Trump’s draft budget eviscerates weather and climate tracking and research

CNN - Apr 11th, 2025

The Trump administration is planning significant budget cuts to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), aiming to eliminate its research arm and close all weather and climate labs. According to internal documents obtained by CNN, the cuts could devastate essential weather and climate research while weather patterns become increasingly erratic. The proposed cuts, if implemented, could severely impact industries such as agriculture that rely on accurate weather data and analysis. Additionally, the budget proposal would halt research on severe weather events, affecting the nation's ability to predict and respond to deadly storms and tornadoes. The draft budget for fiscal year 2026 has yet to be approved by Congress, but the guidance suggests immediate implementation to reduce the agency's current operating budget.

The proposed budget would eliminate NOAA’s Oceanic and Atmospheric Research office and cut funding for regional climate data and research programs by about 75%. Other key offices, such as the National Ocean Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service, would also face severe defunding. The fisheries service functions would be transferred to the US Fish and Wildlife Service under the Interior Department. Such changes could shift priorities towards permitting for offshore oil drilling, as outlined in the internal document. These developments could have long-term implications for climate science and energy policy in the United States, sparking concern among scientists and environmental advocates about the nation's commitment to addressing climate change and protecting natural resources.

Agriculture Noaa Trump Administration Energy Policy Offshore Drilling Budget Cuts Climate Research Weather Data

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

5.4

Moderately Fair

Read with skepticism

The article addresses a timely and relevant topic with significant public interest, focusing on proposed budget cuts to NOAA's research programs. While it clearly outlines the potential impacts, it lacks balance due to the absence of perspectives from the Trump administration or supporters of the cuts. The reliance on unnamed sources and internal documents without detailed evidence affects the article's accuracy and source quality. Despite these shortcomings, the article is engaging and accessible, with the potential to influence public opinion and provoke discussion on government priorities and climate research funding.

Accuracy

The story claims that the Trump administration plans to eliminate NOAA's research arm and close all weather and climate labs, which is a significant assertion. However, there is no direct citation from official documents or statements that confirm this drastic measure. The article also mentions a 75% budget cut to NOAA’s research office, which aligns with some reports but lacks direct evidence or official confirmation. The claim about transferring functions from the National Marine Fisheries Service to the US Fish and Wildlife Service needs verification from reliable sources. Overall, while the article presents potentially accurate information, it lacks sufficient direct evidence and corroboration from official sources, which affects its verifiability.

Balance

The article presents a perspective that is heavily focused on the negative impacts of the proposed budget cuts on NOAA and related industries. It emphasizes potential devastation to weather and climate research and the negative consequences for industries reliant on accurate data. However, it does not provide any viewpoints or statements from the Trump administration or supporters of the budget cuts, which could offer a rationale or justification for the proposed changes. This lack of balance in perspectives makes the article appear one-sided and potentially biased.

Clarity

The article is generally clear and straightforward in its language and presentation. It outlines the main claims and potential impacts of the proposed budget cuts in a logical manner. However, the lack of detailed evidence and context can lead to confusion about the veracity of the claims. The article could benefit from more detailed explanations of the potential consequences and the reasoning behind the proposed cuts.

Source quality

The article cites 'internal documents obtained by CNN' and 'a source familiar with the plan,' which suggests some level of insider information. However, it does not provide direct quotes or detailed descriptions of these documents, nor does it name the source, which affects the credibility and reliability of the information. The lack of diverse sources and the absence of official statements or publicly available documents further diminish the overall source quality.

Transparency

The article lacks transparency in terms of the specific sources of its information. It mentions internal documents and an unnamed source but does not provide details about these sources or how the information was obtained. This lack of transparency makes it difficult for readers to assess the credibility of the claims. Additionally, the article does not disclose any potential conflicts of interest or biases that might affect the reporting.