Trump Proposes Deep Cuts at NOAA

This composite color full-disk visible image of the Western Hemisphere was captured from NOAA GOES-16 satellite at 1:07 pm EST on Jan. 15, 2017 and created using several of the 16 spectral channels available on the satellite’s sophisticated Advanced Baseline Imager. The image, taken from 22,300 miles above the surface, shows North and South America and the surrounding oceans. (Credits: NOAA)

The Trump Administration and key Republican members of Congress have argued for a “re-balance” of NASA’s portfolio toward exploration. Let other agencies like NOAA conduct research into Earth science and global change.

However, it doesn’t appear Trump is remotely interested in giving NOAA the tools to even do that. In fact, he is proposing deep cuts in the agency.

The Trump administration is seeking to slash the budget of one of the government’s premier climate science agencies by 17 percent, delivering steep cuts to research funding and satellite programs, according to a four-page budget memo obtained by The Washington Post.

The proposed cuts to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration would also eliminate funding for a variety of smaller programs, including external research, coastal management, estuary reserves and “coastal resilience,” which seeks to bolster the ability of coastal areas to withstand major storms and rising seas….

The OMB outline for the Commerce Department for fiscal 2018 proposed sharp reductions in specific areas within NOAA such as spending on education, grants and research. NOAA’s Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research would lose $126 million, or 26 percent, of the funds it has under the current budget. Its satellite data division would lose $513 million, or 22 percent, of its current funding under the proposal.

The National Marine Fisheries Service and National Weather Service would be fortunate by comparison, facing only 5 percent cuts.

The story explains that not only would NOAA be hobbled in conducting research, but that cutbacks would jeopardize public safety by limiting the agency’s ability to protect the country against severe weather.

Read the full story at The Washington Post.

  • windbourne

    How about that? Move all earth science under NOAA and then cut the budget.
    That is a sure fire way to stop climate change.

    Kind of sad. All NASA has to do is put oco3 up on iss and within 6 months, climate change would become a top topic for all.

  • therealdmt


  • Kenneth_Brown

    Did you know that NOAA has it’s own police force? They buy ammo like it’s going out of production. What you find when searching the government bidding lists and RFQ’s can be very interesting.

    I’d rather see the military budget cut by what Trump wants to increase it by. I do agree that NASA should focus more on exploration and shift some of the earth sciences to NOAA, but that would also mean that NOAA would need the budget shifted to them as well. How many billion a year could be saved by closing down a US military base in Japan? Germany? Spain? Middle East? How about pulling back on the F-35 and building a whole mess of F-16’s and A-10’s instead? It’s one thing to have a few of the most advanced aircraft in a theatre, but another to have a sky full of very good aircraft bearing down on the enemy.

  • Andrew Tubbiolo

    If it’s not weapons research, it’s not worth doing.

  • Andrew Tubbiolo

    F-35’s real job is to take out S-300, and S-400 SAM batteries. They’re a problem. They can shoot down every F-15 and F-16 we throw at them. Currently the only way we have to deal with them is to saturate them with low observable anti-radiation drones/missiles. It’s not an ideal solution.

    Germany is already cut back a lot. Japan is unlikely as the Chinese are going to spend decades trying to claim whole portions of ocean for themselves. Spain is part of a rear reserve, after all the stuff we send into Poland and the Baltics gets chewed up. The Middle East, pick your failure mode. Nothing works there.

  • Kenneth_Brown

    I agree that the F-35 has a role that no other aircraft can perform, but the government is always looking for the single platform that will do everything rather than having several items that each play to a certain strength. Was it A.C. Clarke who’s story can be summed up as “Better is the enemy of Good Enough”? The US really doesn’t want to get into a shooting war with the likes of Russia or China where we would face the most sophisticated weaponry and defenses where “winning” would come at an extremely high cost.

    Earth science and observation is much more important than a massive military and should have a budget larger than it does. The Senate Launch System has already decimated many of NASA’s Earth investigation programs and the possibility of even considering future missions. Farmers are relying more and more on getting accurate weather and climate information to grow enough food for an overpopulated planet. If the information starts getting curtailed, people will die.

  • Andrew Tubbiolo

    Science is far more important than the military in the long term. In the short term, you can get tripped up. I used to agree with you about “Better is the enemy of good enough.”. I think the Western style of weapons procurement and engineering makes a system serve you better in peace time than the Russian approach. The Soviet/Russian approach is KISS. And that might work well when you’re losing them in combat. It did not help the Arabs, but the Russians insist that the failure was the Arabs and not the Russian’s. So take your pick.

    I don’t think the world is ending soon, however we are starting to see a world where armed forces are beginning to operate and congregate in close proxmity to each other. It’s nowhere near as bad as the old NATO vs Warsaw Pact days, but we’re seeing on the order of 10 motorized rifle and tank divisions drill near Ukraine and the Baltics. And the Naval build up in the South China Sea is not the beginning of a good thing.

    In the long term yes, NOAA is far more important than the DOD. But part of what the DOD does is make sure there is a tomorrow for their importance to be lessened. Is this Admin acting with that in mind? They seem hell bent on making Russia great again, and they’re not quite the paragon of civilian scientific forward movement, let alone cutting edge political experimentation in the empowerment of the common man as the West has been for a long time.

  • Paul451

    Somewhere out there there’s graduate level classes on how great the F-111 was.

    It would be held in Australia. The Pig was awesome.

  • JamesG

    Politicizing science is a two edged sword.

    But actually if you look at the rest of the proposed budget, everything else also has similar cuts (except the military sacred cow). Also these proposals never get thru the sausage making in Congress intact. Tons of NOAA et. al. funding will find its way back into appropriations.

  • Jeff2Space

    That’s not the only role being touted for F-35. It’s also slated to replace the A-10, despite its lack of a “big gun”, cockpit armor, and etc. The “multi-role” aspect of F-35 resulting in Air Force, Navy, and Marine versions have predictably driven costs sky high. Things that are different, just aren’t the same.

  • Andrew Tubbiolo

    Yeah, like I said in another post, somewhere there’s a group of people who think Bob McNamara’s F-111 idea was great. Either that or ‘defense’ was not really their top priority. Even with airliners different jobs require different airframes (at least) and different engines (most likely). In the case of ground support when you’re going up against the Russians or Chinese you have to penetrate ~180 miles deep behind where you intend to conduct air support and attack those SAM sites, in order to not get shot down on your way in, or over the target. This loiter and wait for targets we can do against stateless religious nut cases won’t work against a modern state. I hear you about the A-10’s, lots of people do, but without something that can do the wild weasel mission, aircraft like the A-10 are going to have very short lifetimes over the battlefield or close to it, and you’ll run out of them in a matter of days.

  • mlc449

    Trump really is a total scumbag!

  • Michael Vaicaitis

    You guys are droning on about the wrong solutions. I bet those SAMs don’t have human pilots.

  • windbourne

    Oh good grief.
    NOAA controls our fisheries. All major fishing ships esp Chinese, have inspectors on board. The police are used for after coast guard bring in criminal boats ( a lot from China ).

    And 46,000 rounds is nothing for a group.

    Quit reading faux and brietbart.

  • Kenneth_Brown

    You need to work on you public speaking manners. You should also do a little research into home many “police” forces there are in the US that seem to overlap with the ones we normally think of. It really adds up.

    BTW, I have no idea who Briebart is and I do my own thinking.

  • windbourne

    Fair enough about your first comment.
    It was just repeating the far right meme of gov under O buying loads of ammo got/gets old.

    There are many many police/security groups inside of our gov. Most ppl do not realize how important it is. And these ppl train CONSTANTLY. They have to. If they do not, they could kill an innocent.
    We are not just talking the military, but Secret Service, FBI, DIA, CIA, etc.