Donald Trump appears determined to intensify his campaign against climate science, as reports emerge of broader budget cuts to essential US research institutions released on Friday.
The administration intends to significantly reduce funding for both the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), as indicated by internal budget documents, targeting programs dedicated to examining the effects of the climate crisis.
Craig McLean, a former director of the office of oceanic and atmospheric research (OAR) who retired in 2022, informed the Guardian that the proposed cuts were extreme and would “endanger the safety, economic viability, and security of the American populace”.
Should Congress approve this plan, OAR’s funding would be drastically reduced from $485 million to $171 million, crippling a crucial aspect of the agency’s mission.
The budget for climate, weather, and ocean laboratories would be entirely depleted, as noted in the document reviewed by the Guardian, which claims: “At this funding level, OAR is effectively eliminated as a line office.”
“The removal of NOAA’s research line office and all of its research capabilities is a devastating setback for our nation’s ability to safeguard our citizens and to maintain global leadership,” asserted former NOAA administrator Rick Spinrad, remarking that the document contained “an extraordinarily harmful set of recommendations”.
Additionally, the proposal aims to cut more than $324 million from the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), directing the agency to realign its activities with administration initiatives focused on “unleashing American energy”. Funding would diminish for species-recovery grants, habitat conservation and restoration projects, as well as the interjurisdictional fisheries grant program, which promotes cooperative management and research with states. The document also hints at integrating NMFS with the US Fish and Wildlife Service.
NOAA anticipates a $1.3 billion reduction in overall operations and research, with numerous programs facing significant cuts, including a halving of the National Ocean Service’s budget.
Research conducted outside the agency would also suffer due to reductions in NOAA’s climate research grants program, which allocates approximately $70 million annually.
“This is an alarming and troubling development – though not entirely unexpected,” Spinrad remarked on the proposals highlighted in the document, acknowledging numerous signs that the administration would pursue such actions. “However, there is also a degree of unpredictability that accompanies this,” he added. “Certain programs have been singled out, yet the rationale behind these choices is completely unclear.”
The repercussions of such profound cuts, should Congress accept the president’s suggestions, would resonate in communities across the globe and impact various sectors, from agriculture to emergency response.
“By completely divesting from science and our research enterprise, we are essentially declaring that we have no interest in enhancing our quality of life or our economy,” Spinrad commented.
The administration has also proposed significant reductions in funding for research at NASA, America’s space agency. The agency faces a projected 20% overall budget decrease, with steeper cuts planned for programs linked to planetary science, earth science, and astrophysics research, according to Ars Technica, which first reported on Trump’s intentions after agency officials received briefings last month.
after newsletter promotion
Documentation has now been circulated to reinforce these intentions, cutting NASA science funding in half.
The NASA plan would also eliminate a range of missions, including several that the federal government has already invested billions of taxpayer dollars in. The Nancy Grace Roman space telescope, which is anticipated to provide insights into distant galaxies with its scheduled launch next year, is one of the affected missions, alongside the Mars Sample Return and the Davinci mission to Venus. The Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland, employing around 10,000 individuals, would also be shut down.
“This represents a catastrophic situation for NASA science,” stated Casey Dreier, chief of space policy at the Planetary Society, in a conversation with the Washington Post. “It unnecessarily terminates operational, productive science missions and cancels new missions that are currently under development, wasting billions of taxpayer dollars in the process. This approach is both inefficient and financially imprudent.”
While these proposals aren’t finalized, they are part of the budgeting process employed by the government. They are released by the White House to federal agencies prior to the discretionary budget announcement and are considered an indication of presidential priorities. The figures are not definitive and may undergo changes, with Congress needing to sanction the suggestions to finalize them.
Spinrad believes that many legislators will oppose the cuts. “Numerous actions articulated by [the White House’s Office of Management and Budget] contradict congressional intent,” he noted. “Eliminating funding for programs that Congress has painstakingly authorized over the years essentially serves as a clarion call to particular members and sponsors.”
Moreover, strong resistance is anticipated from both the public and industries that depend on the tools and services enabled by the nation’s scientific community.
However, the drastic nature of these cuts strongly reflects the administration’s stance on climate science and its commitment to undermining US research, as experts have pointed out. This alone is a source of alarm.
“This proposal has the potential to cost lives,” McLean warned regarding the implications of the document if implemented. “When a room full of doctors tells you that you have cancer, dismissing the doctors does not provide a cure.”
