Big Jolly Politics

politics in Harris County and Texas

About Greg Degeyter

Greg is an attorney mainly practicing Social Security law. Law is a career change. In the past he was a meteorologist, and likes to joke that the career change means he has gone from a liar to a cheat. Before moving to Houston he was a precinct chair in Orange County, Texas, for a decade and briefly held the county party vice chair. In his spare time he is an avid student of tae kwon do, and is teaching himself leatherworking.

Interview with Jessica Caird for the First Court of Appeals

by Leave a Comment

Jessica Caird was kind enough to sit down and discuss her race for the First Court of

Appeals, Place 5. Caird currently serves as the Chief of the Harris County District

Attorney’s Office Appellate Division, where she oversees both criminal and civil

appellate matters.

Why Run

Caird explained that she is running because the Court of Appeals issues the decisions

that shape the law, and she believes “we can do better.” Her answer carried a

philosophical tone, emphasizing that the court should be “effective, efficient, and

accurate.” She also reflected that “justice isn’t the same to everyone,” but that the

appellate process brings closure—and that improving the Court’s efficiency helps

litigants find closure more quickly.

The Role of the Court of Appeals

The Court of Appeals serves as the front-line appellate court reviewing decision from

the trial courts. As we have seen nationally in recent years, Courts of Appeals wield

significant power to constrain judicial activism at the trial-court level.

These courts are also, with few exceptions, the main avenue of relief for criminal

defendants. Any defendant convicted at trial has a right to appeal and seek remedy

before the Court of Appeals. Depending on the outcome of the upcoming Constitutional

Amendment election in November, the Court may also face an increasing caseload

involving bail and bond disputes.

Bail and Bond Issues

Caird said the Court of Appeals should treat bond issues as a check-and-balance

function and utilize a de novo review process. She noted that crime victims currently

have no direct means to challenge bond decisions that affect them, making it all the

more important for the state to be able to petition for redress.

Judicial Oversight and Reversal Standards

When asked about the Court’s role in regulating judicial behavior, Caird pointed to the

availability of both writs of mandamus and writs of prohibition as tools to ensure

compliance with the law. In simple terms, a writ of mandamus compels a trial court to

act, while a writ of prohibition forbids it from acting. Both are mechanisms the appellate

courts can employ to ensure trial judges remain within legal bounds.

 

In terms of when the appellate court should render or remand, Caird explained

that rendered judgments should be rare, but necessary to make the judgment

speak the truth of what occurred at the trial level.  For example, when legally

insufficient evidence supported the verdict, the appellate court has no choice but

to render a judgment in favor of the defendant, whether that is an acquittal in a

criminal case or, in a civil case, a judgment rendered for the defendant due to the

lack of evidence provided to support the plaintiff’s claim.  The appellate court

remands, on the other hand, when something must be done or redone at the trial

court level, such as a retrial. This is by far more common but should be done only

when the record and the law require it.

Why Choose You?

“I am asking the voters to choose me because my level of experience means I will hit the ground

running on day one ready to see justice done effectively, efficiently, and accurately on every case.”

Turning to what makes her the best candidate for the position, Caird noted that

the Harris County District Attorney’s Office Appellate Division handles both civil

and criminal matters, providing her with broad and balanced experience across

multiple areas of law. Caird personally wrote over 440 briefs for the appellate

courts on civil and criminal matters and continues to write for the appellate

courts.  She has presented oral arguments before the local appellate courts 30

times, and argued 4 times before the Court of Criminal Appeals.  She has an

affirmance rate of approximately 97 percent, showing her ability to effectively

understand and apply to the law to the facts.  She has written briefs for the United

States Supreme Court, the Texas Supreme Court, and the Court of Criminal

Appeals.  Lastly, she has spent 22 years specializing in juvenile law having acted

as a chief in Harris County juvenile courts for over 3 years, having handled

numerous juvenile appeals, and she continues to study and speak statewide on

juvenile law.

Campaign Approach

When asked about her path to victory, Caird said her focus is on meeting as many

voters as possible across the ten counties within the Court’s jurisdiction. She has

already visited nine of the ten counties and plans to continue attending Republican

events to share her message. Republicans are “all about seeing justice done,” she

said, noting that this is a ten-county race and that issues such as crime have spread

beyond Harris County into surrounding communities.

Civility and Public Discourse

As with other interviews this cycle, I asked about civility and public discourse. Between

the assassination attempts on President Trump and the successful assassination of

Charlie Kirk, it seems that society has reached a tipping point where some now view

political violence as acceptable.

This has broader political ramifications. Primaries tend to amplify the most extreme

voices in each party, making it harder for candidates to return to the center in the

general election. While judicial races are typically less partisan, the issue of tone and

civility still matters.

Caird believes that confronting inflammatory rhetoric should begin in the primaries but

that corrective conversations are often more productive when handled privately rather

than publicly. She observed that, as a society, “we need to meet people where they are”

and then “work toward common ground.”

Closing Thoughts

Caird’s responses blended technical precision with philosophical reflection,

demonstrating a broad foundation for serving effectively on the Court. Individual justices

may hold differing judicial philosophies, but the law benefits when decisions are clear

and provide unambiguous guidance to the attorneys who must follow them. Caird

appears well-suited to engage from both a technical and philosophical standpoint,

helping to craft consensus opinions that reduce ambiguity and strengthen the

predictability of appellate law.

Message discipline with redistricting

by

In the 2000 census redistricting, a Republican-leaning map – but not the leadership’s favored plan – was brought to the House floor. A coordinated effort moved to kill it. One legislator warned colleagues that the recorded vote would be used in the lawsuits that would follow passage of the favored map. The warning worked: the bill’s author withdrew the map.

We’ve lost that kind of message discipline, and it will come back to haunt us once the current maps pass.

Impermissible Redistricting and Legal Standards

States have wide latitude to draw district boundaries, but that latitude is not unlimited. Federal law and the Constitution place guardrails on why and how lines can be drawn.

One impermissible reason – and the one relevant here – is retaliation or punishment. That means drawing lines specifically to penalize voters, communities, or candidates for their political expression. This isn’t just bad politics; it can be unconstitutional under the First Amendment.

In Vieth v. Jubelirer, 541 U.S. 267 (2004), Justice Kennedy suggested that redistricting could be analyzed under a First Amendment retaliation theory. That idea gained traction in Shapiro v. McManus, 584 Fed. Appx. 140, where Justice Scalia, writing for the majority, allowed a First Amendment challenge to redistricting to proceed.

The test is straightforward: if there’s a legitimate fact question about an impermissible reason for redistricting, the case won’t be thrown out early on summary judgment. Instead, it moves forward to a full trial on the merits to resolve that question.

That matters because we’re only seven months from the primaries. A surviving lawsuit means trial prep, trial, and an appeal before new maps can be used. Even if those maps eventually pass legal muster, the clock may run out for 2026.

Poor message discipline hands opponents a fact question

The easiest way to hand your opponents that factual dispute? Have a legislator brag, on the record or online, about drawing lines to punish political opponents. That’s a trial lawyer’s dream exhibit. The best evidence they can present is a legislator openly suggesting that maps are being drawn to punish political opponents or reward allies.

Representative Brian Harrison’s recent social media post does exactly that. In a moment of “mic drop” bravado, he stated that each week Democrats remain absent, Republicans will redraw another Democratic seat into a Republican one. That’s not just political theater — it’s a written admission that can be used to argue an impermissible purpose.

Once entered into evidence, a post like this gives opponents a clean path to survive summary judgment, dragging litigation on long enough to jeopardize the use of any new maps in 2026

https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=1148806347282830&set=a.218670246963116ook

The quorum break may have set the stage, but careless messaging provides the legal ammunition to keep the case alive.  This means that even when the maps pass – and they eventually will – the odds of their use in 2026 is small and decreasing by the day.  Not because of the quorum break, but because of a message discipline own goal.

Containing the damage and 2030 considerations

While the damage from poor messaging is contained in a worst case scenario of the maps don’t get used until 2028 that doesn’t necessarily follow for the 2030 redistricting. Unlike two decades ago, you don’t need specialized software to create districts that pass threshold scrutiny.  While preparing for this article, I created the following maps using ChatGPT using only my cell phone – all while sitting in a Kroger parking lot while Rochelle was grocery shopping.

The goal was to create an Asian opportunity district.  First the Asian opportunity census block groups need to be identified.

This was straightforward, with the above map being the core, though the net could be cast as wide or narrow as desired.  The map below is the block groups that are suitable for Asian Opportunity district in Harris and the immediately contiguous counties.

From there, it’s simply a matter of downloading precinct maps, and CVAP numbers with a rule to make the district as Asian as possible.  The below map is the end result.

Does it perfectly comply with legal standards? Not quite, but with the CSV data tables used to create it, manual corrections are simple: just fill in the gaps.

All of this was done on my cell phone, in the Kroger parking lot, while Rochelle shopped. It’s literally that simple.

Why is this important?

In IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIAMIDDLE DISTRICT the Court generated their own remedial maps stating:

Pursuant  to  the  January  22  Order, certain  parties,  the intervenors,  and  several amici  submitted  to  the  Court  proposed remedial  districting  plans  for  the  Court’s  consideration,   all   of   which   were   carefully   reviewed   by   the   Court.7      Proceeding expeditiously,  the  Court  prepared  a  constitutionally  sound  plan  in  accordance  with  our  announced criteria.  After  full  deliberation  and  consideration,  the  Court  hereby adopts this  remedial  plan (“Remedial  Plan”)8,  as  specifically  described  below,  which  shall  be  implemented  forthwith  in  preparation for the  May  15,  2018  primary  election.

This precedent makes outside map submissions plausible in Texas as well, especially if challenges are filed in federal court in Austin. Anyone with standing to file an amicus brief could submit maps for legal consideration  – and with modern tools, creating a viable map is now a low hurdle to clear.

In redistricting, the lines you draw aren’t the only thing that matters – the record you create while drawing them is just as important. Careless words today can be the reason you lose the maps tomorrow. If we don’t learn that now, the consequences in 2030 could be catastrophic.

 

In case anyone is interested, here’s the demographics and projected leaning of the created district:

Asian: 22.96%

Black: 27.30%

Hispanic: 21.71%

White (alone): 26.01%

Estimated Partisan Voting Index D+11.

Now, compare to current CD 7

White (non-Hispanic): ~ 27%

Black (non-Hispanic): ~ 19.8%

Asian (non-Hispanic): ~ 18.9%

Hispanic (various categories): 22%

Cook Partisan Voting Index (PVI): D+12 (includes Biden 2024 results)

The created district survives review given the similarities to the current CD 7.

Marijuana Veto and Houston Campaign Reimbursenent

by

Politics often produces surprising legal connections. One such connection exists between Governor Abbott’s veto of Senate Bill 3 on marijuana regulation and Houston City Councilman Edward Pollard’s $1 million loan to his own campaign.

The common thread? Federal preemption – when federal law overrides more restrictive state or local laws.

Senate Bill 3 Veto

In vetoing SB 3, Governor Abbott issued a lengthy statement that, while recognizing the need for regulation, argued that the bill was unconstitutional. He wrote:

“Texas must strongly regulate hemp, and it must do so immediately. Senate Bill 3 is well‑intentioned. But it would never go into effect because of valid constitutional challenges.” (Emphasis in original)

The constitutional problem: SB 3 would impose restrictions on hemp products more strict than federal law. Under the preemption doctrine, such state restrictions could be struck down if they conflict with federal regulation. The issue is already in litigation in Arkansas, giving the Governor’s reasoning some legal footing.

Councilman Pollard’s $1 Million Self‑Loan

The same preemption principle applies in a different arena – campaign finance.

Federal law once capped post‑election reimbursement of candidate loans at $250,000. That changed with Federal Election Commission v. Ted Cruz for Senate (596 U.S. 289 (2022)). In that case, Senator Cruz loaned his campaign $260,000. Because of the cap, he could only be repaid $250,000; the remaining $10,000 was forfeited.

The Supreme Court ruled 6–3 that this cap violated the First Amendment by burdening core political speech without sufficient anti‑corruption justification. This decision effectively eliminated the federal restriction on repaying personal campaign loans.

The parallel is obvious: local limits could be challenged – and likely invalidated – under Cruz. For Councilman Pollard, who has loaned his campaign $1 million, the stakes are much higher, but the constitutional reasoning is the same.

Local Political Impact

The legal question becomes ripe when reimbursement is challenged or denied. Mayor Whitmire has already sparred with Councilman Pollard over funding for District J initiatives – first blocking, then releasing discretionary funds for the initiatives. These are wildly popular: supplemental heavy trash pickup and soft crime intervention.  Things that both improve quality of life in the district and would poll well city wide.

While not open warfare, it’s no secret Pollard may be eyeing higher office, with Mayor or Comptroller as the only two nonpartisan options available.

If he can be reimbursed, it proves both his campaign’s financial muscle and his business acumen – useful for either role. Even if the fight over repayment is unresolved, a public battle generates media coverage, name recognition, and credibility beyond District J.  The Mayor, for his part, has no incentive to give ground. Pollard’s $2 million war chest already makes him a serious contender for citywide office.

Why the Marijuana Bill Matters Here

Assuming a legislative quorum can be established, the outcome of any marijuana regulation’s constitutional battle could influence how courts (and political opponents) view campaign loan repayment restrictions. Both involve more restrictive local or state rules colliding with broader federal protections. A ruling against eventual marijuana legislation on preemption grounds would bolster the argument that repayment limits are equally vulnerable.

Strange connections? Yes. But in law and politics, the same constitutional principle can decide battles in entirely different arenas – whether over marijuana regulation or the repayment of a $1 million campaign loan.

Closing Thoughts

Whichever way the legal chips fall, the fight over Pollard’s loan has the potential to reshape Houston politics. A reimbursement victory cements his viability for a citywide run, forcing the Mayor’s office and other contenders to adjust their strategies now, not later. It also opens the door to potential greater self loans should he gain donation traction and not fear reimbursement.

A loss could just as easily fuel an underdog narrative that rallies his base. Either way, this isn’t just a potential legal skirmish; it’s an invitation to engage in a chess game that could define Houston’s governance and set the tone for the 2027 campaign cycle before it even begins.

The Cost of Fragmented Flood Planning in Harris County

by

The Harris County Flood Control District is currently holding public meetings link to present its SAFER Study—short for Solutions for Advancing Floodplain Evaluation and Resilience. At the same time, the Texas Legislature is convening a special session where flooding and flood infrastructure are among the policy issues under consideration. The convergence of local planning and statewide policymaking makes this an important moment for reflection.

As some readers may know, I am a Fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society. My background in meteorology informs my perspective, but so does my deep concern as a Houstonian who understands both the personal and financial toll of flooding. My overriding concern is simple: flood policy should be driven by good science, good data, and a commitment to minimizing harm in the pursuit of protection.

Too often, financial interests supplant the common good. Take, for example, the proliferation of clickbait weather pages on Facebook. If they were named the Dewey, Cheetum, and Howe Clickbait Weather Page, no one would take them seriously. Instead, they adopt credible-sounding names and often use long range meteorological modeling data to project an unwarranted air of authority.

The same phenomenon can occur with consulting groups. To be clear, I’m not suggesting these firms have the same questionable motives as internet grifters – they do not. However, they create a similar air of credibility, which in turn shields flawed assumptions or methodologies from legitimate scrutiny. Well-intentioned policy veers off course when the underlying data is flawed, incomplete, or improperly applied. Unfortunately, what I observed in the recent SAFER Study presentation suggests we may be headed in that direction.

In the sections that follow, I’ll examine three critical areas of concern. First, the flawed use of precipitation data, particularly how named tropical systems have distorted the calculation of flood return periods. Second, the fundamental under-acknowledgment of how localized sheet flow feeds into river and bayou flooding. Third, the lack of coordination among political jurisdictions, which, despite relying on many of the same consultants, continue to operate in silos without a unified regional flood strategy. These issues are not isolated; they compound each other and together risk undermining a cohesive solution for flood control.

Misused Precipitation Data and the Weight of Outliers

One of the foundational flaws in recent flood planning stems from how precipitation data is being applied – particularly when it comes to rare, high-impact tropical systems.

When voters approved Propositions A and B to fund flood control efforts, the planning and modeling behind those proposals did not exclude rainfall totals from extreme named storms. Not all tropical systems produce 100-year flood events. Ike, Nicholas, and last year’s Beryl did not. However, Tropical Storm Allison, Hurricane Harvey, and Tropical Storm Imelda each exceeded standard thresholds: Allison exceeded the 100-year return period and approached 1-in-200-year levels in some locations; Harvey surpassed 500-year rainfall totals in many areas and even approached the 1,000-year mark; Imelda, while less publicized, approached 500-year intensity in some areas.

Including these outliers in baseline calculations distorts the final calculations. It raises the statistical average for what qualifies as a “100-year flood” and, by extension, expands the footprint of mapped floodplains. That affects everything: insurance rates, building regulations, infrastructure planning, and property values. In short, the models are overestimating risk in many areas – not because they’re broken, but because they’re anchored to extraordinary events that should be treated as anomalies.

Since the passage of those bond measures, HCFCD has transitioned to using Atlas 14 for precipitation data. This shift represents a good faith effort to improve accuracy by using the latest available data – but it unintentionally exacerbated the problem. Because Atlas 14 includes more data it better captures the statistical footprint of those rare events. Rather than balancing the models, it effectively locks in the elevated values – anomalies even among tropical system impacts in Harris County.

We absolutely need effective flood control measures – Harris County has seen too much devastation to argue otherwise. But these measures must be implemented at the lowest cost possible, both financially and in terms of collateral damage. Overinflated models lead to overengineered responses, which in turn lead to expensive and disruptive projects. Purchasing large swaths of land, displacing residents, or invoking eminent domain, while sometimes necessary, should never be the first option – especially when flawed data is driving the decision-making.

On the bright side, this is an easily addressed issue. Simply exclude Allison, Harvey, and Imelda and recalculate the 100-year floodplain. Harris County cannot regulate FEMA flood maps or insurance premiums, but it can control its own mapping and use a recalculated, more realistic floodplain for county-funded projects. We owe it to taxpayers, homeowners, and future generations to get this right.

Sheet Flow and River Flooding Are Linked

Flooding in Harris County generally comes in two forms: river flooding, which includes bayous, and sheet flow flooding, more commonly (and misleadingly) referred to as “street flooding.” While often discussed separately, these two forms of flooding are deeply connected. Any serious mitigation strategy must address both not in isolation, but as they are – a unified hydrologic system.

Here’s what happens when it rains: water hits the ground and is either absorbed into the soil or runs off if the precipitation rate exceeds the land’s absorption capacity. That excess water becomes sheet flow, which enters storm drains and ditches, eventually feeding into our rivers and bayous.

The amount of runoff is calculated by the formula Q = CiA, where:

  • Q = runoff rate
  • C = runoff coefficient (the only controllable variable)
  • i = precipitation intensity (often called precipitation rate)
  • A = area receiving precipitation

The C value is the only value that is influenced by urban development.  The value is often visualized through an S-curve, which reflects how quickly runoff moves into stormwater systems and, in turn, rivers. S flow determines how fast water reaches those systems, and if the systems aren’t engineered with sufficient acceptance and transport capacity, the result is urban flooding.

It’s not difficult to diagnose where the problem lies. If storm drains are full and water is bubbling up or backflow is visible from inlets or manholes, it’s a transport capacity issue—the system can’t move water out fast enough. If no such signs appear, the issue is more likely acceptance capacity—the system can’t take in water fast enough to begin with.

Effective flood control must address both. Flooded intersections serve as functional retention ponds, slowing water’s entry into the drainage network. The current “acceptable time window” for flooded intersections simply picks winners and losers.  The current plan is willing to accept urban flooding and the costs and impositions associated with the flooding.  That’s not an acceptable solution. However, addressing street flooding without considering how it accelerates flow into bayous impacts down flow conditions.

These systems are tied together, which brings us to a deeper, self-inflicted challenge: governance.

Jurisdictional Fragmentation and the Illusion of Coordination

The biggest takeaway from the SAFER Study meeting wasn’t a technical flaw; it was the glaring lack of coordination between political subdivisions when it comes to formulating a comprehensive flood mitigation plan.

That’s not to say coordination doesn’t happen. It does, but it’s inconsistent and fragmented. Cities, utility districts, and regional agencies often plan within their own silos, even though floodwaters don’t respect those boundaries.

This disjointed approach is often rationalized two ways: first, through political recognition of the jurisdictional limitations; and second, by saying, “we use the same consultants.” Neither excuse holds up.

Sharing consultants may create the illusion of coordination, but it doesn’t ensure that final plans are integrated or aligned. Each jurisdiction still defines its own scope, contracts separately, and executes independently—without a binding regional strategy. There may be meetings, but there is no master plan.

This problem is no longer academic. With $400 million in new federal funding recently released—alongside the existing county bond funds—we’ve entered the implementation phase. What we build now will either fix or cement the fragmentation.

The most disheartening aspect is that better coordination is possible now. County projects could be formulated with “bolt-on” compatibility to nearby urban initiatives. Urban projects could include hydrologic impact calculations and be temporarily delayed 30 days to allow the County to review and propose coordination strategies. This doesn’t require new laws.  All it takes is a cooperative mind set.

Some of that mind set already exists. Commissioner Ramsey’s office has expressed interest in discussions around these proposals. Even if only Precinct 3 begins to include bolt-on opportunities in their projects, it demonstrates that a simple mindset shift can bring us closer to real regional coordination.

We will never take politics out of flood control. However, adjusting basic standard operating procedures can move us closer to what should be our shared goal: a comprehensive, efficient, and minimally disruptive flood control system that protects lives, property, and taxpayer dollars alike.

 

A Meteorologist’s Perspective on the Hill Country Floods

by

First, let me be clear: this post isn’t written to diminish the tragedy of the recent flash flooding in Central Texas. The loss of life is horrific, and but for the timing—many summer camps between terms—it could have been even worse. My heart goes out to every family affected.

As a meteorologist, I feel compelled to address the political commentary that’s emerged in the wake of this disaster. I have been critical of cuts to NOAA and the National Weather Service, but let me be clear: those trying to link these floods to those cuts reveal a fundamental misunderstanding of both meteorology and, more importantly, the human decency owed to the victims at this time.

This wasn’t a failure of forecasting. It wasn’t forecastable. What happened in the Hill Country is eerily similar to what Houston experienced during Harvey: a tropical system—in this case, the remnants of Barry—became trapped and dumped copious amounts of rain over a concentrated area. In both cases, meteorologists could see the potential for heavy rain, but no responsible forecaster would or could predict the exact magnitude or location of the worst flooding ahead of time.

We have a duty as meteorologists to maintain public trust. Warning fatigue is real, and the chase for ratings has already eroded credibility when it comes to extreme forecasts. Issuing a forecast that calls for outlier rainfall totals without sufficient certainty doesn’t make us look bold—it risks undermining trust in all future warnings. And that loss of trust can cost lives when we truly need the public to act on clear, actionable alerts.

By the time the gravity of this situation was apparent, it was too late. In some places, water was rising at more than an inch a minute—in the middle of the night. This happened in an area where spotty cell service is seen as an asset, not a liability, making it even harder for warnings to reach those in harm’s way.

Six inches of fast-moving water is enough to knock a person off their feet and sweep them away. Add debris carried by the floodwaters, and for someone awakened by the flood, the situation was already not survivable.

Just like during Harvey, when the floodgates had to be opened, by the time the decision was made and the water began pouring through, the danger was already imminent. No alert system can outpace a flood that moves that fast.

For now, the focus must remain where it belongs: on recovering the missing, consoling those who’ve suffered unimaginable loss, and supporting recovery efforts. There will be a time for assessment when the situation calms.

When that time comes, we owe it to the victims—and to ourselves—to engage in that process with clarity, compassion, and civility. Blame and outrage won’t prevent the next tragedy. Practical planning, honest evaluation, and civil discourse will help to implement solutions to lessen the magnitude of the next disaster.

One area where we can and should do better is recognizing the mental health toll of disasters like this. The DSM-V needs to be updated to reflect weather-induced trauma reactions, which are just as real and impactful as PTSD. Helping survivors heal – not assigning blame -must be our priority in the weeks ahead

Equally important, we must steadfastly rebuke those who try to politicize this tragedy. We need to recognize the basic human dignity of those who are grieving, and show the same courtesy, respect, and compassion that we received during Harvey. Those who stoop to cheap political points need to be held accountable. We can and must do better as a society.

 

Reducing NOAA and NWS is a serious mistake

by

I support Trump and the effort to balance the budget. However, the significant reductions to NOAA by the administration will have serious consequences.

Balancing the budget is important, but gutting unbiased research and public information sources will have long-term repercussions. The free market isn’t the solution here—because the free market serves its own interests, not the public interest.

This issue separates those who truly understand the system from those just repeating political talking points. The National Weather Service (NWS) will still issue warnings as needed. Having run a radar during a severe weather outbreak, I know firsthand how fatigue can lead to human error. While computer-aided identification parameters and trained spotters (SKYWARN) help mitigate that risk, individual severe weather incidents within the overall event will be under-identified.

The bigger problem isn’t forecasting—it’s information dissemination and research. The NWS doesn’t chase ratings or clicks. It simply does its job, ensuring the public gets accurate, unbiased weather information. When gaps develop, they will be filled by those with financial incentives—fear-mongering social media “weather” pages that thrive on engagement, ad revenue, and media seeking ratings.

Even more concerning, reputable-sounding private entities will gain prominence. “John, a consultant for ACME Insurance, must be reliable.” But John is beholden to ACME and its bottom line. His forecasts may be accurate, but they will carry an invisible bias, even if he tries to remain objective.

The real harm, though, will be in research. Research won’t stop—it will shift. Without unbiased federal funding and government-employed scientists, studies will follow the money. Businesses will fund research that aligns with their interests, as they should. But this means fewer independent verification studies.

We already see this in the insurance industry. Laboratory-based hail impact studies, often funded by insurers, set the foundation for claim evaluations. But when real-world field studies tested actual hail impacts on hail pads, they revealed significantly more severe impacts than the lab studies suggested (presumably from microfractures in the lab generated hailstones created during the injection process). Despite this, the insurance industry continues to rely on the original lab studies in disputes, while the real-world research struggles to gain traction.

Now, apply this pattern more broadly. With NOAA’s research capacity gutted, industry-backed studies will dominate, shaping policies and public understanding. The lack of independent, government-backed verification will mean that whatever the private sector finds convenient will go largely unchallenged. The impact of these cuts won’t be immediate, but over time, they will distort how weather-related risks are assessed and responded to—until it’s too late.