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.