Winona State University geologist Jennifer Anderson has a few things to say about the Republican plan to dismantle the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), an organization that keeps people safe from extreme weather.  “NOAA is probably my favorite part of the federal government because I use it multiple times a day,”  says Anderson.  “Through its National Weather Service, it gives us hour by hour weather reports.  They have satellite systems in orbit, they have meteorologists all over the country, they have huge complex computer models, so we can know what is going to happen five to seven days out,” she says.  “We depend on that knowledge to protect our communities,” Anderson adds.  This is especially true when it comes to dangerous events like the hurricanes currently devastating Florida, but also when it comes to Minnesota weather such as the unprecedented flooding that saturated Minnesota during the summer of 2024.

It might seem obvious to most people that predicting weather—especially severe weather—is important for our safety, our economy, and our communities.  But Project 2025, a policy guide for a future Republican presidency written largely by people associated with the previous Trump administration, ignores this importance. Republicans’ Project 2025 bizarrely claims that NOAA should be “broken up and downsized.”  Republicans’ bizarre plans include restricting NOAA’s research activities. They also want to limit access to the National Weather Service forecasters and the National Hurricane Center.  Project 2025’s lackluster reasoning is that NOAA’s “emphasis on prediction and management seems designed around the fatal conceit of planning for the unplannable.”

Scientist Anderson finds not “planning for the unplannable” ludicrous. “Can you imagine not knowing a hurricane like Helene was coming?”  asks Anderson.  “The human devastation of these storms is so high.”  She gives the example of the Great Galveston Hurricane of 1900, when at least 8,000 people died and more than 10,000 were left homeless.  “People died because they had no warning.  Because we have NOAA, we know where a storm’s path is, where it will make landfall.  The National Weather Service predictions about Helene have probably saved tens of thousands, millions of lives.  And people are on the road right now, fleeing hurricane Milton, because we can predict its path.”  While it is true that completely accurate forecasting is impossible, Anderson says, when it comes to weather disasters, NOAA forecasts are crucial to disaster response: “Hurricanes are large-scale, multi-state events.  It can’t be left to a county board to solve this.  It requires coordination of the Red Cross, medical teams, FEMA.” 

One thing that seems to really bother Republicans in Project 2025 is that NOAA’s forecasts are public information.  The Project 2025 document stipulates that “Commercialization of weather technologies should be prioritized,” insisting that NOAA should focus on data collection and leave the dissemination of data to commercial companies. The Republican idea of corporations reporting weather for profit, not public safety, is itself a disaster waiting to happen. Anderson also points out the inequality that would result: “Right now, the government gives you this information for free.  Making people pay would mean that people who have money will have access to good information, but average people, like local farmers, parents with kids trying to plan events, might not be able to afford it.”  And if NOAA’s focus is shifted toward only data collection, who’s doing the actual analysis?  “What if you went to the doctor because you were feeling pain, and the doctor gave you data about your body and just told you to figure it out for yourself?” says Anderson. 

Perhaps the actual problem conservatives have with NOAA is that its data clearly show the reality of climate change, and this has implications for industries that conservatives support.  Project 2025 states that NOAA is “one of the main drivers of the climate change alarm industry and, as such, is harmful to future U.S. prosperity.”  The Project advises that “data collected by the department should be presented neutrally, without adjustments intended to support any one side in the climate debate.” The implication is that any data that show the climate is changing has been “adjusted” to play politics.  Anderson points out, “That’s not how science works.”  Before scientific results are published, they go through peer review, she explains, and even afterwards, every data point is open to critique by other scientists in the field.  “We are incredibly critical nerds,” says Anderson.  “There is no doubt if you look at the data; this change is happening.”  She reminds of the example of hurricanes; during the last 8 years, the U.S. has seen the same number of high-intensity storms as occurred in the prior 57 years.  Latest estimates are that global warming has doubled the chances that hurricanes will become extreme.  Residents of Florida are currently enduring the second mega-hurricane in a month. 

Project 2025 tells us that if Trump is elected this November, his administration’s priority will be on suppressing knowledge of the changing weather.  If Republican extremists get their way, ignorance will be added to the risks of climate change.   “It is simpler to ignore it,” says Anderson, “and that’s dangerous.” 

So if you think weather reports, public information, and, essentially, your safety in extreme weather should not be owned by corporations, vote Democratic this November 5th.

Vote Democratic to keep our weather and our safety a public issue.