As everyone should know by now, everything the OAFPOTUS or anyone around him does is in the service of self-enrichment. We can include "enriching friends" as well. And in the grand tradition of privatizing things that government absolutely does better than industry, it looks like the Administration intends to cripple the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) so their friends can start making rents from the vital functions it performs.
Enter Neil Jacobs, nominated to head NOAA, who claimed without evidence in a confirmation hearing Wednesday to undo the damage the Clown Prince of X inflicted on the agency:
“If confirmed, I will ensure that staffing the Weather Service offices is a top priority,” said Jacobs, who led NOAA on an acting basis in Trump’s first term. “It’s really important for the people to be there because they have relationships with people in the local community. They’re a trusted source.”
The agency’s staffing levels have been in the spotlight due to the recent floods. While NOAA sent a wide range of warnings and alerts prior to the storms that caused the deadly floods in Texas, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., called on the Commerce Department’s inspector general to launch an investigation into the impacts the staffing cuts had on the crisis in Texas. That request is currently under review by the IG’s oversight teams, a spokesperson said.
Asked whether he supports President Trump’s proposal to cut NOAA’s budget by 27% in fiscal 2026, Jacobs confirmed that he did and suggested funding was being refocused from research to operations. The “mission-essential functions” of the National Weather Service and the National Ocean Service would continue, he said.
I'll believe it when I see it, Jake. At least Jacobs has a PhD in atmospheric science.
Another atmospheric scientist, meteorologist Alan Gerard, has a cogent and probably-correct hypothesis about why the OAFPOTUS made those draconian cuts to NOAA:
I have had many conversations with colleagues in recent weeks about the proposed NOAA budget cuts, and in the course of those discussions I have heard (and offered) many explanations, from the one that I gave to the reporter, to revenge against NOAA for Sharpiegate, to privatization of weather forecasting, etc. As I thought more deeply about all of this, though, I realized that I - and perhaps my colleagues, though I won’t speak for them - was likely looking at this from too myopic of a point of view.
I think the reality is that rather than support for weather science being caught in the flotsam of an anti-climate effort, weather and climate science are caught in the flotsam of anti-science efforts.
The administration’s own NOAA budget document states the need for an NWS that can provide “operational forecasts, warnings, impact-based decision support services (IDSS) and other life-saving products and services to the emergency management community and public as they prepare for and respond to increasingly frequent severe weather and water events (emphasis added).” The administration itself acknowledges the increasing frequency of events and hence growing societal needs for warning and forecast services. Destroying the NOAA research-to-operations structure built over decades seems all too likely to yield an NWS unable to evolve to meet those growing needs.
And yet I think the anti-science part isn't the point. As PBS reported earlier this week, administration officials from Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnik on down have financial interests that would benefit from outsourcing these functions to private firms. So instead of our tax dollars supporting weather research and forecasting, our tax dollars would support those things plus profits for private interests.
Again, it's all about the grift.
In a similar vein, I'm working on a hypothesis that tanking the economy through tariffs could just be about enriching bond holders, because if interest rates go up, we would pay more to the wealthiest among us in mortgages, student loans, credit-card interest, and yes, Federal bond coupons. Because to the OAFPOTUS and his friends, it's totally fine to burn everything down as long as they can profit from the ashes.
That has been the Republican Party since before Reagan was president. They've just stopped concealing it under this administration, because they're so close to everything they've ever wanted, they don't care who who knows.