Former NWS directors warn staff cuts could lead to unnecessary deaths during severe weather
'Our worst nightmare is that weather forecast offices will be so understaffed that there will be needless loss of life. We know that's a nightmare shared by those on the forecasting front lines—and by the people who depend on their efforts,' they wrote in an open letter published Friday.
The former directors — who served between 1988 and 2022 — said that between the Trump administration's cuts to probationary workers and personnel reductions through buyouts, the weather service's staffing has been reduced by more than 10% during the busiest time for severe storm predictions.
They said they're also concerned about the Trump administration's budget request for the next fiscal year, after the administration outlined in a letter to Congress a $1.52 billion proposed cut for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the weather service's parent agency.
'NWS staff will have an impossible task to continue its current level of services,' they wrote, if further cuts are implemented. 'Some forecast offices will be so short-staffed that they may be forced to go to part time services."
Want to know more about how NWS cuts could cause meteorologists to miss detecting a tornado? Watch Hallie Jackson Now on NBC News Now, today at 5PM EST.
Their outcry against cuts at the weather service, and the NOAA more broadly, shows that the agencies are a political pressure point as the Trump administration seeks to slash the size of government. Meteorologists said cuts to weather service staffing have led to less effective forecasts, which has spurred some bipartisan backlash in Plains states where severe weather claims many lives.
The letter, which was sent to journalists by a publicist and also circulated on social media, was signed by the former weather service directors: Louis Uccellini, Jack Hayes, U.S. Air Force Brig. Gen. D.L. Johnson, U.S. Air Force Brig. Gen. John J. Kelly Jr. and U.S. Air Force Col. E.W. (Joe) Friday.
Louis Uccellini during a news conference in Maryland in 2016.
They added: 'As former directors of the National Weather Service, we know firsthand what it takes to make accurate forecasts happen and we stand united against the loss of staff and resources at NWS and are deeply concerned about NOAA as a whole.'
In a statement, the weather service said it wouldn't discuss internal personnel and management matters. It acknowledged that it was juggling staffing concerns.
'We continue to provide weather information, forecasts and warnings pursuant to our public safety mission,' the statement said. 'The National Weather Service is adjusting some services due to temporary staffing changes at our local forecast offices throughout the country in order to best meet the needs of the public, our partners and stakeholders in each office's local area. Work is underway to restore services at local forecast offices around the country.'
The White House did not respond to a request for comment.
Forecasts during severe weather last month in Nebraska helped to clarify concerns about the cuts and prompted one congressional Republican to speak out.
On April 17, as thunderstorms threatened Iowa and Nebraska, the weather service forecasting office in Valley, Nebraska, near Omaha, launched a special weather balloon at 3 p.m. to assess the risk from the storms, but it did not launch a regularly scheduled 7 p.m. balloon because of staff cuts.
The Valley office was one of more than 10 sites where the weather service announced it would cancel balloon launches because of staffing shortages.
Independent meteorologists said the 7 p.m. balloon launch near Omaha could have helped forecasters identify the risk of tornadoes sooner. Storms that appeared to be mostly a hail threat in data from the 3 p.m. weather balloon ended up producing six tornadoes that tracked across eastern Nebraska.
After the storm, Rep. Mike Flood, R-Neb., said he took steps to intervene. In an April 25 news conference recorded by NBC-affiliate WOWT in Omaha, he said he learned the Valley office's staffing had fallen from 13 forecasters to eight, leaving it little choice but to halt weather balloon operations.
After raising the issue, he told reporters he had received a call from the White House agreeing that changes were needed. Soon after, the weather service sent two forecasters to fulfill a temporary assignment at the Valley office.
'We've changed the policy across the country, and these temporary duty assignments are available for forecasters to go to all the other understaffed weather stations,' Flood said, adding that temporary assignments could become permanent and that weather forecasting offices would be allowed to do some new hiring.
He said he planned to introduce legislation to classify forecasters as public safety workers, a measure that would likely exempt them from federal buyouts and other staff-cutting policies.
'They are clearly public safety. And that's something that we need to do in Congress,' Flood said.
Rick Spinrad, former NOAA administrator under then-President Joe Biden, said the weather service was not a bloated target for budgetary cuts.
'The weather service is costing every American 1 cent per day,' Spinrad said.
The staffing cuts have affected more than just weather balloon launches. Last month, the weather service office in Sacramento, California, sent a memo to local media partners saying that it would reduce overnight staffing and stop answering public phones, among other changes.
Friday, one of the former directors, said he was particularly concerned that additional cuts could further stress overnight staffing.
'The worst case scenario we could have if this situation continues would be the development of a severe storm that would start after midnight,' he said, adding that overnight decisions by the weather service and local emergency planners could be the difference between sirens waking people up to a danger, such as a tornado. 'We have holes throughout the weather service now that are not well thought out.'
This article was originally published on NBCNews.com
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
a few seconds ago
- The Hill
Trump's WSJ lawsuit is as dangerous as it is unprecedented
President Trump made history on Friday when he became the first president to sue a newspaper for an article that exposed something he did not want brought to light. In so doing, he again used the Oval Office as a platform to settle scores and to carry out a personal vendetta rather than to serve the public interest. Trump's unprecedented step came in the context of his heightened sensitivity about anything having to do with Jeffrey Epstein, the infamous deceased child sexual abuser. On July 17, The Wall Street Journal triggered the suit when it published an article that claimed Trump had sent Epstein a 'lewd' birthday card in 2003 when the latter turned 50 years old. Trump reacted almost immediately, filing suit the next day seeking $10 billion in damages. But he has his eyes on something even bigger than that suit — namely the possibility of weakening the Constitution's protection of press freedom. His lawsuit alleges that the Journal's article was an attempt to 'inextricably link President Trump to Epstein' and that the Journal 'falsely claim[ed] that the salacious language of the letter is contained within a hand-drawn naked woman, which was created with a heavy marker.' The president claims that the newspaper 'failed to attach the alleged drawing, failed to show proof that President Trump authored or signed any such letter, and failed to explain how this purported letter was obtained.' His lawsuit charges that with 'malicious intent … Defendants concocted this story to malign President Trump's character and integrity and deceptively portray him in a false light.' Those allegations tee up the constitutional battle that the president wants to wage. Trump's suit against the Journal has already reaped benefits, redirecting Epstein-related ire from the MAGA base away from him. His supporters now have a familiar target: the press and its alleged persecution of the president. In addition, it is an important step in Trump's long-running desire to get the United States Supreme Court to reverse decades of precedent and make it easier for public figures to win libel and defamation suits against newspapers and other media outlets. Like other strongman leaders, if he can't control the media directly, he wants to coerce and intimidate it. Relaxing its legal protection is one way to accomplish that goal. In the 2016 campaign, Trump promised: 'One of the things I'm going to do if I win, I'm going to open up our libel law so when they (the press) write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money.' He has failed so far to deliver on that promise. But as we know, he is not easily dissuaded. Newspapers, radio or television stations that have the audacity not to do the president's bidding must be made to pay a price, with the hope that others will seek to avoid that fate by censoring themselves. Trump's quick and unprecedented resort to the courts sends a clear message to any media outlet that crosses him. He may be feeling good, but the rest of us should not be. As Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1786: 'Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost.' He went on to note that 'To the sacrifice, of time, labor, fortune, a public servant must count upon adding that of peace of mind and even reputation. And all this is preferable to European bondage. ' Almost 200 years later, Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black reiterated Jefferson's sentiment. 'The Founding Fathers gave the free press the protection it must have to fulfill its essential role in our democracy,' he explained. 'The press was to serve the governed, not the governors.' Turmp wants exactly the opposite. Seven years before Black wrote those lines, the Supreme Court, in another classic defense of press freedom, made it very hard for public figures to win defamation suits against news outlets of the kind Trump filed on Friday. 'To sustain a claim of defamation or libel,' the court said, 'the First Amendment requires that the plaintiff show that the defendant knew that a statement was false or was reckless in deciding to publish the information without investigating whether it was accurate.' Justice William Brennan explained that America's 'profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open' meant 'that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.' Echoing Jefferson, he added, 'Injury to official reputation affords no more warrant for repressing speech that would otherwise be free than does factual error.' Since 1964, public figures have found it nearly impossible to succeed in cases like the one Trump filed on Friday. Whether he or the Journal loses in the lower courts, the president may be hoping that his case will make its way to the Supreme Court so it can again come to his rescue and do his bidding. Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch have already indicated their belief that the court's 1964 decision and its actual malice standard should be overruled. So, keep an eye on what happens to Trump's suit against The Wall Street Journal. The Journal's fate will be important in shaping the fate of the freedom of all Americans.
The Hill
a few seconds ago
- The Hill
New York Times comes to Wall Street Journal's defense in wake of Trump lawsuit
The New York Times issued a blistering statement on Tuesday condemning a decision by the White House to ban The Wall Street Journal from covering an overseas trip by President Trump this weekend, calling it 'simple retribution.' 'The White House's refusal to let one of the nation's leading news organizations cover the highest office in the country is an attack on core constitutional principles underpinning free speech and free press,' the Times said. 'Americans regardless of party deserve to know and understand the actions of the president and reporters play a vital role in advancing the public interest.' White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt on Monday said the Journal would be excluded from the travel pool heading to Scotland with Trump this weekend, citing the outlet's reporting on a previously unknown letter it said Trump sent disgraced financier Jeffery Epstein. 'Thirteen diverse outlets will participate in the press pool to cover the President's trip to Scotland,' Leavitt said. 'Due to the Wall Street Journal's fake and defamatory conduct, they will not be one of the thirteen outlets on board.' The ban comes just days after Trump sued the Journal and its owner Rupert Murdoch over the newspaper's reporting on his past relationship with Epstein, a convicted sex offender who died in jail in 2019 while awaiting trial on federal sex-trafficking charges. The Journal reported that Trump was among those who sent a 'bawdy' letter to Epstein for his birthday in 2003. Trump denies writing the letter and has said he appealed directly to Murdoch to stop publication of the Journal story. The president has pushed back forcefully amid widespread calls in the GOP for his administration to release more information about the case involving the dead financier. 'This is simple retribution by a president against a news organization for doing reporting that he doesn't like,' the Times said Tuesday. 'Such actions deprive Americans of information about how their government operates.'
Axios
a few seconds ago
- Axios
U.S. again withdraws from UNESCO, citing anti-Israel bias and "woke" causes
President Trump has again withdrawn the U.S. from the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). Why it matters: This is the third UN agency the Trump administration is withdrawing from following decisions earlier this year to leave the World Health Organization and the Human Rights Council. The move further decreases U.S. footprint and influence in international organizations, and experts say the nation's exit will allow China to increase its influence on the UN system. The U.S. officially informed UNESCO of the decision on Tuesday, the State Department said. The U.S. withdrawal will take effect on December 31, 2026. The U.S. will remain a full member of UNESCO until that time, the State Department said. Behind the scenes: The U.S. move wasn't a surprise. In February, Trump ordered a review of the country's UNESCO membership, and a report was submitted to the White House in May. A U.S. official said Trump made the final decision last week. UNESCO's Director-General Audrey Azoulay expected Trump to again withdraw from the organization. In February, she met with Vice President JD Vance at the Munich Security Conference in an effort to influence the administration's perspective, a source with knowledge of the meeting told Axios. In a statement, Azoulay said that after Trump's 2017 UNESCO withdrawal, the organization diversified its funding sources and that U.S. funding is only 8% of the organization's budget today. Catch up quick: After Palestine became a full member of UNESCO in 2011, the Obama administration stopped providing funding to the organization because it was barred to do so by U.S. law. In October 2017, the Trump administration announced it was leaving UNESCO over what it described as anti-Israel bias. Israel announced that it would leave the organization not long after. In February 2022, the Israeli government notified the State Department that it wouldn't oppose a U.S. return to UNESCO. The Israeli position paved the way for some Democrats and Republicans in Congress to support the move. The U.S. rejoined UNESCO in July 2023 under then-President Biden. What they are saying: The U.S. is departing UNESCO since the organization "supports woke, divisive cultural and social causes that are totally out-of-step with the commonsense policies that Americans voted for in November," White House Deputy Press Secretary Anna Kelly said in a statement. Trump "will always put America First and ensure our country's membership in all international organizations aligns with our national interests," she said. It it's own statement, the State Department said "continued involvement in UNESCO is not in the national interest of the United States," and pointed to the organization's diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives as one of the reasons for the departure. UNESCO's involvement in "divisive social and cultural causes" and "outsized focus on the U.N.'s Sustainable Development Goals, a globalist, ideological agenda for international development [is] at odds with our America First foreign policy," the statement said. The statement also accused UNESCO of a "proliferation of anti-Israel rhetoric." Israel's Foreign Minister Gideon Saar welcomed the U.S. decision and called in "a necessary step, designed to promote justice and Israel's right for fair treatment in the UN system." A senior Israeli official said the Trump administration notified Israel of the decision in advance. The other side: Azoulay said in a statement she "deeply regrets" Trump's decision and stressed it may impact "first and foremost our many partners in the U.S."
