Downsizing of NOAA: Consequences For The Planet
News out of the US on the firing of public servants by the Trump administration has consequences world-wide. Downsizing of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) will potentially impact many nations including our capacity to forecast extreme weather events and understand the consequences of climate change.
The Trump administration has it in for NOAA. As with many other parts of the US public service deemed “bloated and sloppy”, NOAA is experiencing savage staff cuts. Over the last week reports in the Washington Post (28 February and 1st March), New York Times (2nd March) and NPR 24 Program Stream (27 February) carry banner headlines such as “Trump administration layoffs hit NOAA, agency that forecasts weather, hurricanes”; and “Trump fires hundreds working on weather forecasts, satellite data and radar systems”. They report we are witnessing ongoing staff cuts that would endanger some of NOAA’s core operational functions.
In some respects we should have expected these staff firings. Prior to the November election Project 2025 called for a complete shutdown of NOAA’s weather forecast modelling because it helped feed results supporting the reality of climate change. The intent was to dissolve NOAA’s ability to serve as a component of the “climate change alarm industry”, and thus prevent what most of us see as a very effective federal agency from assisting the scientific community in anticipating and adapting to the already emerging impacts of global warming. But for Trump climate change is a hoax. The result is to be staff loss in two waves in the National Weather Service, which includes the National Hurricane Center, all part of NOAA, first for 500 firings and a second for 800 firings.
My colleague Professor Don Wright now lives in the Tampa Bay region of Florida which was hit hard by Hurricanes Helene and Milton last October. He writes that the timing and high accuracy of the Center’s forecasts probably saved the lives of many residents who heeded the warnings and evacuated. He sees climate change promoting rapid tropical cyclone development with rising sea surface temperatures, increased storm size and more “compound events”. Wright is fearful that unless NOAA retains its capacity to predict and warn citizens of potential disasters the US will lose an important element of coastal resilience as the planet continues to warm and sea levels rise.
This is but a part of the broader assault on established climate change programs in the USA with international ramifications. NOAA’s remit is global. Its mission extends as one would expect into the atmosphere and oceans of the planet. It has a long history of supporting other nations and international organizations in areas such as ecosystem-management, oceanic fisheries, marine mapping and of course in climate change research. According to its Office of International Affairs (dated 8 January 2025) NOAA seeks “to maximize the mutual benefits of international exchange with its global partners”, and to represent the USA in international fora related to its mission (this would include IPCC). No doubt we can now anticipate changes to this global outreach.
I am not familiar with the details on how our Bureau of Meteorology, CSIRO, AIMS, Antarctic Division and other Australian agencies benefit through exchange of information with NOAA. I expect that there has long been very healthy and mutually beneficial relationships. What does the future hold when the staff cuts of those with expertise in NOAA are no longer there. Perhaps some will be quickly re-hired; this was the case with a specialist in bird flu research whose position had been terminated. But the loss of younger staff and those on research grants linked to climate research could be a significant loss. As one other US colleague put it to me: firing all the new hires is like eating all the seeds when there is a poor harvest. Furthermore, collaborative research between Australia and the US is a fundamental part of scientific endeavours in this era of uncertain impacts of climate change. Are such programs soon to be terminated?
On a personal note related to coastal science and management, I have followed with great interest the operations of NOAA (and the now much maligned US EPA) as the federal agency responsible for the US Coastal Management Act 1979. This legislation is an exemplar for Australia providing the basis for a sustained funding partnership between the federal and state governments. I had the privilege 12 years ago in Washington in meeting dedicated staff working on this program and now wonder what is going to be their future under Trump Mark 2. They survived Trump Mark 1.
Five former administrators of NOAA have written an open letter to Congress and the American public saying “Breaking up, defunding, or reducing NOAA’s highly integrated workforce will severely impact our nation’s economy”. We can go further and say that in all likelihood all nations, some more than others, will be adversely affected. In this globally connected world so much of our atmospheric and oceanic information is derived from NOAA sources. Trump speaks of the power of “common sense”; well in the case of the well-being of the US and the planet we hope some prevails and NOAAs integrity and operations are protected—or am I dreaming!
Words by Prof Bruce Thom. Please respect the author’s thoughts and reference appropriately: (c) ACS, 2025. For correspondence about this blog post please email admin@australiancoastalsociety.org.au
#274