The National Weather Service is gearing up to deliver compromised forecasts. Scientists are advised to suspend all but essential travel, while university-based researchers report that a multi-million dollar federal grant for climate modeling has been abruptly withdrawn.

This represents a new standard within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the US’s primary weather and climate agency, as indicated by interviews with current and past personnel, along with research collaborators.

Six months into the new US administration, the ramifications of significant political shifts are becoming apparent. Although official budget discussions are ongoing, a quiet dismantling is already in progress. Employees warn this jeopardizes the agency’s capacity to safeguard the public against climate-related threats such as floods, wildfires, and hurricanes.

The repercussions extend beyond US borders. NOAA’s research and data underpin the initiatives of global organizations like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the World Weather Organization.

If the US steps back, other nations might need to fill that void, risking missed early warnings for imminent disasters. In fact, EU countries and academic institutions are already racing to recruit former NOAA staff in hopes of bridging the gap.

“It’s nothing but confusion and uncertainty,” said a current NOAA scientist with over 15 years of experience, as reported by BBC Science Focus. “Planning anything is incredibly challenging due to persistent unpredictability.”

Service Reductions and Research Loss

Earlier this year, the National Weather Service (NWS), a division of NOAA, entered into an agreement that led to a reduction of services at 122 weather offices nationwide, stemming from a significant staffing shortage after a wave of early retirements and layoffs.

Currently, public forecasts remain available. However, as wildfire and hurricane seasons peak, vulnerabilities in the system could quickly surface.

The NWS is permitted to hire meteorologists, hydrologists, and radar engineers to fill 450 critical vacancies, but former staff members caution that it might already be too late.

“Public safety is undeniably at risk due to a hastily executed process led by individuals who are overwhelmed by this new role in the NWS,” said meteorologist Alan Gerald, who spent 35 years with NOAA before accepting an early retirement package this year.

While recruitment and training could take months, the departure of senior personnel means lost institutional knowledge could be permanent, Gerald noted.

Even if staffing shortages are ultimately addressed, current personnel are warned that the repercussions may impact long-term preparedness. “What is sacrificed is the research aspect and our ability to continue advancing our modeling and prediction expertise,” stated NOAA scientists.

External partners are already experiencing the consequences. A researcher associated with NOAA shared with BBC Science Focus that a multi-million dollar next-generation weather modeling initiative is now in jeopardy after losing federal backing.

“We’re already not perfect in our work,” the researcher remarked. “And with the climate changing, leading to more extreme events, if we don’t evolve accordingly, lives will be lost, property damage will escalate, and we risk missing critical storm warnings.”

Read more:

“Avoid the term climate.”

Internally, scientists have been instructed to halt all non-essential travel, including attending conferences, which are vital for collaboration across scientific disciplines. This policy was reportedly communicated verbally without formal documentation.

Several sources noted that oral directives have become the norm, often lacking written records.

Scientists added that there is growing reluctance to mention the term “climate.”

“While I’ve never been directly told, ‘Don’t publish this’ or ‘Don’t address climate,’ it’s implicit. For example, external funding guidelines suggest we approach topics differently,” explained a NOAA scientist. “So when working with external colleagues, we often hear ‘don’t mention climate and let’s frame this differently.’

This self-censorship is part of a broader crackdown on climate-related initiatives.

In April, the Commerce Department withdrew nearly $4 million in NOAA funding from Princeton University, effectively terminating three significant collaborative agreements aimed at predicting coastal flooding, sea-level rise, droughts, fires, and floods.

In a general statement, the department criticized one of the Princeton awards for promoting “unfounded and inflated climate threats” and creating “climate anxiety.” Another was deemed no longer aligned with the Trump administration’s priorities, justifying that it suggested significant fluctuations in water availability due to global warming.

The statement proceeded to describe changes in precipitation patterns and rising sea levels as “suspected” effects.

In May, NOAA’s Grant Management Department terminated the Northwest Climate Resilience Collaborative (NCRC), a University of Washington initiative that assisted rural communities and tribes in adapting to flooding and intensified heat.

Reports indicate that grants are being cut to “rationalize and reduce federal expenditures and size” since they no longer align with “program goals or agency priorities.”

Separately, the White House also slashed funds associated with the Sixth National Climate Assessment (NCA), despite legal mandates to prepare a comprehensive climate report every four years. Originally scheduled for release in 2028, its future now hangs in uncertainty.

“Part of this is a tactic to downplay the significance of the work being done,” remarked a NOAA scientist.

“For instance, we now refer to what we consider ‘climate’ as something broader than weather patterns. While we traditionally described forecasts as ‘climate,’ we’ve stopped using that term to avoid attracting attention to it.”

Erosion of Knowledge

Since the new administration took office, NOAA has lost around a fifth of its workforce, with over 1,000 employees, many holding senior leadership positions, opting for early retirement or buyouts this year.

“When experienced staff leave due to exhaustion, that’s one thing,” Gerald remarked. “But losing a significant portion of seasoned personnel is a different issue entirely.”

Morale has plummeted. Employees report that independent programs are being restructured or eliminated with little notice or explanation, and even if funding is restored, considerable damage may already be irreversible.

“We’re talking about a research infrastructure cultivated over 50 or 60 years,” Gerald stated. “That could essentially collapse within a year.”

Carl Gouldman, who recently led the US Integrated Ocean Observing Systems office within NOAA, echoes these concerns.

“The relationships and partnerships necessary for innovation and creating essential features are at substantial risk and may never recover,” he warned. “Humpty Dumpty is shattered, and you can’t reassemble him.”

Negotiations for NOAA’s 2026 budget are still proceeding. The White House’s proposal suggests a 40% cut in institutional funding. Alternate proposals from the House and Senate are more generous, but a compromise could still be months away.

However, Gerald is particularly worried about the interim actions of the administration. He recently referred to a public statement from Russ Vought, director of the Office of Management and Budget, who indicated that the administration “is not aligned with the legislative department’s understanding of its own authorities and responsibilities.”

“We still have a chance to reevaluate this and consider its implications,” Gerald said. “With climate change and the expanding human footprint—more people causing harm for various reasons—the demand for warnings and predictions is only escalating.”

NOAA has not responded to requests for comment.

Read more:

About Our Experts

Alan Gerald is a meteorologist with over 35 years of experience in issuing warnings and forecasts, focusing on reducing the social impacts of hazardous weather, water, and climate events. He has served for more than 20 years in senior leadership roles at NOAA and most recently was the director of analysis and understanding for the National Intense Storm Institute until March 2025.

Karl Golman is a recently retired director of NOAA’s US Integrated Ocean Observing Systems office, with 25 years of leadership experience in the agency. During his tenure at NOAA, he oversaw annual budgets ranging from $5 billion to $200 million.