Trump administration has set Noaa on ‘non-science trajectory’, workers warn

TruthLens AI Suggested Headline:

"Concerns Rise Over NOAA's Scientific Integrity Amid Trump Administration Cuts"

View Raw Article Source (External Link)
Raw Article Publish Date:
AI Analysis Average Score: 6.1
These scores (0-10 scale) are generated by Truthlens AI's analysis, assessing the article's objectivity, accuracy, and transparency. Higher scores indicate better alignment with journalistic standards. Hover over chart points for metric details.

TruthLens AI Summary

Workers and scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) have raised alarms regarding the agency's shift away from scientific integrity under the Trump administration. They argue that this shift poses a significant threat to decades of research and the effectiveness of efforts to protect vital natural resources. The administration's proposed cuts, especially to the Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR) office, have led to a wave of demoralization among NOAA employees. A veteran scientist, who chose to remain anonymous, expressed deep concern about ongoing environmental issues, such as harmful algal blooms and collapsing fisheries, stating that the firing of dedicated staff does not resolve these pressing problems. The veteran highlighted the irreplaceable nature of the data being compromised, including crucial global temperature records, and warned that the dismantling of NOAA could lead to detrimental consequences for public health and environmental safety, such as air and water quality deterioration.

The situation at NOAA has been exacerbated by recent personnel changes, including the firing and reinstatement of over 800 probationary employees, which has resulted in significant instability. Rachel Brittin, a former deputy director at NOAA, described the chaotic circumstances surrounding employee firings, underlining the fear and uncertainty that permeate the agency. Furthermore, funding cuts have crippled essential data services, with multiple regional climate centers ceasing operations due to financial constraints. As morale plummets, many scientists are resigning or taking early retirement, leaving critical gaps in expertise. The agency's trajectory has been characterized as hostile to its mission, with indications that the administration aims to reduce regulatory oversight by diminishing the scientific workforce. NOAA's leadership, influenced by political appointees, appears to prioritize deregulation over scientific integrity, raising concerns about the future of environmental management and research in the United States. The ongoing changes reflect a broader agenda to undermine the agency's role in addressing climate change and protecting marine species, as articulated in conservative policy frameworks targeting NOAA's foundational operations.

TruthLens AI Analysis

The article highlights significant concerns raised by workers and scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa) regarding the Trump administration's approach towards the agency. This situation is portrayed as a threat to scientific research and environmental protection, suggesting an alarming deterioration of public health and safety standards.

Impact on Scientific Research

Workers describe the consequences of budget cuts and administrative changes that have allegedly placed Noaa on a "non-science trajectory." They emphasize that such measures could undermine decades of research and significantly disrupt the agency's ability to monitor and manage environmental issues. The mention of harmful algal blooms and collapsing fisheries illustrates the real-world implications of these administrative decisions on ecosystems and public health.

Community Sentiment and Public Awareness

The article seeks to create a sense of urgency and concern among the public regarding environmental degradation. By sharing personal accounts from anonymous Noaa veterans, the narrative aims to elicit empathy and alarm, suggesting that the dismantling of scientific oversight could lead to dire consequences for air and water quality in the U.S. This approach tends to resonate with communities that prioritize environmental issues and scientific integrity.

Possible Hidden Agendas

The framing of this news piece could be interpreted as a critique of the Trump administration's broader policy agenda, which some may view as dismissive of scientific expertise. The article does not directly address counterarguments or defend the administration's actions, potentially omitting a balanced view of the situation. This raises questions about the intention behind highlighting these specific concerns without considering alternative perspectives.

Manipulative Elements

The language used throughout the article is charged with emotional weight, which may evoke fear and anger among readers. This approach could be seen as manipulative, as it seeks to mobilize public sentiment against the administration while focusing solely on the negative consequences of its policies. Such framing may limit the reader's understanding of the complexity surrounding federal budget decisions and their implications.

Comparative Analysis

When compared to other news articles addressing environmental policy, this piece stands out for its emotional appeal and specific focus on the scientific community's perspective. It may connect with ongoing discussions in similar outlets regarding climate change and environmental degradation, reinforcing a narrative of urgency around scientific funding and integrity.

Potential Societal Implications

The publication of this article could influence public perception, leading to increased scrutiny of government actions related to environmental policies. It might galvanize grassroots movements advocating for the protection of scientific research and natural resources, potentially affecting future electoral outcomes and legislative priorities.

Target Audience

This article likely aims to engage audiences concerned about environmental issues, scientific integrity, and public health. It resonates particularly well with communities that advocate for climate action and governmental accountability, appealing to those who prioritize science-based policy decisions.

Financial Market Impact

The implications of this news could extend to financial markets, particularly for companies involved in environmental services, renewable energy, and biotechnology. Investors might be more cautious about supporting companies that rely on governmental scientific oversight, especially if public sentiment shifts toward demanding stronger environmental protections.

Geopolitical Context

While the article does not explicitly address global power dynamics, the issues raised have broader implications for U.S. leadership in environmental science and climate action. As other countries continue to prioritize sustainable practices, the U.S. might risk falling behind in global efforts to address climate change and protect natural resources.

AI Influence in Reporting

There is no clear indication that artificial intelligence was employed in the writing of this article. However, if AI had been used, it might have shaped the narrative by emphasizing emotional language or structuring the content to align with ongoing public discourse. This could create a perception of urgency and influence readers' emotional responses to governmental actions.

In conclusion, the reliability of the article is supported by the inclusion of credible voices from within Noaa, yet it may lack a balanced representation of opposing views or potential benefits of the administration's policies. The article serves to heighten public concern regarding environmental issues, potentially leading to increased advocacy for science and environmental protections.

Unanalyzed Article Content

TheTrump administrationhas shunted one of the US federal government’s top scientific agencies onto a “non-science trajectory”, workers warn, that threatens to derail decades of research and leave the US with “air that’s not breathable and water that’s not drinkable”.

Workers and scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa) are warning of the drastic impacts of cuts at the agency on science, research, and efforts to protect natural resources.

“The problems are still there. We still have harmful algal blooms, we still have fisheries that are collapsing, waters you can’t swim in. These problems don’t go away because we fired all the people who were trying to solve a problem,” said one Noaa veteran, who wished to remain anonymous for fear of retaliation. “How do you save the arms and legs or the feet and hands when the core is dying?”

The longtime research scientist with more than 20 years at Noaa has taken early retirement. “I left because it was just so demoralizing and fearful and scary,” they said.

Trump administration officials areseekingto abolish the scientific research division at Noaa, the Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (Oar) office. It is the latest of a series of cuts at the agency that began the second Trump administration with12,000 employeesaround the world, including more than 6,700 engineers and scientists.

The cuts are disrupting the collection of data sets, including recordings of global temperatures in the air and ocean, and that data cannot be replaced, said the Noaa veteran.

The dismantling of Noaa, they said, would harm work in many areas, from finding solutions to combat harmful algae and improving sustainable fisheries to work on new medicines and industrial products and collecting information for disaster preparation.

“We can look at other countries that are actively making these mistakes, where they have air that’s not breathable and water that’s not drinkable,” they said. “I think it’s done. I think this is done. The enemies are in the gate. I don’t see any indication so far of anyone stopping it. They’re just letting it burn. I honestly don’t understand how US science will recover.”

More than 800probationary employees at the agency were fired, reinstated, then re-fired this month. Employees havereportedhaving their firings backdated and having their health insurance canceled even though premiums were being taken out of their paychecks.

Rachel Brittin, worked as the federal deputy director of external affairs at Noaa before she was fired, then reinstated, then fired again as a probationary employee, with just a few months left on her two-year probation.

“The whole situation is a mess,” she said. “How is Noaa going to be able to keep up with the services it provides? I don’t know. I don’t know how that’s going to happen, but it’s very scary to me. The loss of anybody at Noaa is directly connected to services lost by every individual in the United States.”

Contractors for the agency have beenfurloughedas all Noaa contracts over $100,000 have to now beapprovedby Trump’s Department of Commerce secretary, Howard Lutnick.

Doge hasslated31 officesand building leases at Noaa for termination around the US. Nearly $4m in funding to Princeton University as part of a cooperative agreement with Noaa wascancelledon 8 April.

Fourteen Noaa data services on earthquakes, marine, coastal and estuary science at have beenslatedfor decommissioning, more than twice as many as in 2024.

Four regional climate centers providing weather analysis tools and data for 21 states in the US havegone darkafter lapses in funding, with the remaining two covering the US set tofacea funding lapse in June.

A reduction in force plan to cut an additional10%of the agency’s workforce is anticipated and at least several hundred workers have takenvoluntary buyoutsorearly retirementaccording to Noaa workers interviewed by the Guardian, though Noaa and the Department of Commerce did not disclose the numbers.

“It seems clear that the actions that have been taken have intentionally reduced our ability to do our jobs,” said a Noaa scientist who requested to remain anonymous for fear of retaliation. “You’re not expected to get anything done.”

They said due to firings, early retirements and resignations, scientific research teams around the agency have been left with gaps of expertise that can’t be replaced.

“We are scrambling,” they added. “We are finding workarounds, but its becoming increasingly difficult.”

Marty Kardos, a research molecular geneticist at the Northwest Fisheries Science Center at Noaa, decided to resign after the agency’s violations of their collective bargaining agreement with workers meant he would be forced to move from Montana to Seattle in a week or resign.

“The agency is on a non-science trajectory,” Kardos said, speaking in a personal capacity. “All the plans for research we were making for the upcoming years are out of the window. Morale is extremely bad.”

The attrition of scientists and management at Noaa is effectively undermining the agency’s ability to sustainably manage fisheries and identify and recover endangered species, he said.

“The agency is essentially, openly hostile to their mission and their people,” Kardos added. “A lot of this seems to be related to deregulation. The agency is responsible for the Endangered Species Act formarine speciesand one way to hamstring the act without repealing it is to get rid of the scientists who help to implement it.”

The cuts come as the so-called “department of government efficiency” (Doge) and theTrump administrationhave installed allies in key positions at the agency.

Neil Jacobs, the Trump nominee for Noaa administrator and acting head of Noaa in the first Trump administration, has yet to be confirmed. Jacobs was caught up in“Sharpiegate”– a bizarre 2019 incident when the White House was accused of altering a Noaa map of the predicted path of Hurricane Dorian with a black marker to support an incorrect claim by Trump that the Florida-bound storm would also hit Alabama.

A staffer from Doge, Bryton Shang,announcedthis month he was appointed as a senior adviser to the Noaa administrator. Shang was one of the two Doge staffers whoflewto Los Angeles during the wildfires in January, and attempted to open a large water pump system in California.

Erik Noble,dubbedTrump’s “eyes and ears” at Noaa during his first administration, isbackat the agency as deputy assistant secretary for oceans and atmosphere and is reviewing contracts at the agency withKeegan McLaughlin, a special assistant at the commerce department and former intern for the 2024 Trump campaign.

Noaa was atarget of Project 2025, the conservative roadmap for a second Trump administration. That document pushed to “break up NOAA” and labeled the agency “one of the main drivers of the climate change alarm industry”.

“Understanding things lets us make decisions that can put us on a track to things getting better. Knowing bad news doesn’t create the bad news. It lets you be prepared to take actions that may let you avoid the worst consequences,” the Noaa scientist at Oar added on the Trump appointees and the authority they are being given over scientific decisions.

“Pretending that our resources are inexhaustible doesn’t make them inexhaustible,” they added. “I don’t think people understand the arrogance of thinking: ‘Hey, I think I understand this, even though I know nothing about it.’ This whole antithesis to experts, I don’t understand it. Would you want to do that with your own personal health? Why would you do it with any kind of complex system?”

Noaa and the Department of Commerce did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

Back to Home
Source: The Guardian