Firing of 800 NOAA Employees

[Randy Zipser]

I agree with Jeff House's reaction to Post #119. The following link is another "sad" consequence of the current administration's decisions and actions affecting the lives of thousands of American citizens who are victims each year of weather (and other) natural disasters.

I wonder what would happen if a hypothetical Cat 5 hurricane were to obliterate Mar-a-Lago? In that scenario, if FL Gov. DeSantis (a staunch supporter of the administration) was to request FEMA funding to help those "billionaires" (including the president), would the president disapprove those funds?

https://www.cnn.com/2025/04/22/politics/fema-money-slowed-trump/index.html?iid=cnn_buildContentRecirc_end_recirc

 

[Mike Smith]

I wonder what would happen if a Cat 5 hurricane were to obliterate Mar-a-Lago? Would FL Gov. DeSantis request FEMA funding to help those "billionaires" (including the president)? Would the president approve those funds?

Good morning, Randy,

I guess my perspective is driven by the fact that I lived a significant amount of my life before there was a FEMA and before the feds (specifically President Obama with assistance from Gov Chris Christie) post-Sandy completely screwed up the homeowners' insurance market due to the close proximity to an election. The reverberations of that stupid move continue today, with the effect of significantly increasing homeowners insurance rates, especially in hurricane areas.

The F-5 Ruskin Heights Tornado of 1957* was very similar to Joplin in many ways, including occurring the same state. Yet, somehow, recovery occurred without a FEMA and it occurred much more quickly than similar recoveries today -- while people wait around to see if they are going to receive federal assistance (ask the people of Los Angeles where, as of last week, fewer than 100 building permits had been issued for the fire areas). The insurance companies, within days, went around the neighborhood to find their policyholders and/or they set up a tent at a local shopping center's parking lot. Once they had confirmed your ID and that you were a policyholder, they wrote a substantial check then and there.

I have long believed that if a person cannot afford homeowners' insurance, they can't afford to buy that home. There is more than a little evidence that if we got the feds out of interfering with disaster recovery (ask the people of North Carolina's mountains what they think of FEMA!), rates would actually go down.

In my ideal world, Congress and President Trump would reform this mess along these lines:

• Get the feds out of the homeowners insurance market.
• Insure the insurance companies (Allstate, State Farm, etc.) were sufficiently solvent with their assets and with the reinsurance markets to handle the largest disasters.
• A new "all-hazard" category of homeowners' insurance would be allowed. This would end the arguing over "wind or water" after a hurricane. It would also handle the potential for tsunami or volcano damage which --I believe -- is underestimated by FEMA and insurance due to recency bias.
• FEMA would, going forward, be shrunken into an expert logistics and red-tape cutting coordinating agency. It would be, according to the EA President Trump issued two weeks ago, be located outside of DC. It would be about 10% of its current size.
• There would be optional federal multi-state licensing of contractors so help could go where it is needed.

To answer your question, once this was accomplished, there would be no need for Governor DeSantis to request federal help. Insurance would take care of Mar-a-Lago.

My 2¢.

Mike


*Photos of the devastation of that tornado are below. The next morning, since we lived within the governor's designated disaster area, my mother drove us down the circled street. I knew I wanted to be a meteorologist from that moment, on.

 

[Randy Zipser]

Good morning, Randy,

I guess my perspective is driven by the fact that I lived a significant amount of my life before there was a FEMA and before the feds (specifically President Obama with assistance from Gov Chris Christie) post-Sandy completely screwed up the homeowners' insurance market due to the close proximity to an election. The reverberations of that stupid move continue today, with the effect of significantly increasing homeowners insurance rates, especially in hurricane areas.

The F-5 Ruskin Heights Tornado of 1957* was very similar to Joplin in many ways, including occurring the same state. Yet, somehow, recovery occurred without a FEMA and it occurred much more quickly than similar recoveries today -- while people wait around to see if they are going to receive federal assistance (ask the people of Los Angeles where, as of last week, fewer than 100 building permits had been issued for the fire areas). The insurance companies, within days, went around the neighborhood to find their policyholders and/or they set up a tent at a local shopping center's parking lot. Once they had confirmed your ID and that you were a policyholder, they wrote a substantial check then and there.

I have long believed that if a person cannot afford homeowners' insurance, they can't afford to buy that home. There is more than a little evidence that if we got the feds out of interfering with disaster recovery (ask the people of North Carolina's mountains what they think of FEMA!), rates would actually go down.

In my ideal world, Congress and President Trump would reform this mess along these lines:

• Get the feds out of the homeowners insurance market.
• Insure the insurance companies (Allstate, State Farm, etc.) were sufficiently solvent with their assets and with the reinsurance markets to handle the largest disasters.
• A new "all-hazard" category of homeowners' insurance would be allowed. This would end the arguing over "wind or water" after a hurricane. It would also handle the potential for tsunami or volcano damage which --I believe -- is underestimated by FEMA and insurance due to recency bias.
• FEMA would, going forward, be shrunken into an expert logistics and red-tape cutting coordinating agency. It would be, according to the EA President Trump issued two weeks ago, be located outside of DC. It would be about 10% of its current size.
• There would be optional federal multi-state licensing of contractors so help could go where it is needed.

To answer your question, once this was accomplished, there would be no need for Governor DeSantis to request federal help. Insurance would take care of Mar-a-Lago.

My 2¢.

Mike


*Photos of the devastation of that tornado are below. The next morning, since we lived within the governor's designated disaster area, my mother drove us down the circled street. I knew I wanted to be a meteorologist from that moment, on.

Great points, all, Mike. Much appreciated perspective, your "2-cents" worth!

In the case of Florida, even with FEMA acting in very-much-reduced background role, I'm not overly optimistic that the predominant role for disaster remediation should be left to the insurance industry at large. Commercial insurance companies (and their back-up reinsurance pools) are both subject to market forces and most are answerable to their shareholders (deep-pocketed investors in the latter case, or Members, as is the case with USAA, for example). Businesses being what they are, ultimately "King Dollar" mentality takes over and corners (in their interest in appeasing shareholders/investors) get cut. The end result is always the same: the policy holders get "screwed" when actual claims are filed. Then, who becomes the back-up to the re-insurers in a really major disaster? It's going to be the state governments, that's who! Florida's Citizens back-up insurance fund is chronically underfunded and essentially operating in debt now. Bottom line: Government (i.e., the public sector) will always be involved somehow with disaster-relief assistance, especially in the event of widespread, catastrophic natural (or even, human-caused) events. That said, I agree that a downsized FEMA role would go a long way toward streamlining and eliminating a lot of the "foot-dragging" that now occurs with FEMA in its present form, just as claim-settlement by commercial insurance companies is generally a bit faster (and simpler) nowadays.

 

[Mike Smith]

Government (i.e., the public sector) will always be involved somehow with disaster-relief assistance

I completely agree that there is a role for the federal government in a coordination/logistics role (only) in a major disaster such as an intense hurricane or tsunami. That said....

FWIW, for ~200 of our nation's ~250 years of existence we functioned fine without a FEMA. That is in spite of considerable evidence the meteorological disasters of the late 19th Century were worse than today (see: ironically named, When the Climate Was Perfect ) and the fact that the U.S.A's worst meteorological disasters since 1900 -- as measured by storm intensity -- all occurred in the 20's and 30's. As Roger points out, the wildfires of the late 1800's were far worse than today's wiping out Chicago and, separately, an area the size of Iowa! Somehow the remote Island of Hawaii managed to recover from the tsunami of 1946 -- the worst in the nation's history (Hawaii was a territory at the time) without a FEMA.

Keeping in mind I have sat in the executive offices of some of America's largest homeowners companies and one of its largest reinsurance companies, worked for attorneys on the other side of the issue, and have done consulting work for both, I think I have a decent amount insight into these issues for someone from outside of the industry.

Attached is a cartoon that may apply to doing away with FEMA in its present form and definitely applies to the opposition/indifference I have experienced with the National Disaster Review Board proposal. We can't imagine doing away with the NTSB and I believe the NDRB will do so much good that 10-15 years after its creation, America will feel the same way about it, too.

As to the almighty dollar, I recently had unusual hail damage to my home ( 1/2" hail but driven by a measured gust of 96 mph). Because it was a very small-scale storm (downburst-related), I feared the claims process. It turned out to be fast and very fair. I realize companies are under far less pressure in a situation like mine but think back to 9-11...

Warren Buffet said that GEICO and his other insurance companies did not include terrorism in their coverage nor were their rates priced for that risk. Yet they paid the whole liability immediately to the tune of $2.4 billion. The other insurance companies of which I am aware, especially the life insurance companies, did the same. Now, the life insurance companies could have said, "Hey, we didn't include direct terrorism in our risk categories and the government/charity is paying you more than your policies are worth" (in many cases that was true). Yet they paid quickly and in full.

I truly believe that rates would stay the same or go down if we got the government out of the 'insurance business.' Right now, the actuaries have no idea how to price risk because they don't know whether FEMA or Congress is going to step in and pay all or part as they did with the phony "Superstorm" Sandy and a number of storms since. That entire event caused a huge loss of trust in the insurance industry and within the insurance industry. There is no question the quality of claims service in major disasters has greatly decreased in the aftermath. Why would ACME Insurance want to pay off immediately (as they used to) if the government is going to come in and subsidize the whole financial aftermath for the companies that don't pay immediately and also covers the losses of the uninsured (subsidizes bad behavior)? Remember, government does not have to earn both money for retained earnings (to pay future claims) and a reasonable profit (so people will invest going forward).

Finally, I attach a photo of the discussion Obama's secret plan on a noisy tarmac, with Christie, to screw the taxpayers and the responsible insurance companies in the wake of Sandy. While I can't speak for Republicans, we conservatives spend a lot of time talking about government's unintended consequences. The effects of this meeting continue to reverberate today.

 

[Randy Zipser]

I completely agree that there is a role for the federal government in a coordination/logistics role (only) in a major disaster such as an intense hurricane or tsunami. That said....

FWIW, for ~200 of our nation's ~250 years of existence we functioned fine without a FEMA. That is in spite of considerable evidence the meteorological disasters of the late 19th Century were worse than today (see: ironically named, When the Climate Was Perfect ) and the fact that the U.S.A's worst meteorological disasters since 1900 -- as measured by storm intensity -- all occurred in the 20's and 30's. As Roger points out, the wildfires of the late 1800's were far worse than today's wiping out Chicago and, separately, an area the size of Iowa! Somehow the remote Island of Hawaii managed to recover from the tsunami of 1946 -- the worst in the nation's history (Hawaii was a territory at the time) without a FEMA.

Keeping in mind I have sat in the executive offices of some of America's largest homeowners companies and one of its largest reinsurance companies, worked for attorneys on the other side of the issue, and have done consulting work for both, I think I have a decent amount insight into these issues for someone from outside of the industry.

Attached is a cartoon that may apply to doing away with FEMA in its present form and definitely applies to the opposition/indifference I have experienced with the National Disaster Review Board proposal. We can't imagine doing away with the NTSB and I believe the NDRB will do so much good that 10-15 years after its creation, America will feel the same way about it, too.

As to the almighty dollar, I recently had unusual hail damage to my home ( 1/2" hail but driven by a measured gust of 96 mph). Because it was a very small-scale storm (downburst-related), I feared the claims process. It turned out to be fast and very fair. I realize companies are under far less pressure in a situation like mine but think back to 9-11...

Warren Buffet said that GEICO and his other insurance companies did not include terrorism in their coverage nor were their rates priced for that risk. Yet they paid the whole liability immediately to the tune of $2.4 billion. The other insurance companies of which I am aware, especially the life insurance companies, did the same. Now, the life insurance companies could have said, "Hey, we didn't include direct terrorism in our risk categories and the government/charity is paying you more than your policies are worth" (in many cases that was true). Yet they paid quickly and in full.

I truly believe that rates would stay the same or go down if we got the government out of the 'insurance business.' Right now, the actuaries have no idea how to price risk because they don't know whether FEMA or Congress is going to step in and pay all or part as they did with the phony "Superstorm" Sandy and a number of storms since. That entire event caused a huge loss of trust in the insurance industry and within the insurance industry. There is no question the quality of claims service in major disasters has greatly decreased in the aftermath. Why would ACME Insurance want to pay off immediately (as they used to) if the government is going to come in and subsidize the whole financial aftermath for the companies that don't pay immediately and also covers the losses of the uninsured (subsidizes bad behavior)? Remember, government does not have to earn both money for retained earnings (to pay future claims) and a reasonable profit (so people will invest going forward).

Finally, I attach a photo of the discussion Obama's secret plan on a noisy tarmac, with Christie, to screw the taxpayers and the responsible insurance companies in the wake of Sandy. While I can't speak for Republicans, we conservatives spend a lot of time talking about government's unintended consequences. The effects of this meeting continue to reverberate today.

Great discussion, Mike, as always! I agree that during the 20th century, Americans have become addicted to federal-government assistance for practically every major "trauma" one could possibly experience in life. Today, we take this for granted, conveniently ignoring the 38-trillion price tag it has left behind for future generations as-far-out-as-the-eye-can-see to pay off (which, BTW, if never will be...)! So, a drastic change in the way America conducts its business (along with some forgiveness of existing debt) is a necessity. It will be interesting to see, looking back a decade from now, whether the current administration's actions will be enough to make a meaningful dent in costs while still satisfying whatever services the American public deems it needs going forward.

 

[Randy Zipser]

This CBS News article appeared today (4/28/2025) about the result to date of the DOGE staffing and budget cuts. Musk has fallen very-well short of his stated goal as he now curtails his DOGE efforts. Are NOAA and the NWS better off now given the meager savings that the DOGE cuts have brought to the taxpayers, especially considering that some NOAA and NWS employees have since been rehired?

DOGE says it has saved $160 billion. Those cuts have cost taxpayers $135 billion, one analysis says.

 

[Mike Smith]

Randy and Everyone,

Look closely at the CBS story. Because President Trump is giving as much as 9 months of pay and benefits immediately upon acceptance of the resignation offer, it inflates the cost the first year.

There will be large savings the second year of all of this.

 

[John Farley]

What a mess is right, but way worse than "malicious compliance." Cuts that put Americans' lives in danger. This was brought to my attention by a post from Joe Golden on Facebook. If I were being treated the way that NOAA and NWS employees are being treated, at the cost of real danger to the American public, I suspect that I would be engaging in "malicious compliance" too.

‘Trainwreck’ of NOAA funding cuts could derail Colorado research on wildfires, earthquakes and storms

“It is our fear that if sweeping cuts are made, the damage will be irreversible.”

www.denverpost.com

 

[John Farley]

FWIW, for ~200 of our nation's ~250 years of existence we functioned fine without a FEMA. That is in spite of considerable evidence the meteorological disasters of the late 19th Century were worse than today (see: ironically named, When the Climate Was Perfect ) and the fact that the U.S.A's worst meteorological disasters since 1900 -- as measured by storm intensity -- all occurred in the 20's and 30's. As Roger points out, the wildfires of the late 1800's were far worse than today's wiping out Chicago and, separately, an area the size of Iowa! Somehow the remote Island of Hawaii managed to recover from the tsunami of 1946 -- the worst in the nation's history (Hawaii was a territory at the time) without a FEMA.

This all true, Mike, but you need to look at the death toll in those disasters, and also at the toll in money, loss, and heartache. The country went on, but things were often very bad for those who were impacted. There is no doubt there are major problems with FEMA, but I think corrective efforts should be directed toward improving how we help people impacted by disaster, not giving up on helping them.

 

[Mike Smith]

This all true, Mike, but you need to look at the death toll in those disasters, and also at the toll in money, loss, and heartache. The country went on, but things were often very bad for those who were impacted. There is no doubt there are major problems with FEMA, but I think corrective efforts should be directed toward improving how we help people impacted by disaster, not giving up on helping them.

Hi John, this was a thoughtful reply. I believe we want the same thing but very difficult visions of how to achieve it. So, if you don't mind, I'm going to parse your comment because there is a lot to unpack.

• "you need to look at the death toll in those disasters" Thank goodness, due to modern meteorology, the death rate and the absolute number of deaths has fallen. That is thanks to some of the real-time reporting by people on this board.
• "you need to look at the death toll in those disasters and also at the toll in money, loss, and heartache" That is why I have spent so very much of my time trying to create a National Disaster Review Board. Since 2012 (Sandy).
• "The country went on, but things were often very bad for those who were impacted." Agreed! But why is it the federal government should be the only or primary source of aid? I'm not sure why many people believe the federal government -- with its long history of failure in the disaster recovery endeavor -- should continue to be looked to as the primary source of aid.
• Governor Ron DeSantis and his emergency management team have done simply amazing work in the field of disaster recovery, In the wake of Cat 4 Ian (poorly forecast by the federal government, by the way), his repair of the unusable Pine Island Bridge ( Florida completes repairs on Pine Island bridge in just 3 days ) was simply amazing. One of the primary purposes of the NDRB is to promulgate "best practices." The feds would have taken months to repair the bridge. Ian's too-high death toll of 161 would have been even higher without the bridge to move aid in and out.
• "There is no doubt there are major problems with FEMA" In its current form, it is irredeemable. I completely support President Trump's commission to figure out what to do with the agency as it has become truly counterproductive to its own mission. As you know, my view is that it should be shrunk into an urgent logistics and red-tape cutting agency, only. That is an area in which the federal government can shine.
• "I think corrective efforts should be directed toward improving how we help people impacted by disaster," Agree, which is the function of the NDRB. I have given up on FEMA in its present form -- the rot is too deep as proven by its immoral and, very possibly, illegal actions in North Carolina.
• "not giving up on helping them" No one, least of all I, is doing that. FEMA does little to nothing to prevent deaths and injuries. I spent a 50+ year career working all night, weekends and holidays (yes, Christmas even when I had little kids) in tornado, ice storm and blizzard situations to prevent deaths. As of 2010 when I was researching Warnings, the death rate from tornadoes had been cut 97%*!! Where we -- strongly -- disagree is in your view that the (often incompetent, sometimes cruel) federal government disaster infrastructure is the way to go. States, counties, church groups such as Samaritans' Purse, are far more effective than the feds. I would like us to take the view that it is critical to assist disaster victims -- without bias -- and go with whomever/whatever has the best track record.

Thanks again for your comment, John. Respectfully, have you -- and everyone reading this -- contacted your congresspeople and the White House regarding the NDRB?

* Unfortunately, deaths have begun to rise slightly with the mess in NWS tornado warnings these days, not to mention the NWS's huge tornado forecast bust yesterday.

 

[John Farley]

• "The country went on, but things were often very bad for those who were impacted." Agreed! But why is it the federal government should be the only or primary source of aid? I'm not sure why many people believe the federal government -- with its long history of failure in the disaster recovery endeavor -- should continue to be looked to as the primary source of aid.

I think the government has to be a major source of aid because it is the only entity that has the resources and motivation to respond on the scale needed for the larger disasters. Although funding needs to be at the federal level, implementation does not necessarily have to. Perhaps there could be federal grants directly to the states instead of through FEMA to do the disaster recovery, for example. There are advantages and disadvantages to doing it that way, but it might work better than FEMA currently is. That said, I would be remiss if I did not note that the current administration is also making major cuts in grants to state and local governments, in some cases relating to disaster mitigation. Cuts to wildfire prevention efforts have been noted earlier in this thread and others, and I just heard a few days ago about a cancellation of a grant to mitigate future chemical leak hazards at a college in Las Vegas, New Mexico, where an employee was killed by such a leak last year.

 

[Mike Smith]

I would be remiss if I did not note that the current administration is also making major cuts in grants to state and local governments, in some cases relating to disaster mitigation. Cuts to wildfire prevention efforts have been noted earlier in this thread and others, and I just heard a few days ago about a cancellation of a grant to mitigate future chemical leak hazards at a college in Las Vegas, New Mexico, where an employee was killed by such a leak last year.

John, why do you always have to make this political? There were huge issues with President Obama's and Biden's disaster policies. I've written about the former in a factual way w/r/t its long-lasting (still current) effects on homeowners' insurance. But, I've tried my very best not to make it political.

As to the LSV college, it is not the job of the President to micromanage college EM's. Obama + Biden +Trump = presidents, not kings.

 

[John Farley]

John, why do you always have to make this political? There were huge issues with President Obama's and Biden's disaster policies. I've written about the former in a factual way w/r/t its long-lasting (still current) effects on homeowners' insurance. But, I've tried my very best not to make it political.

As to the LSV college, it is not the job of the President to micromanage college EM's. Obama + Biden +Trump = presidents, not kings.

I don't think my posts are any more political than yours. The subject matter is by definition political, because cuts to NOAA (thread title) are political by nature. I agree with you on the need for a disaster review board, regardless of which party is in power. The point I was trying to make is that some of this seems to be more about cutting budgets than about doing things better/smarter. I am not in favor of overall budget cuts, especially if they are part of a budget that otherwise increases the deficit. But I AM in favor of doing things in a more effective way, particularly relative to the way FEMA has operated. (Under Bush, Obama, Trump, Biden - all of them to a greater or lesser extent) And grants to the states instead of FEMA might be one way of doing that, but IMHO the money still needs to be there. Just needs to be spent in a smarter way. And I certainly was not talking about micromanaging the college - just providing resources to help mitigate the risk of a repeat tragedy. As a retired university professor, I am the last person in the world that wants to see the federal government trying to micromange colleges. So we strongly agree on that!

One other thing I should have had in my response to your earlier post - I know from experience how hard you worked to keep people safe during dangerous weather, because I saw it first hand when I was in the St. Louis area. As I have said before, I thought you were the best TV met in that market.

 

[Randy Zipser]

What a mess is right, but way worse than "malicious compliance." Cuts that put Americans' lives in danger. This was brought to my attention by a post from Joe Golden on Facebook. If I were being treated the way that NOAA and NWS employees are being treated, at the cost of real danger to the American public, I suspect that I would be engaging in "malicious compliance" too.

‘Trainwreck’ of NOAA funding cuts could derail Colorado research on wildfires, earthquakes and storms

“It is our fear that if sweeping cuts are made, the damage will be irreversible.”

www.denverpost.com

Excellent article from Joe Golden, John. I'm beginning to think that the acronym for DOGE really should be Department of Governmental Erasure!!

One other thing I should have had in my response to your earlier post - I know from experience how hard you worked to keep people safe during dangerous weather, because I saw it first hand when I was in the St. Louis area. As I have said before, I thought you were the best TV met in that market.

I can "second" your comment and observation about Mike's time in the "crowded" OKC met market in the early 1970s. "The OKC Legend" Channel 9's Gary England and Channel 5's Ross Dixon were tough competition in that market, but I always remember Mike's weathercasts, particularly on weekends in April-May tornado season, even though Jim Williams was on air more frequently weekdays. Ditto for Mike's KARD/KSN weathercasts from ICT which I could get in AYS during the late 1970s.

One other quick observation in Post #130 about writing Congressional reps about Mike's NDRB concept is that in this present era of Washington leaders, whose goals are very short-sighted in the sense of having a penchant for immediate results, there would be very little bipartisan appetite for approving sustainable budgetary outlays for logical, long-term considerations like the creation of a NDRB, even though all the reasons Mike cites for its creation (I, too, agree) are more than cogent and valid long-term, IMHO.

But, in the end, from the perspective of the federal government, the proper focus should be about saving lives and restoring citizen's livelihoods to a reasonable degree of normality after some catastrophic natural event, not purely about cost-cutting...especially using the DOGE's "chainsaw" approach. There will always be disagreement about who or what entity, public or private, best gets the job done quickly, most effectively, and successfully; cost should be secondary in the immediate aftermath of such an event, but is vital as a longer-term objective to keep global economic order from becoming unstable (as the tariff trade-war uncertainty in global financial/economic markets has recently brought to light).

Really good discussion, gentlemen!

 

[Mike Smith]

John and Randy,

Thank you for your kind words. They are very much appreciated.

As to your comments about Washington, I fear the political climate -- even thought I believe I finally have a congressperson interested -- may be wrong.

Mike