policy

Loss of NOAA, FEMA Expertise ‘Will Be Really Difficult to Rebuild’

Gregory Wellenius discusses how recent funding and staff cuts to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and Federal Emergency Management Agency will affect disaster response ahead of what is expected to be an “above-normal” 2025 hurricane season.

Last week, Tropical Storm Cosme became the third named storm of the 2025 hurricane season, in what is expected to be an “above-normal season” with up to 10 named storms turning into hurricanes, and 3-5 of these storms becoming major hurricanes. As part of its efforts to overhaul the federal government, the Trump administration has been gutting the very programs that enable states to prepare for and respond to extreme weather, prompting apprehension among weather and public health experts alike about the nation’s ability to manage environmental disasters in the near and distant future.

The sweeping funding cuts and staff reductions that have plagued multiple federal agencies since January have not spared the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the federal agency within the Department of Commerce that is tasked with studying and predicting changes in climate, weather, the ocean, and coasts. The agency leads climate research, monitors environmental disasters, manages fisheries, and provides global environmental data to governments, academia, and the private sector to inform a wide range of policies and decision-making. It also delivers weather forecasting, overseeing the National Weather Service (NWS).

In short, NOAA’s expertise is crucial for states and communities to receive early and accurate forecasts to protect lives, homes, and other property and land ahead of extreme weather—especially during a hurricane season that follows the third-costliest season in history. But the agency has reportedly lost about 10 percent of its workforce through mass firings and voluntary retirement in recent months, as part of the administration’s efforts to slash the size of the federal government. This includes at least 600 people at the National Weather Service, which NOAA oversees. Although the NWS is aiming to rehire more than 100 of the 600 eliminated staff members, it is unclear how long it will take to rehire them; the process could take months and potentially extend well into or beyond hurricane season.

These cuts are already affecting weather forecasting and operations across the country, with various markets reporting unexpected extreme weather. Many regional weather service offices along coastlines are under-staffed or completely unstaffed, which have led to fewer daily launches of weather balloons that collect atmospheric data that inform forecast models in weather apps and local markets. The cuts also led to the closing of the Florida-based location of NOAA’s Navigation Response Team, one of six such teams nationwide, that reopen US ports after storms; if the region experiences severe hurricanes this season, response times may be slower and ports may be closed for longer periods. The agency may also be facing a massive budget cut of $1.5 billion—more than 25 percent—for 2026.

On top of these NOAA reductions, Trump has repeatedly called for the elimination of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), claiming it is too costly and ineffective. The agency, which has been on the front lines of federal disaster responses for 50 years, was already under-staffed and navigating multiple unprocessed emergency aid requests before the administration further reduced its workforce by 20 percent. 

“Reducing the staff that are working to make weather forecasts more accurate and effective, while also making cuts to the agency charged with helping people recover in the advent of a disaster, is a recipe for a really tough hurricane season,” says Gregory Wellenius, professor of environmental health and director of the Center for Climate and Health. Wellenius and other SPH faculty have published numerous studies examining how extreme weather today threatens the health of people and communities and how extreme events are becoming more frequent and intense due to continued climate change increasing the frequency and intensity of hurricanes, heat waves, wildfires, and other extreme weather events.

With hurricane season officially underway, Wellenius spoke further about the immediate and long-term effects of the waning federal support of both NOAA and FEMA.

In the last several weeks, we’ve seen record-breaking wildfires in the Northeast, tornadoes in the Midwest, and late-season snowstorms in the South. How will these cuts to NOAA and FEMA staff and funding affect different communities or regions across the country?

WELLENIUS: Extreme weather doesn’t know boundaries. People across the country are impacted by different forms of severe weather, whether it be extreme heat, hurricanes, or tornadoes, or smoke from wildfires. This is impacting people in red states and blue states, on the coasts and further inland, and in rural and urban areas alike. Everyone is at risk in the face of extreme weather, although some people and places are at higher risk. For example, last year Hurricane Helene caused significant destruction and health harms to coastal Florida as well as the inland rural counties of North Carolina. Although we typically think of hurricanes as a threat to coastal regions, inland regions far from the coast are also at risk. So much of the country is vulnerable to some form of extreme weather.

Beyond safety, what are some of the broader effects of these actions?

One other major loss is that FEMA was in the process of funding a large number of projects to increase community resilience to extreme weather, including hurricanes. A lot of that funding has now disappeared. There are direct impacts of that loss, but the longer-term impact is that our communities continue to remain vulnerable to  extreme weather. Last year, NOAA recorded 27 events that cost the US economy at least $1 billion, costing the US economy more than $180 billion in losses and 568 deaths. The number and cost of these extreme events keeps increasing. Also, unfortunately, the administration recently announced that NOAA has stopped tracking disasters, their costs, or the human toll. 

These extreme events are becoming more frequent and more expensive over time, and the economic impact of these disasters on the affected communities is huge. At a time where we’re expected to have more hurricanes this season, and potentially in the future, and potentially less ability to predict or respond to those threats, these events are going to adversely affect people’s lives and their wallets. 

The administration is claiming that FEMA is wasteful and ineffective. Do you see a need for reasonable reform, and are there opportunities to make these changes without dismantling or diminishing the capacity of these agencies?

I’m confident that every government agency can benefit from intelligent reforms to increase efficiency and deliver even more value to the American public. On the other hand, simply shrinking a government agency without a clear vision for meaningful reform puts people and communities at real risk. FEMA has been incredibly important in disaster response across the country.  As FEMA’s capabilities and resources to help communities in their time of need are diminished, a lot of the costs of response and recovery are going to be transferred to the states and to the people affected. 

The NWS says it is in the process of rehiring some of its staff. What effect do you think the initial cuts will have on their ability to regain and retain experienced staff members—and their trust in government?

Across all of these government cuts, we’ve seen a tremendous amount of talent lost. That’s a huge loss for the country, because that loss of expertise is really hard to rebuild. Even if things change in the future, it’s going to take a long time for the country to recover from that.