Firing of 800 NOAA Employees

[Boris Konon]

Recently released House budget for FY26 sciences

Breaking News: House FY2026 science budget explanatory statement released

Now that the holidays are in the rear view mirror, Congress is working again on the budget for those agencies and departments that still do not have a Fiscal Year 2026 budget.

balancedweather.substack.com

Link to the 135 page summary from the DoC is in the article.
https://rules.house.gov/sites/evo-s...nts/division-a-commerce-justice-science_0.pdf

So the proposal is to reject the elimination of the OAR.

This does not really surprise me. I don't agree w/ the extent of the initial cut proposals made last year, but just noting this is often how the game is played. Ask for more cuts than you will likely get, so what you actually get or the compromise is "better" (for the lack of a better term) for those asking for the deep cuts in the first place.

Other items concerning the NWS after a cursory read..

National Weather Service Staffing
The agreement adopts Senate direction and provides not less than $ 10,000,000 above the fiscal year 2024 enacted level to support full staffing levels at all Weather Forecast Offices.

Aircraft Based Observation Program
The agreement adopts the House report language under this heading and Senate report under the heading '·Observations" and provides an increase of $2,500,000 above the fiscal year 2024 enacted level to support the deployment of commercial aviation-based atmospheric data.

National Mesonet Program
The agreement adopts House language and provides $30,000,000 for the National Mesonet Program to expand observations, including up to $ 1,500,000 for the cost associated with the National Mesonet Program Office.

National Data Buoy Center
The agreement adopts the House language and provides an increase of up to $5,000,000 above the fiscal year 2024 enacted level for NDBC.

Cooperative Institute.for Research to Operations in Hydrology (ClROH)
The agreement adopts the House direction under this heading and Senate direction under the heading "Hydrology and Water Resource Programs" and includes an increase of $1.000,000 to establish a Forecast Informed Reservoir Operations (FIRO)-dedicated Research and Operations Partnership program.

 

[Randy Zipser]

CNN just aired a piece (01-12-2026) about a story published yesterday called "The Purged" in The Atlantic magazine by Franklin Foer. It is a very frank expose about the Trump/Musk collaboration to force out 300K Federal employees, including references to interviews with a top NOAA official. When I try to bring up this piece on The Atlantic's website, I get paywalled, except for a "free trial subscription," which I don't want. If anyone has subscription access to this article, please post a copy of it here. From the CNN interview of the author by anchor Dana Bash, this article sounds pretty revealing about what has actually happened since the DOGE Days were first announced. Please see the link below:

The Purged

 

[Mike Smith]

Coincidently, I wrote a related piece about federal cuts on my blog this morning: When Should Researchers Throw in the Towel? Quarter century of $$ and other resources and almost nothing tangible to show for it, in spite of promises to the contrary.

Important: There is a fascinating comment (via Alan's "Balanced Weather") on the other uses for PAR that has been appended to the top of the "Throw in the Towel" essay.

 

[SDBellisario]

CNN just aired a piece (01-12-2026) about a story published yesterday called "The Purged" in The Atlantic magazine by Franklin Foer. It is a very frank expose about the Trump/Musk collaboration to force out 300K Federal employees, including references to interviews with a top NOAA official. When I try to bring up this piece on The Atlantic's website, I get paywalled, except for a "free trial subscription," which I don't want. If anyone has subscription access to this article, please post a copy of it here. From the CNN interview of the author by anchor Dana Bash, this article sounds pretty revealing about what has actually happened since the DOGE Days were first announced. Please see the link below:

The Purged

I was able to read the article via an archived snapshot here (Not sure if getting around paywalls is against forum rules, but this was a particularly gripping story and wanted others to be able to see it): https://archive.is/20260111190539/h...ump-federal-worker-layoffs-interviews/685321/

That was a great read and really lays bare the vindictive motives and reckless approach of the current administration.

 

[gdlewen]

I was able to read the article via an archived snapshot here (Not sure if getting around paywalls is against forum rules, but this was a particularly gripping story and wanted others to be able to see it): https://archive.is/20260111190539/h...ump-federal-worker-layoffs-interviews/685321/

That was a great read and really lays bare the vindictive motives and reckless approach of the current administration.

Can we please stop with the “naked politics”on a forum ostensibly dedicated to the subject of “storm chasing”?

 

[Randy Zipser]

Can we please stop with the “naked politics”on a forum ostensibly dedicated to the subject of “storm chasing”?

Thank you so much, SDBellisario, for providing this article to ST Readers.

The forced purging of thousands of NOAA professionals is hardly a subject that is irrelevant to the storm-chasing community. If one feels offended by the "political nature" of this information, then simply don't read it (that's each individual's free choice, which, by the way, is what StormTrack, as created originally by David Hoadley, has always stood for since its inception).

I, for one, stand with high regard and in support of the ST Administrators, who have allowed differing points of view (including many "political" in nature, but ostensibly related to the core topic of this thread) to be discussed, debated, and aired throughout the earlier posts on this thread, even during the most difficult news cycles related to this topic last year. Their tolerance shows that they are following Mr. Hoadley's intentions concerning the unfettered delivery of information to it readership.

One last point: ST is about so much more than just tornadoes and storm chasing. ST is blessed to have many readers who are highly-informed/educated, very intelligent, and have a diversity of professional knowledge to share with others. That's why it stands apart from so much of conventional, stereotype social media. Let's be mindful of why we all participate in this website...and allow all contributions (consistent with website rules of decorum) to be read by those who wish to read them.

I hope that ST Admins will understand the constructive and positive purpose behind my foregoing remarks, and not delete them.

 

[Ken Perrin]

Thank you so much, SDBellisario, for providing this article to ST Readers.

The forced purging of thousands of NOAA professionals is hardly a subject that is irrelevant to the storm-chasing community. If one feels offended by the "political nature" of this information, then simply don't read it (that's each individual's free choice, which, by the way, is what StormTrack, as created originally by David Hoadley, has always stood for since its inception).

I, for one, stand in support of the ST Administrators, who have allowed many points of view (including "political" in nature, but ostensibly related to the core topic of this thread) to be discussed, debated, and aired throughout the earlier posts on this thread, even during the most difficult news cycles related to this topic last year. Their tolerance shows that they are following Mr. Hoadley's intentions concerning the unfettered delivery of information to it readership.

"You may not be interested in politics, but politics is interested in you"
Unfortunately, in today's environment politics (and politicians who are ignorant (willfully or not) of subjects such as weather forecasting) effects everything.

 

[gdlewen]

I rather think statements such as this from @SDBellisario: "That was a great read and really lays bare the vindictive motives and reckless approach of the current administration," (emphasis mine) are provocative, nakedly-political, and do not contribute substantively to any debate on the effect of workforce reductions on NOAA, the NWS, or the Department of Commerce.

Frankly, given the size of the federal civilian workforce and the size of the federal deficit, acting to reduce the size of government is well overdue.

 

[Mike Smith]

Frankly, given the size of the federal civilian workforce and the size of the federal deficit, acting to reduce the size of government is well overdue.

I must agree, in general. I wish it were being done in a smarter manner.

If it is fair to point out Trump's vindictiveness (and it is) then it is equally fair to point out that there were few presidents more vindictive than both Barack Obama and Lyndon Johnson, not to mention Sec. Hillary Clinton. The character deficiency of vindictiveness is not a function of political party.

 

[SDBellisario]

While my "vindictive and reckless" assessment admittedly is my own subjective opinion, I think it would be hard to argue that wasn't the intent or goal of Trump and DOGE based on the testimonies in the article. And to be clear, I have criticisms of other administrations but this is happening/happened under Trump's watch.

To bring this back to NOAA/NWS, I will fully acknowledge that I don't have nearly the depth of insight as some others on this forum regarding these agencies, but as a weather enthusiast it hurts to see the slash-and-burn approach taken to something that is supposed to provide a net positive for society. I am all for responsible spending both in the agencies and reigning in the deficit, but NOAA and NWS make up a fraction of the federal budget. I can think of a couple other things that blow up our deficit, but that might make the discourse a bit spicy so I'll keep those to myself in order to "lower the temperature".

 

[JamesCaruso]

STAFF NOTE

Hi everyone. Just a cautionary note to keep things objective to the extent possible, and always polite and civil.

I say “objective to the extent possible” because the line of objectivity is not always clear; it’s certainly permissible to have an opinion, and even third-party pieces that are shared are going to have some bias one way or another, even when they come from reputable sources. Criticizing a government action and expressing disagreement with it is on the OK side of the line in my opinion.

Extending the specific issue at hand to blanket generalizations and attacks, and making accusations about underlying intent, especially when extending that to a more subjective, general attack on motives of an entire administration, starts to get into broader political commentary that we want to stay out of here. That will help avoid escalation, and preserve the overarching goal of politeness and civility.

At the moment, I don’t see anything here that rises to the level of needing to be deleted, but let’s just be aware of tone and respectful of others. It’s generally a good idea to stay away from politics, especially in today’s polarized environment, and we’re usually pretty good at that here. In fact, this should be an escape from all of that! Unfortunately, this particular topic is political by nature, and the role of government in the weather enterprise is of interest to all of us, so we just have to be aware of when/if we are crossing any lines. I find it helps to take the emotion out of it when posting content, and look at an issue in isolation, decoupling it from larger trends or political perspectives to the greatest degree possible.

 

[Warren Faidley]

The biggest problem with politics now days (and as it applies to this topic), is the amount of false and/or neglected information needed for a logical and fair discussion and assessment. People often argue "non-facts" and it irritates the other people. There is way too much "editorial" opinion in the news today on all sides and it greatly distorts the facts. When I studied journalism in the late 1980's there was still a clean line between fact and opinion. Not anymore.

Almost everything I read or hear in the news has to be double checked by neutral AI sources to get the actual story. One of best recent examples was from the Palisades fire last year, when local officials were stating last week that "so many homes had been rebuilt." Fact is, less than 10 homes have actually been rebuilt. (Multiple local news sources and Chat AI confirmation).