NOAA Federal Funding Cuts Send Shockwaves

Woods Hole is a rather remote community on Cape Cod, Massachusetts. Its marshy tidal inlets meander under small bridges and near side-of-the-road clam shacks. The Narragansett Bay region spans watersheds that unite 2 million people across 113 communities in three states and host diverse habitats that sustain wildlife and vital economies. While both of these areas are important tourist destinations, the townspeople in these communities don’t have the opportunity right now to take vacations — they’re in turmoil due to National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) federal funding cuts.

The upheaval has flipped life in these and other scientific research-based communities upside down.

Multiple employees for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration working in the agency’s Woods Hole and Narragansett Bay facilities had their positions eliminated by the agency in March. National news outlets like CBS and the New York Times have estimated the number of employees affected across the country is in the hundreds.

Staff reductions come at a time in which NOAA’s recent report outlines how carbon dioxide — released from cars, factories, and power plants — was present in the atmosphere last year more than ever before in recorded history. How can we afford to lose such NOAA research and the personnel who analyze such data at this tenuous time?

Why is NOAA so important? NOAA plays a crucial role in forecasting and data analysis, and its reach extends from agriculture to tourism to navigating floods, fires, hurricanes, and other climate-fueled disasters. Its life-saving alerts and environmental monitoring help communities to maintain high safety standards.

For example, the Trump administration’s funding and personnel cuts jeopardize research that started in the 1960s to track CO2 levels. NOAA’s carbon sampling program collects air from all over the world, and the data that results is known as the Keeling Curve, named after the scientist who initiated the research. “So, turning off a program like this would be like turning off the headlights on a dark street at night. You can’t see where you’re going,” Dr. Ralph Keeling, son of the original researcher and current project leader, stated.

Shouldn’t NOAA be excused from federal funding cuts due to its importance? You would think these broad federal mandates would make NOAA exempt from Trump administration and Musk’s DOGE cuts. Nope. Since January, NOAA has faced what Democrats on the US House Committee on Natural Resources have called “an unprecedented wave of political interference: censorship of climate research, purging of expert staff, the shutdown of oversight committees, and forced layoffs impacting more than 800 employees.” The Committee Dems accuse DOGE staffers of gaining unlawful access to NOAA systems, including internal communications and grants databases — which raise questions about data integrity and whistleblower retaliation.

How heavily have NOAA jobs been cut? NOAA has had about 15% of its staff fired. Offices within NOAA have been asked to cut entire agency functions rather than slash a portion of redundancies. Scientists who call these communities home are in shock: never before have they experienced fear for their jobs — and careers. Many former employees have asked not to be publicly identified because they hope to one day work for NOAA again.

How have NOAA’s core functions been affected since the cuts? Core functions like weather balloon launches have been reduced. Community resilience programs have been scaled back or closed. Proposals are being floated from the Trump administration to dismantle or privatize NOAA, which would put weather alerts and environmental data behind paywalls. Everyday farmers, first responders, and coastal economies would take big hits. And, typical of the current patterns of chaos, last week the Trump administration let it be known it would be reassigning other employees to “critically understaffed” offices in the National Weather Service (NWS). Now NWS is now looking to staff 76 positions, including meteorologists in disaster-prone areas such as Houston and Miami.

What’s the impetus behind the scientific research funding cuts? Trump’s executive orders block grant funding for topics disliked by the right. Senator Jack Reed (D-RI) argued that the NOAA staffing cuts to the agency “does fundamental research about the ocean at a time in climate change where the ocean is undergoing incredible changes in temperature and migration of fish.” Reed added that “this is rejecting knowledge and embracing ignorance.” Taylor Rogers, a spokesperson for the White House, wrote that the administration “is committed to cutting wasteful spending and realigning the federal government to match the priorities of the American people.”

How are communities that depend on NOAA scientists faring? It’s not just the scientists themselves who are at a loss: entire community infrastructures — restaurants, homeowner services, and businesses tied to the “blue economy,” or ocean sustainability, are already noticing an immediate slowing of revenue. Local businesses are worried about a potential decline in much-needed year-round jobs that help provide economic stability after the departure of summer beach-goers.

What is an example of the effects of these staffing and funding cuts? A new executive order prevents agencies like NOAA from independently enacting new policies, something it typically does annually to keep fish populations from crashing. Several of the employees said the firings of scientists and data collectors combined with new federal mandates could have dire effects on New England fish populations.

“Fishing is part of who we are in Rhode Island—and data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration on weather, fish stocks, and more plays a critical role in protecting lives and livelihoods in the Ocean State,” said Rep. Seth Magaziner (D-RI). Now fisheries that are experiencing lower than normal population numbers will continue to be fished at the same rate as the year prior, which the NOAA employees say is likely to result in over-fishing.

Why is Woods Hole so iconic among scientific research locations? The nation’s first federal fisheries lab was established in Woods Hole in 1871.  There are several local climate and marine science centers in the Woods Hole area:

• The Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, the largest research center, which relies on federal grants and contracts for more than two-thirds of its total revenue, totaling hundreds of millions of dollars each year;
• The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Northeast Fisheries Science Center;
• The US Geological Survey Coastal and Marine Geology Center;
• The Woods Hole Science Aquarium, the oldest public aquarium in the nation, operated and funded by NOAA; and,
• The Woodwell Climate Research Center.

“Science in Woods Hole is most definitely under threat,” Max Holmes, president and CEO of Woodwell Climate Research Center (WCRC), told the Boston Globe. The WCRC is one of several climate research institutions that depend on federal dollars to function, as the center produces fundamental climate change research — such as studying forests, soils, the tropics, and the Arctic.

What are the likely long-term ramifications of policy changes that deemphasize scientific research? There are concerns that the current federal government disinterest in scientific research will become permanent. Other countries, particularly in Europe and Asia, have long sought to recruit US scientists with free lab space, luxury housing, and higher pay. The US could lose its competitive edge in the sciences.

The Trump administration has initiated many efforts to stamp out diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives, and a committee affiliated with scientific institutions in Woods Hole canceled a 10-week program for underrepresented college students in the marine sciences. It’s important to note that Massachusetts has lost more National Science Foundation money for science, math, and engineering research than any other state this year. Since the start of the second Trump administration, the NSF has cut 251 grants to Massachusetts institutions worth $249 million, federal data show.