Trump wants to dismantle the agency that provides weather forecasts. It will make your life worse

The Trump administration and Elon Musk have spent the past several weeks upending the federal government. After essentially shutting down most operations of the nation’s foreign aid efforts through USAID, the next target appears to be NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Musk’s team has reportedly infiltrated NOAA’s offices, and NOAA staff have been told to stop all contact with foreign nationals, which threatens the very nature of the agency’s work; international cooperation is crucial to both weather and fisheries activity because neither the atmosphere or the ocean are limited to U.S. borders. Employees are anticipating drastic staff and budgeting cuts.

Project 2025 specifically noted NOAA as a target, as well. The Heritage Foundation’s 900-page right-wing playbook called the agency “one of the main drivers of the climate change alarm industry” and recommended it be “dismantled and many of its functions eliminated” and instead privatized. It’s not clear what that would look like, though experts have said it isn’t a good idea—and that private weather companies wouldn’t even want that change because they’d have to bear the cost of collecting weather data that’s currently given to them for free.

NOAA’s services are far-reaching; most prominently, it houses the National Weather Service, which provides forecasts for the country, and the National Hurricane Center, which issues warnings and forecasts for tropical cyclones. It’s also responsible for marine fisheries and even space weather predictions—which can affect the GPS that all our phones rely on.

Even if you don’t live in an area at risk of hurricanes or eat seafood from fisheries managed and inspected by the agency, NOAA plays a huge role in your life. “Everyone relies on NOAA, whether you realize it or not,” says Jeff Watters, vice president of external affairs with the Ocean Conservancy, an environmental advocacy nonprofit. “The services that NOAA provides touch basically everyone everyday, in some way or another.”

Weather forecasts, marine rescues, plastic pollution, and oil spills

Because there’s no NOAA logo under each local meteorologist’s forecast or on weather apps, most Americans may not realize that agency is actually providing the data that underpins Accuweather or the Weather Channel or their local news channel’s meteorological reports. But once NOAA’s functions “start to fall apart or degrade,” Watters says, “we’ll notice them pretty quickly.”

If our weather forecasting industry were to be entirely privatized, as Project 2025 envisions, it could leave entire areas of the country without proper forecasting and essentially in the dark. “What about remote areas in Alaska?” Watters asks. “Is a [private] company going to invest in multimillion pieces of infrastructure to monitor and understand weather in those locations when they’re serving small-ish numbers of people?” Americans need—and have come to expect—blanket weather forecasting coverage. “If you break that system, I almost shudder to think of the ramifications,” he says.

As another example, the entire tsunami warning system is within NOAA. It’s another function Americans may not notice “until you are facing down a potential tsunami, and don’t have the prediction that a tsunami is going to hit,” Watters says. Multiple scientists reacting to the threats against NOAA have summed up its impact by simply noting that accurate, publicly available weather forecasts save lives.

Beyond weather forecasts, NOAA manages the network that responds to stranded marine mammals, like beached whales or dolphins that need rehabilitation. They’re essentially “first responders” for sick, injured, or distressed animals from whales and dolphins to seals and sea lions, Watters notes. It’s also responsible for the stewardship of nearly everything in the ocean, from managing marine sanctuaries and coral reefs (which are in severe decline) to monitoring “marine debris,” which includes plastic pollution.

Ocean Conservancy does a lot of work on the plastic pollution front, and Watters notes that two recent pieces of legislations to bolster the marine debris program—the Save Our Seas Act and Save Our Seas 2.0—were actually signed by Trump during his first term. “President Trump should be proud of that part of what NOAA does,” he says, “and to turn our backs on those important bodies of work would be hugely damaging to the ocean environment.”

Understanding oil spills also falls under NOAA’s purview. There’s a “small but mighty” team within the agency that works on models to predict the movement of oil, so whenever there’s a spill, it can explain how it will spread and calculate how much oil might be in the water. “If we don’t have that function and a big oil spill happens, we have no way of figuring out how to deal with it,” Watters says. NOAA also helps recover funds from those responsible for oil spills; over the last 30 years, that’s totaled more than $10 billion. Without NOAA, there may not be that retribution, which is crucial for restoring coastal communities.

NOAA is bipartisan—and stopping it doesn’t stop climate change

Project 2025 takes aim at NOAA for its role in driving what it calls the “climate change alarm industry.” The Trump administration has been purging mentions of climate change, and any data associated with it, from government websites. But dismantling NOAA doesn’t stop the effects of climate change; it would just limit how prepared we are for them.

NOAA also, notably, doesn’t have a partisan alliance. It’s actually historically had bipartisan support. Watters calls it the “impartial eyes and ears and what’s going on in our atmosphere and in our ocean.” NOAA doesn’t relay this data with any political bias or agenda, it does so from a purely scientific view that information and transparency matters. “It is up to the administration to decide whether they want to actually do anything about climate or not,” he adds. “But to cut off our eyes and ears and say we’re going to face the world blindfolded seems like not a very good idea.”

All of NOAA’s powers and responsibilities have been given to it by Congress over decades, and written into law. Watters didn’t share an opinion on Neil Jacobs, Trump’s nominee to head NOAA who was cited for misconduct in an incident known as “Sharpiegate” in 2019. But Watters emphasized the need, in Jacobs’ confirmation hearing, for senators to ask about the administration’s plans for the agency. (Congress also has jurisdiction over NOAA’s activities, so the threats to the agency are another example of how Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency is embarking on illegal actions across government departments. DOGE itself isn’t even a federal agency, as the creation of new cabinet-level departments needs approval from Congress.)

“Congress has given so much direction and responsibility to this agency, and American people depend on it. If someone has plans for this agency and isn’t saying so, shouldn’t we have a conversation about that?” he says. “It shouldn’t just be up to someone behind the scene deciding that they want to tear an agency apart. The services that NOAA provides are too important for us to not have a national conversation about the future of the agency.”