As Hurricane Season Approaches, Trump’s NOAA Budget Cuts Threaten Safety
from Energy Security and Climate Change Program
from Energy Security and Climate Change Program

As Hurricane Season Approaches, Trump’s NOAA Budget Cuts Threaten Safety

Debris are scattered across the Sunshine Hills neighborhood after a series of tornadoes hit Laurel County, in London, Kentucky.
Debris are scattered across the Sunshine Hills neighborhood after a series of tornadoes hit Laurel County, in London, Kentucky. Seth Herald/Reuters

President Trump’s NOAA cuts will significantly hamper the public’s understanding of the environment and weather forecasting, negatively affecting people in the United States and abroad.

Last updated May 23, 2025 10:49 am (EST)

Debris are scattered across the Sunshine Hills neighborhood after a series of tornadoes hit Laurel County, in London, Kentucky.
Debris are scattered across the Sunshine Hills neighborhood after a series of tornadoes hit Laurel County, in London, Kentucky. Seth Herald/Reuters
Expert Brief
CFR scholars provide expert analysis and commentary on international issues.

Alice Hill is the David M. Rubenstein senior fellow for energy and the environment at the Council on Foreign Relations.

More From Our Experts

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) issued its initial outlook for the 2025 Atlantic hurricane season on Thursday, predicting a 60 percent chance of an “above-normal season” of weather activity. The agency says this could include up to ten named storms developing into hurricanes over the next six months. 

More on:

Climate Change

Energy and Environment

Oceans and Seas

Climate Realism

The World Meteorological Organization says that an average Atlantic hurricane season produces seven hurricanes. If NOAA’s prediction is accurate, this would be the tenth consecutive season with above-average activity. 

How communities in the United States and abroad prepare for these storms and other environmental disasters could face new challenges after the Donald Trump administration cut funding for NOAA research, analysis, and forecasting. The move could deal a major blow to environmental science and emergency preparedness, including responding to hurricanes, tornadoes, and other extreme weather events. These response efforts support the U.S. economy, inform national security decisions, and help keep Americans safe.

What cuts to NOAA have been made or are currently being proposed?

Since Trump’s inauguration and the launch of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) headed by Elon Musk, NOAA has experienced significant staff reductions. Proposed budget cuts will impact NOAA’s core functions, including ocean monitoring, regional and coastal planning, climate research, and weather forecasting. Staffing cuts have already curtailed the daily launch of weather balloons that collect weather data and left some NOAA offices without forecasters on-site overnight. Meanwhile, a backlog of unsigned NOAA contracts has hampered the agency’s operations, including initiatives designed to help communities prepare for extreme weather.

More From Our Experts

Trump’s fiscal year 2026 so-called skinny budget [PDF], which focuses on federal discretionary spending, proposes even deeper cuts. It calls for “terminating a variety of climate-dominated research, data, and grant programs,” shrinking NOAA’s overall funding by more than $1.5 billion, or about 25 percent below current levels.

This is among the largest single-year reduction in the agency’s fifty-five-year history. The proposed cuts would eliminate investments in climate research, including educational programs, conservation and adaptation partnerships with nongovernmental organizations, marine species protection programs, and climate monitoring not related to weather.

More on:

Climate Change

Energy and Environment

Oceans and Seas

Climate Realism

Why is this significant, and what areas of research will be affected?

When President Richard Nixon established NOAA in 1970, the agency’s goal was to increase the nation’s understanding of the environment, including land, water, and air. Trump’s cuts will directly undermine those goals: They will leave the nation with a reduced understanding of environmental changes, diminished ability to issue early warnings and prepare for natural disasters, and reduced knowledge of our oceans.

Consider weather forecasts. NOAA’s National Weather Service is recognized as one of the premier meteorological services in the world. It deploys satellites, radars, airplanes, and ocean buoys to detect weather patterns and changes to the climate. The information collected supports the creation of timely weather forecasts and alerts for the public. Those forecasts provide an estimated $31.5 billion [PDF] in annual benefits.

NOAA’s forecasts affect practically every aspect of Americans’ lives.

  • Forecasts tell people whether to take an umbrella, find immediate shelter, or evacuate their homes.
  • NOAA’s predictions inform choices for businesses such as commercial shippers worried about impending storms and utilities concerned about space weather activity that can crash the grid.
  • Federal agencies, such as the Departments of Defense and Transportation, use NOAA’s research and weather predictions to inform planning and operational decisions.
  • The agriculture and fishing industries rely on NOAA’s forecasts to inform planting, harvesting, and fish stock management decisions, while schools use NOAA forecasts to determine whether to close in inclement weather.

Cuts to NOAA’s staff—including experienced meteorologists and those collecting data—reduce the granularity of forecasts, making them less accurate. Degraded forecasts warnings could result in greater damage and loss of life. The Global Commission on Adaptation estimates that a twenty-four-hour warning of an impending storm can reduce damage by 30 percent [PDF].

But it’s not just forecasts that NOAA produces. NOAA also tracks and analyzes major climate patterns such as the El Niño–Southern Oscillation and Pacific Decadal Oscillation—both of which influence weather variability. It provides projections of sea-level rise that inform planning and risk management for the roughly 30 percent of the U.S. population living near a coast. NOAA also runs models to analyze how atmospheric pollution is changing the climate; it has developed a range of interactive tools to help visualize climate data and trends.

How could this affect foreign countries and the coordination of emergency preparedness efforts?

Impacts from budget and staff cuts to NOAA extend beyond U.S. borders. They will disrupt the data collection fundamental to climate research and modeling as well as degrade international forecasting and climate assessment capabilities.

Climate research modeling. NOAA, in partnership with research laboratories and universities, supports climate research that informs international understanding of climate science. For example, media reports have indicated that DOGE proposed terminating hundreds of federal leases, including the NOAA office in Hilo, Hawaii, which manages NOAA’s observatory at the Mauna Loa volcano. That facility provides the world’s longest continuous record of the accumulation of carbon in the atmosphere, information that is foundational to international climate science and future temperature projections, and a vital record for climate science. The office closure and staff cuts could threaten the continuity of the observatory’s climate data collection.

John Cangialosi, Senior Hurricane Specialist at the National Hurricane Center, inspects a satellite image of Hurricane Beryl, the first hurricane of the 2024 season, at the National Hurricane Center on July 01, 2024 in Miami, Florida.
A Senior Hurricane Specialist at the National Hurricane Center inspects a satellite image of Hurricane Beryl, the first hurricane of the 2024 season, in Miami, Florida. Joe Raedle/Getty Images

Global weather forecasting. Meteorologists and researchers worldwide use NOAA’s data and modeling to support their understanding of weather and climate change. For example, the Indian meteorological service uses NOAA’s climate models and satellite data for its weather predictions. Already, the European Center for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts has reported a 10 percent drop in data from U.S. weather balloons used to measure global temperature, humidity, and wind.

Other countries may eventually fill the gaps created by the Trump administration’s cuts. Indeed, many nations, including China, have made no secret of their desire to poach American scientists. But disrupted international collaborations with NOAA scientists could slow scientific progress and cause the United States to lose influence in international environmental governance.

How will this affect the insurance industry?

NOAA’s climate data and forecasting can help reduce damage. In the absence of quality climate data and information, communities may choose to continue to develop in areas vulnerable to climate change or in ways that lead to increased damage when disaster strikes. Those choices, in turn, will cause insurers to raise premiums or reduce availability of insurance.

Consider NOAA’s publication of information regarding economic loss from natural disasters. For close to forty-five years, the federal government has tracked every weather-related disaster that has caused over $1 billion or more in destruction. The database compiles information from a variety of sources to track the toll of disasters such as hurricanes, floods, and wildfires.

In the 1980s, those events occurred every three or four months; now, those hits come an average of every three weeks. In 2024, there were twenty-seven separate billion-dollar weather and climate disasters costing 568 lives and more than $182 billion in damage.

Insurers value the database because it aggregates losses and communicates the changing risk picture to the public and government officials. But the Trump administration has stopped publication of such information.

Are there alternative research firms that could fill the vacuum for climate and weather forecasting? What benefits or pitfalls are there to those groups?

There are alternative weather services available for a fee. They provide hyper-local, tailored forecasts and industry foresights by applying proprietary models and advanced analytics to public data. The foundation of their products remains NOAA’s high-quality, comprehensive observational data. Indeed, open access to NOAA data has spawned an arms race among private companies to build value-added products and services.

Private weather services do not have the resources or infrastructure to replicate NOAA’s extensive global data collection network of 18 satellites, 1,300 maritime buoys, planes, balloons, radar, and observation stations. As a government agency, NOAA’s data, monitoring tools, and information provide historical context for current environmental conditions. They are foundational for understanding the pace, scale, and consequences of climate change on the United States and across the globe. The private sector can enhance, interpret, and customize NOAA’s data, but they cannot replicate it.

NOAA’s forecasting and climate information should remain a public good. It is considered the “gold standard” [PDF] for open access to weather data. NOAA’s work is core to public safety. It supplies information with the goal of safeguarding everyone—not just those who can pay for it.

This work represents the views and opinions solely of the author. The Council on Foreign Relations is an independent, nonpartisan membership organization, think tank, and publisher, and takes no institutional positions on matters of policy.

Creative Commons
Creative Commons: Some rights reserved.
Close
This work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) License.
View License Detail
Close

Top Stories on CFR

Artificial Intelligence (AI)

Sign up to receive CFR President Mike Froman’s analysis on the most important foreign policy story of the week, delivered to your inbox every Friday afternoon. Subscribe to The World This Week. In the Middle East, Israel and Iran are engaged in what could be the most consequential conflict in the region since the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. CFR’s experts continue to cover all aspects of the evolving conflict on CFR.org. While the situation evolves, including the potential for direct U.S. involvement, it is worth touching on another recent development in the region which could have far-reaching consequences: the diffusion of cutting-edge U.S. artificial intelligence (AI) technology to leading Gulf powers. The defining feature of President Donald Trump’s foreign policy is his willingness to question and, in many cases, reject the prevailing consensus on matters ranging from European security to trade. His approach to AI policy is no exception. Less than six months into his second term, Trump is set to fundamentally rewrite the United States’ international AI strategy in ways that could influence the balance of global power for decades to come. In February, at the Artificial Intelligence Action Summit in Paris, Vice President JD Vance delivered a rousing speech at the Grand Palais, and made it clear that the Trump administration planned to abandon the Biden administration’s safety-centric approach to AI governance in favor of a laissez-faire regulatory regime. “The AI future is not going to be won by hand-wringing about safety,” Vance said. “It will be won by building—from reliable power plants to the manufacturing facilities that can produce the chips of the future.” And as Trump’s AI czar David Sacks put it, “Washington wants to control things, the bureaucracy wants to control things. That’s not a winning formula for technology development. We’ve got to let the private sector cook.” The accelerationist thrust of Vance and Sacks’s remarks is manifesting on a global scale. Last month, during Trump’s tour of the Middle East, the United States announced a series of deals to permit the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Saudi Arabia to import huge quantities (potentially over one million units) of advanced AI chips to be housed in massive new data centers that will serve U.S. and Gulf AI firms that are training and operating cutting-edge models. These imports were made possible by the Trump administration’s decision to scrap a Biden administration executive order that capped chip exports to geopolitical swing states in the Gulf and beyond, and which represents the most significant proliferation of AI capabilities outside the United States and China to date. The recipe for building and operating cutting-edge AI models has a few key raw ingredients: training data, algorithms (the governing logic of AI models like ChatGPT), advanced chips like Graphics Processing Units (GPUs) or Tensor Processing Units (TPUs)—and massive, power-hungry data centers filled with advanced chips.  Today, the United States maintains a monopoly of only one of these inputs: advanced semiconductors, and more specifically, the design of advanced semiconductors—a field in which U.S. tech giants like Nvidia and AMD, remain far ahead of their global competitors. To weaponize this chokepoint, the first Trump administration and the Biden administration placed a series of ever-stricter export controls on the sale of advanced U.S.-designed AI chips to countries of concern, including China.  The semiconductor export control regime culminated in the final days of the Biden administration with the rollout of the Framework for Artificial Intelligence Diffusion, more commonly known as the AI diffusion rule—a comprehensive global framework for limiting the proliferation of advanced semiconductors. The rule sorted the world into three camps. Tier 1 countries, including core U.S. allies such as Australia, Japan, and the United Kingdom, were exempt from restrictions, whereas tier 3 countries, such as Russia, China, and Iran, were subject to the extremely stringent controls. The core controversy of the diffusion rule stemmed from the tier 2 bucket, which included some 150 countries including India, Mexico, Israel, Switzerland, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. Many tier 2 states, particularly Gulf powers with deep economic and military ties to the United States, were furious.  The rule wasn’t just a matter of how many chips could be imported and by whom. It refashioned how the United States could steer the distribution of computing resources, including the regulation and real-time monitoring of their deployment abroad and the terms by which the technologies can be shared with third parties. Proponents of the restrictions pointed to the need to limit geopolitical swing states’ access to leading AI capabilities and to prevent Chinese, Russian, and other adversarial actors from accessing powerful AI chips by contracting cloud service providers in these swing states.  However, critics of the rule, including leading AI model developers and cloud service providers, claimed that the constraints would stifle U.S. innovation and incentivize tier 2 countries to adopt Chinese AI infrastructure. Moreover, critics argued that with domestic capital expenditures on AI development and infrastructure running into the hundreds of billions of dollars in 2025 alone, fresh capital and scale-up opportunities in the Gulf and beyond represented the most viable option for expanding the U.S. AI ecosystem. This hypothesis is about to be tested in real time. In May, the Trump administration killed the diffusion rule, days before it would have been set into motion, in part to facilitate the export of these cutting-edge chips abroad to the Gulf powers. This represents a fundamental pivot for AI policy, but potentially also in the logic of U.S. grand strategy vis-à-vis China. The most recent era of great power competition, the Cold War, was fundamentally bipolar and the United States leaned heavily on the principle of non-proliferation, particularly in the nuclear domain, to limit the possibility of new entrants. We are now playing by a new set of rules where the diffusion of U.S. technology—and an effort to box out Chinese technology—is of paramount importance. Perhaps maintaining and expanding the United States’ global market share in key AI chokepoint technologies will deny China the scale it needs to outcompete the United States—but it also introduces the risk of U.S. chips falling into the wrong hands via transhipment, smuggling, and other means, or being co-opted by authoritarian regimes for malign purposes.  Such risks are not illusory: there is already ample evidence of Chinese firms using shell entities to access leading-edge U.S. chips through cloud service providers in Southeast Asia. And Chinese firms, including Huawei, were important vendors for leading Gulf AI firms, including the UAE’s G-42, until the U.S. government forced the firm to divest its Chinese hardware as a condition for receiving a strategic investment from Microsoft in 2024. In the United States, the ability to build new data centers is severely constrained by complex permitting processes and limited capacity to bring new power to the grid. What the Gulf countries lack in terms of semiconductor prowess and AI talent, they make up for with abundant capital, energy, and accommodating regulations. The Gulf countries are well-positioned for massive AI infrastructure buildouts. The question is simply, using whose technology—American or Chinese—and on what terms? In Saudi Arabia and the UAE, it will be American technology for now. The question remains whether the diffusion of the most powerful dual-use technologies of our day will bind foreign users to the United States and what impact it will have on the global balance of power.  We welcome your feedback on this column. Let me know what foreign policy issues you’d like me to address next by replying to [email protected].

Iran

As Trump weighs whether to join Israel's bombing campaign of Iran, some have questioned if the president has the authority to involve the U.S. military in this conflict.

RealEcon

The Global Fragility Act (GFA) serves as a blueprint for smart U.S. funding to prevent and end conflict, and bipartisan congressional leaders advocate reauthorization of the 2019 law.