NOAA Slashes 880 Jobs

The controversial move comes on the heels of Allen Media Group's announced plan to centralize local weather forecasts.

Disclaimer: First of all, Bill has nothing to do with this article. He won’t even see it until it gets posted. The views of Daughter #3 do not necessarily reflect the views of the Bill. We disagree on some things, including some political topics, but I won’t tell you which ones.

I know we have our share of trained meteorologists on here, so please let me know your thoughts in the comments. I have no scientific or meteorological background, I’m just looking stuff up on the internet.

(Logo for NOAA. Image is in the public domain.)

Mass Job Cuts at NOAA

CBS News reported today that 880 people were let go from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). NOAA is the U.S. federal government agency responsible for environmental science, including weather forecasting, ocean resource management, coastal resources and climate science.

The CBS article says that about 5% of the NOAA workforce was affected. Some simple math tells us that there would have been 17,600 total employees before the cuts. E&E news reported that scientists made up 57% of the NOAA workforce in 2021. They reported the total NOAA workforce at the time of the 2021 article at 11,641.

I can’t find a source that gives NOAA (or National Weather Service) employee totals by year, otherwise we’d have a chart of department growth over the years. These are different sources cited above - one saying that the workforce was 17,600 before the cuts in 2025, and another source saying that the workforce was 11,641 in 2021. Is it possible that the workforce increased by 5,959 in an approximately 5-year period? That would be an increase in workforce of nearly 50%. I’m skeptical that’s correct. That doesn’t sound right.

Another source reports a NOAA workforce of 11,758 in the year 2023. (Here’s another source saying the same thing.) I can’t find any source online (post in the comments if you can find one, other than AI) that gives a total number of employees immediately before the cut - although that CBS article says 5% were cut, and they cite an administration official for that figure. That would have meant NOAA underwent a hiring spree in the last couple years.

Even if 880 let go represents only the new hires that came on board in the past year, that were subject to the probationary period, it still represents a significant increase in staff from previous periods. I just can’t find specifics on how many exactly.

Let’s take a minute to thank our billsteffen.com sponsor:

NOAA Budget Cuts in the 1990s

This isn’t the first time NOAA has had significant cuts. There were some during the Clinton Administration in the 1990s. In fact, U.S. President Bill Clinton fired the National Weather Service director in 1997, Elbert “Joe” Friday, because he wouldn’t say that the budget cuts at the time wouldn’t have an effect on the country.

Here’s an article about it from Yale.

(Bill Clinton. Image is in the public domain)

At the time, the cuts represented about 9% of the National Weather Service. Modernization efforts and new technologies were cited as the reasons behind the cuts, along with the goal of having a greater percentage of the workforce being meteorologists.

But, those cuts aren’t like the cuts now. Those cuts were planned and careful. The cuts that happened today seem more like anyone-in-your-probationary-period-out-you-go. Legally, it’s probably a lot easier to release employees in a probationary period than those who are not. It’s likely safe to say that less thought about the impact of the job cuts went into the terminations made today than the ones that were deliberate and planned in the 1990s.

Fewer Opportunities for New Meteorologists?

In a document titled Career Opportunities for Meteorologists, the National Weather Service reported that U.S. universities are turning about twice as many new meteorology grads as there are jobs for. The article cites 2010 as the year for its data.

That was before the latest NOAA cuts - and before Allen Media Group announced - and then backtracked - on a plan to centralize its local broadcasting service with remote forecasters responsible for multiple geographic areas.

In both the government and the private sector, there is anecdotal evidence of job prospects in meteorology contracting.

(image of earth, image is in the public domain)

The Future for Jobs in Meteorology

That isn’t to say that there isn’t a great demand for skilled forecasting and climate science. Try running the transportation industry without it. You can’t. Meteorology is critical to the private sector, including transportation, agriculture, fishing, coastal development and so many other things.

Then there’s the public interest in disaster forecasting. We need the government to tell us when it’s time to run and hide.

How much should the federal government be doing, and with what personnel? If private industry benefits from federal services offered for the public good, like if disaster forecasting helps the fishing industry, I’m not offended. But what should the government do, how much should we pay for it, and who decides?

What do you think?