Summary of the proposed cuts to the NWS and NOAA by the Trump Administration (7/13/2025)
SUMMARY PAGE
What are the primary proposed budget cuts for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)?
The Trump administration's proposed 2026 budget for NOAA would implement significant cuts, reducing the agency's funding by 27% (over $700 million) from current levels. Most notably, it aims to eliminate NOAA's Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR), which performs and coordinates climate research, and would terminate all funding for climate, weather, and ocean laboratories and cooperative institutes. This includes the National Severe Storms Laboratory (which developed crucial flash flood forecasting tools like FLASH), the Atlantic Oceanographic & Meteorological Laboratory (important for hurricane research), and the Global Monitoring Laboratory locations (such as the Mauna Loa Observatory that tracks CO2 levels). Additionally, funding for regional climate data and information, climate competitive research, and the National Sea Grant College Program would be cut. The budget also eliminates funding for the replacement of NOAA's aging aircraft fleet and proposes a 26% cut to the National Centers for Environmental Information, where most U.S. weather data is housed.
How would these proposed cuts impact weather forecasting and disaster response?
Experts warn that these cuts would severely degrade the country's ability to anticipate, prepare for, and respond to extreme weather events, potentially leading to increased fatalities and property damage. Eliminating NOAA's research division means halting the development of new weather forecasting technologies and methods, including crucial tools for flash flood and hurricane prediction. Staffing cuts, already resulting in hundreds of departures from the National Weather Service (NWS) and FEMA, mean some NWS offices are no longer operating 24/7, and essential weather balloon launches (critical for reliable forecasts) have been reduced. Furthermore, proposed cuts to NASA's science division would jeopardize the funding for weather-monitoring spacecraft and the development of future Landsat satellites, which are vital for real-time weather observation and flood mapping. The overall effect would be a degradation, rather than improvement, of forecast accuracy and warning lead times.
What is the "Project 2025" blueprint, and how does it relate to these proposed changes?
The "Project 2025" blueprint, a conservative policy agenda from the Heritage Foundation, is described as the driving force behind many of the proposed changes to NOAA and FEMA. This blueprint characterizes NOAA as a "main driver of the climate change alarm industry" and advocates for its restructuring and downsizing. Specifically, it calls for the National Weather Service to "fully commercialize its forecasting operations," suggesting a shift from free public weather information to a model where private companies become the primary source, requiring payment for data currently provided free of charge. This aligns with the administration's proposed cuts to public weather research and data dissemination, potentially paving the way for private sector involvement.
How has the Trump administration responded to criticisms regarding the budget cuts, particularly in light of the Texas floods?
The Trump administration has rejected claims that its budget cuts contributed to the deadly Texas floods. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt described such assertions as "depraved and despicable," stating that the affected NWS offices were fully staffed. She attributed the timing of the floods to an "act of God," not the administration's fault. While acknowledging that forecasts and warnings were accurate ahead of the disaster, the administration's stance is that any cuts were aimed at reducing "bureaucratic bloat and politically driven programs" and that existing technology was "ancient" and needed upgrading, a process which they claim to have begun. However, critics argue that the proposed cuts contradict this claim by targeting the very research programs that develop advanced forecasting technologies.
What concerns have been raised about the privatization of weather forecasting and disaster response?
A significant concern is the potential for weather information to become a "subscription streaming service," making crucial data inaccessible to those who cannot afford it. This would diminish the federal government's long-standing role in providing free public weather data, which is especially critical during natural disasters. There are also concerns about potential conflicts of interest, as some Trump appointees have ties to private companies that stand to benefit from the privatization of government weather forecasting and data collection. Experts emphasize that most private forecasting firms already rely heavily on data and models produced by the NWS, and a shift to full commercialization without a clear plan could lead to higher death tolls from extreme weather events due to a lack of warning.
What was the role of the National Weather Service (NWS) in the recent Texas floods, and what challenges did it face?
During the deadly Texas floods, the NWS was praised by weather experts for accurately forecasting the danger and issuing appropriate flood watches and increasingly urgent warnings hours before the catastrophic flooding occurred. The New Braunfels office, responsible for the warnings, even had "surge staffing" with five forecasters instead of the usual two. However, questions remain about whether local officials and affected residents received and understood these warnings in time, particularly as the worst of the danger arrived in the middle of the night. Despite the NWS's performance, staffing shortages across the country, including vacancies in key positions like "warning coordination meteorologists" who liaise with local emergency managers, are seen as a long-term risk to effective communication and response.
Beyond budget cuts, what other factors are contributing to the increased risk from extreme weather events in the U.S.?
Beyond budget cuts, several factors exacerbate the risk from extreme weather. Climate change is making events like heavy rain, heat waves, droughts, and hurricanes more frequent and intense, with the NOAA's climate extreme index showing a 58% increase in extreme weather events compared to the 1980s. Despite this grim reality, public attitudes and governmental actions are not keeping pace, with a "normalcy bias" leading people to underestimate the severity of new extreme events based on past experiences. Aging infrastructure in the U.S. is more vulnerable to these increasingly powerful events, and a growing population is residing in hazardous areas like coastal regions. The departure of experienced personnel from agencies like NWS and FEMA due to firings and early retirements represents a "generational loss" of expertise that will take years to recover.
What specific actions or policies are being proposed or enacted by the Trump administration that are seen as dismantling disaster capabilities?
The Trump administration's agenda, largely mirroring Project 2025, includes mass layoffs and planned cuts to essential agencies. This involves eliminating FEMA by the end of 2025, shifting primary responsibility and costs of disaster response and recovery to states, and reducing federal funding for such efforts. The administration has already revoked $3.6 billion in grants from FEMA meant for community preparedness and stopped approving new grants for flood-prone home elevations or strengthening buildings in hurricane zones. At NOAA, the proposed 2026 budget aims to close all weather and climate research labs and discontinue weather data sharing with local entities. There are also plans to consolidate multiple weather models into a single forecasting system, despite concerns from meteorologists about potential degradation of forecast accuracy. Furthermore, funding for warning coordination meteorologists' travel to engage with local authorities has been suspended, potentially hindering communication and collaboration during crises.