergency managers.
Although these specific vacancies may not have directly caused the Texas tragedy, the broader proposed cuts to NOAA's research labs (like the National Severe Storms Laboratory, which developed flash flood tools), and ongoing staff reductions are seen as increasing the risk of similar, or worse, outcomes in the future.
The incident has intensified warnings that without continued investment in federal weather science and disaster response, the country's ability to prepare for and mitigate the impact of increasingly extreme weather events will be compromised.
6. What is "normalcy bias" and how does it affect public perception and preparedness for extreme weather?
"Normalcy bias" refers to people's tendency to base decisions on how they fared during past extreme weather events, leading them to be overly optimistic that they will also fare well in future, potentially more severe, events.
This psychological mechanism helps people cope but prevents them from adequately preparing for increasingly frequent and intense extreme weather, which climate change is making the "new norm." For example, in the context of the Texas floods, despite the region being known for flooding ("flash flood alley"), the sheer amount of rain that fell was unprecedented.
However, some residents exhibited normalcy bias by stating, "we get flooding all the time," failing to recognize the shifting baseline of extreme weather. Experts like Marshall Shepherd and Kim Klockow McClain highlight that the message needs to change: what used to be extreme is becoming average, and what was once rare is becoming the new extreme.
Overconfidence derived from surviving past events can be dangerous, as it does not guarantee safety in future, potentially more intense, disasters
7. What role did climate change play in the Texas floods and how does it relate to the proposed budget cuts?
Climate scientists and government data indicate that climate change is making extreme weather events, including intense rainfall like that experienced in Texas, more frequent and intense. The 10-year summer average of NOAA’s climate extreme index, which tracks various severe weather events, is 58% higher than in the 1980s, signaling a grim trajectory.
Princeton University climate scientist Michael Oppenheimer explains that "what used to be extreme becomes average, typical, and what used to never occur in a human lifetime or maybe even in a thousand years becomes the new extreme." While the exact influence of climate change on a specific event requires detailed attribution studies, basic physics suggests it very likely made the Texas flood stronger.
Despite this escalating threat, the proposed NOAA budget cuts explicitly target federal climate research efforts and spending, aiming to eliminate the agency's Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR), which performs and coordinates climate research. This is seen by critics as abandoning climate science at a critical moment and actively undermining the understanding of and adaptation to human-driven climate change, thereby increasing the risk of future deadly weather tragedies.
8. What is Project 2025 and how does it influence the proposed changes to NOAA and FEMA?
Project 2025 is a conservative policy blueprint, notably from the Heritage Foundation, that outlines recommendations for a second Trump administration. It significantly influences the proposed changes to NOAA and FEMA.
The blueprint describes NOAA as "one of the main drivers of the climate change alarm industry" and advocates for the agency to be "broken up" and downsized. Specifically, Project 2025 calls for the National Weather Service to "fully commercialize its forecasting operations," intending to shift from providing free public weather information to focusing on data collection for private companies, making private firms the primary source of weather forecasts for the public, which would then require payment.
Regarding FEMA, Project 2025 supports the dismantling of the agency by the end of 2025, immediately following the Atlantic hurricane season, and calls for states to assume primary responsibility for disaster response and recovery with reduced federal funding. The administration's proposed budget cuts and actions, including mass firings at NOAA and the establishment of a FEMA Review Council, closely mirror the recommendations outlined in this blueprint, signaling a fundamental shift in federal government's role in weather science and disaster management
###