White House Proposes Cuts to NOAA Research Programs

Title: Proposed Cuts Could Decimate NOAA’s Scientific Research Division

Recent internal documents obtained by The New York Times reveal alarming recommendations from officials in the Trump administration regarding the budgetary future of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has proposed the complete elimination of NOAA’s Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR) office, which has long been recognized as one of the leading global centers for Earth sciences research.

According to the documents, NOAA’s OAR division currently receives funding of approximately $485 million, but under the new proposal, this budget would be slashed to just over $170 million for the 2026 fiscal year. This drastic cut would severely impair NOAA’s ability to conduct vital scientific research, including early warning systems for natural disasters, educational programs for young students, and vital studies of the Arctic regions that have experienced temperature increases nearly four times faster than the global average over the last 40 years.

The proposal explicitly states, “At this funding level, O.A.R. is eliminated as a line office.” Those programs that do manage to retain funding, such as research into tornado warnings and ocean acidification, would apparently be moved to other NOAA branches, namely the National Weather Service and the National Ocean Service.

The suggested budget for 2026 is not only focused on OAR; it indicates a broader cut to NOAA’s overall funding. The total budget for the Commerce Department, which oversees NOAA, is projected to drop to nearly $7.7 billion, reflecting a reduction of more than $2.5 billion from 2025 levels. The new proposed budget aims to redirect resources toward initiatives that align more closely with the Trump administration’s policy objectives, such as trade enforcement and the collection of scientific data for forecasting but at the expense of established scientific research.

Representative Zoe Lofgren, who is the senior Democrat on the House Science Committee, expressed her profound concerns regarding the implications of the proposal. She stated in an emailed statement, “This Administration’s hostility toward research and rejection of climate science will have the consequence of eviscerating the weather forecasting capabilities that this plan claims to preserve.” NOAA, which constitutes over half of the Commerce Department’s budget, is set to navigate a $1.6 billion funding reduction compared to the previous year.

The planned cuts do not stop at OAR. The budget also outlines a one-third reduction in funding for the National Marine Fisheries Service, which would be separated from NOAA and moved under the jurisdiction of the Interior Department’s U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. This transition would result in the elimination of grants that support species recovery and habitat conservation efforts.

Further cuts will significantly impact NOAA’s National Ocean Service, which would see its funding halved. Critical programs like the National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science, responsible for examining issues such as pollution and the effects of climate change on coastal communities, would face defunding.

The disruptions would also extend to NOAA’s satellite and space programs. The Office of Space Commerce would undergo significant cuts, and the Space Weather Prediction Center is proposed to be relocated to the Department of Homeland Security. Moreover, funding for a new initiative aimed at managing satellite traffic, similar to a “traffic police” for outer space, would no longer be supported, essentially implying a shift toward private sector management of this oversight.

Dr. Rick Spinrad, who previously led NOAA under President Biden, spoke to the proposal’s likelihood of passing through Congress, stating, “I don’t think it will withstand congressional scrutiny.” The alarming nature of this funding reshuffle comes amid a backdrop of dismantling various other institutions like the National Institutes of Health and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), along with the removal of climate change references from federal platforms.

Additionally, the proposed cuts echo the controversial “Project 2025,” a blueprint aimed at restructuring the federal government, which includes a goal to dismantle NOAA’s research division. Advocates such as Lofgren question whether this agenda is a deliberate maneuver to undermine NOAA’s weather forecasting capabilities as a pretext to privatize the National Weather Service.

Historically, Project 2025, championed by the Heritage Foundation, has called for the disbanding of much of NOAA’s climate-related research, asserting that these initiatives contribute to what they term “climate alarmism.” Critics, including Craig McLean, former chief scientist at NOAA, argue that the proposed budget cuts would regress the U.S. to a markedly less advanced state in technical and scientific opportunities reminiscent of the 1950s.

NOAA has until April 15 to appeal against the budget proposal and has until April 24 to submit plans for its internal restructuring as suggested by the OMB, a timeframe that compels the agency to act swiftly even before Congress has deliberated on the proposed budget.

The ramifications of these proposed cuts to NOAA extend beyond mere budgetary concerns; they threaten the very fabric of climate science and environmental research crucial for understanding and mitigating the impacts of climate change. As agencies across the federal government face scrutiny and restructuring, the future of scientific research at NOAA hangs in the balance, raising urgent questions about the path forward for the agency and the broader implications for environmental policy in the United States.