When Warnings Go Silent: The Real Cost of Cutting the National Weather Service

Why I’m Writing About These Cuts

Over the past week, I’ve found myself thinking a lot about the different government services that are being cut—sometimes quietly, sometimes in ways that make headlines. These aren’t just abstract numbers in a budget. These are programs that touch real lives, often in critical, life-or-death ways. I’ve decided to start a series of posts looking at these cuts and asking: What does it really mean when we lose—or weaken—services that so many people depend on?

It’s easy for politicians and pundits to talk about “reducing government waste” or “cutting unnecessary spending,” but in reality, a lot of what’s on the chopping block isn’t waste at all. In fact, some of these services are absolutely essential for public safety, health, and well-being. We’re talking about things that, if cut too deeply, could literally cost lives. That’s why I feel it’s so important to have an honest conversation about what’s actually being cut, what’s being proposed for future cuts, and what the real-world impact could be.

This series is going to focus on the facts—what’s happening now, what’s already changed, and, where it’s relevant, what’s being considered for the future. My goal isn’t to speculate wildly or get lost in rumors, but to help readers understand what’s at stake. I’ll be highlighting different government agencies and programs over the next several posts, focusing on those that matter most to everyday people.

About This Series

Today, I’m starting with the National Weather Service. In the coming posts, I’ll explore other services as well—especially those that have a direct impact on people’s safety and security. Sometimes, I may touch on proposed cuts for the future, but my main focus is on what’s actually being done or what’s already in motion.

One quick note: You might see the terms “NWS” and “NOAA” used in this post. Just to clarify, the National Weather Service (NWS) is a division within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). NOAA oversees several agencies and services related to weather, oceans, and climate, and the NWS is the branch responsible for public weather forecasts and warnings across the United States.

Why This Issue Hits Home for Me

When I think about government cuts to services like the National Weather Service, I don’t just see statistics or policy debates—I see people I love, friends I’ve made, and places that hold special meaning for me. I don’t choose these topics just because they affect me personally, but having a real connection makes the need to write about them feel even more urgent.

My fiancé Josh and his family are true Sarasota natives—Josh was born at Sarasota Memorial Hospital, and many of his aunts, uncles, and cousins still live in the area today. For most of his life, Florida was home, aside from a few moves. From 2005 to 2010, Josh lived and worked in Tampa, at MacDill Air Force Base through the Lighthouse for the Blind. When that job ended, he moved back to Sarasota, where his roots and his family have always been.

Josh’s dad and stepmom now have a home in North Carolina, but they spend a lot of time in Sarasota for family reasons and because they’re still getting established up north. When major storms hit, they’re often there with loved ones, which means we hear firsthand what’s happening and worry about everyone’s safety.

I lived in North Tampa for nine years, and Josh and I have good friends in Tampa we care about deeply. We also have a close friend in Fort Lauderdale—though I’ve never visited there personally. Living in Florida for so long, I experienced my share of severe weather, including surviving Hurricane Irma. Every hurricane season, we both worry: will the warnings come in time for the people we love most?

Some storms become personal, not just because of where they hit, but because of what they do to families and connections. When Hurricane Ian struck Florida in September 2022, it caused massive damage in the Sarasota area. At that time, Josh and I were living in different states but seeing each other long-distance, and I’ll never forget the worry when power and cell service went out for hours. I was able to talk to Josh just after the storm hit and knew they were okay, but then I didn’t hear from him for most of the next day until he could get his phone charged. It’s terrifying to be separated from someone you love and not know if you’ll hear from them soon. For Josh, Ian was the worst storm he’d ever experienced in Sarasota—so much so that the hurricane’s name was later retired [National Weather Service: Hurricane Ian’s impact and retirement].

A year later, in 2023, Hurricane Idalia hit Florida again. It didn’t cause as much damage in Sarasota as Ian had, but it brought dangerous winds and flooding along the coast, and it was yet another reminder that Florida’s “quiet” years don’t last forever [NOAA: Hurricane Idalia Tropical Cyclone Report].

But the storm that really shook Josh—and many others—was Hurricane Milton in 2024, when it made landfall just south of Siesta Key. Even though Josh has lived through hurricanes before, Milton’s direct impact on Sarasota was a shock. For years, people told themselves that Sarasota was usually spared, and you could feel that sense of safety in the community. Josh was genuinely floored; if he felt that way, you can bet a lot of locals did too. That’s why strong warning systems matter so much: when people get complacent, a sudden, rare strike can be even more dangerous.

And it isn’t just about Florida or North Carolina. Severe weather hits Michigan, too. Shortly after I moved to Traverse City in May 2022, a rare EF3 tornado struck nearby Gaylord—killing two people, injuring dozens, and devastating the area [NWS: Gaylord tornado details]. For a region that rarely sees tornadoes, it was a shocking wake-up call.

I’m originally from Flint, downstate Michigan, where tornadoes and damaging storms are more common. Across much of Michigan, having reliable forecasts and timely warnings isn’t optional—it’s lifesaving.

So yes—cuts to the National Weather Service aren’t abstract. They affect every community, whether you’re preparing for a hurricane on the coast or a sudden tornado in the Midwest. Losing—or weakening—these services isn’t just a policy change; it’s a threat to safety everywhere.

Weather is one of those things none of us can get away from. We all experience weather.

What’s Happening to the National Weather Service?

Now that I’ve shared why the National Weather Service matters so much to me personally, I want to talk about what’s actually happening to the agency. Over the past year, the NWS has faced some of the most severe staffing and budget cuts in its history—changes that are already being felt by communities across the country, and even affecting local forecasting here in Michigan.

In early 2025, nearly 900 NOAA employees—including meteorologists, technicians, and engineers—were laid off or took buyouts, and thousands more are expected to leave soon. Many local weather offices are now operating short-staffed or with critical vacancies, including in Texas, Florida, and other severe weather hotspots. Some offices no longer have around-the-clock coverage, which means warnings during overnight storms could be delayed. This isn’t just an inconvenience—it’s a serious risk during tornado outbreaks or hurricanes that strike at night.

One of the most alarming changes is the cutback in weather balloon launches. These balloons—sent up twice a day from about 100 sites across the country—collect vital data on temperature, humidity, wind, and pressure at high altitudes. Forecasters and computer models depend on this real-time data to predict where storms will go, how much rain will fall, and how severe a tornado or hurricane might become. As more balloon launches are canceled or reduced due to staffing cuts, the entire country loses a crucial “early warning” layer in our weather defense.

My fiancé Josh is a huge weather enthusiast, especially when it comes to Florida storms, though he’s now learning a lot about Michigan weather too. He’s always paying attention to the forecasts and is the one who told me about Heather Bricca mentioning the weather balloon cutbacks during the morning weather report on Out North Live. If he hadn’t pointed it out, I probably would have missed it. Hearing that on the news really brought home how these cuts are starting to hit local communities.

It’s not just balloons, either. There are growing concerns that the “hurricane hunter” aircraft—the specialized planes that fly directly into storms to gather real-time data—might not be able to operate as often this hurricane season due to budget constraints and staffing shortages. These aircraft have saved countless lives by providing up-to-the-minute information on storm strength and track, especially when a hurricane is threatening the coast. The idea that we might lose or reduce these flights is honestly pretty scary.

Staffing shortages have also hit tornado-prone states. Some National Weather Service offices in Texas and Kentucky are running at 20–40% below normal capacity, with key roles unfilled. When severe weather threatens, these offices are stretched to the limit, sometimes relying on neighboring offices to help with warnings—raising the risk of delays and communication breakdowns right when people need fast, clear information the most.

If you’d told me a few years ago that we’d see cuts to weather balloon launches, hurricane aircraft, and essential forecasting staff, I wouldn’t have believed it. As much as I may disagree with the Trump administration on a lot of things, I was honestly shocked to see something as vital as the National Weather Service on the chopping block. If it surprised me, I know I’m not alone.

All of these changes add up to a situation where warnings could be slower, forecasts less accurate, and people at greater risk—whether it’s a tornado in the middle of the night or a hurricane bearing down on the coast. This isn’t just a policy debate; it’s about real-world safety, for all of us.

If you want to dig deeper, here are some of the best reports and sources I found:

Why Are They Cutting the National Weather Service?

As I started working on this post, one of my biggest questions was simply: Why? Why would the Trump administration—and so many in Congress—want to cut something as vital as the National Weather Service? At first, I honestly didn’t understand it. I thought maybe it had to do with the politics of climate change, since so many in that camp seem to be climate change deniers, or at least skeptical of climate science. Maybe they just don’t like what weather forecasting sometimes says about the bigger picture. I also heard about Project 2025, which I knew was a conservative wish list, but I didn’t realize until now just how much it leaned toward privatization and breaking up agencies like NOAA and the NWS. If I’m being honest, I wish I had paid more attention to those details sooner.

But as I dug into the research for this blog post, I wanted to get past speculation and really understand what reasons were being given. So here’s what I found—and what the administration and its supporters say about why these cuts are happening:

“Reducing Waste and Bureaucracy:” The administration claims that the main reason for these cuts is to trim what they see as “waste” in government, streamline agencies, and get rid of unnecessary federal spending. They frame it as a way to make the government more efficient and responsive to taxpayers.
Privatization and Shifting Control: There’s also a strong push in Project 2025 and similar plans to “privatize” more of the weather service—meaning, letting private companies or even individual states handle things like weather forecasting and emergency response, rather than having a strong national system. This is framed as giving states more control and fostering “competition.”
Budget Power and Executive Action: Some of the most dramatic cuts haven’t come from Congressional votes, but from behind-the-scenes moves—like budget freezes and agency downsizing done by executive order. These actions bypass normal budget debates and allow the administration to act quickly, sometimes without much oversight or public discussion.
Climate Science Skepticism: Many observers and critics point out that cutting NOAA and the NWS also has the effect of weakening climate research and public access to scientific data. Some say this is a deliberate move by those who don’t support climate action or want to slow it down.

In the end, no matter what the official explanation is—“waste,” “efficiency,” or “letting the states take over”—it all adds up to less funding, fewer experts, and a weaker system for warning and protecting the public. As I dug deeper, I realized just how far-reaching the consequences could be, especially if privatization and state control ever became the norm.

Why States and Private Companies Can’t Replace the National Weather Service

Before I get into the official reasons, I just have to say: to me, this whole push to cut and privatize the National Weather Service is a recipe for disaster in so many ways. I know we all have different political views, and I understand that some people genuinely believe privatization or shrinking government is the right way forward. But to me, responsible governance isn’t about forcing your idea through just because it matches your personal philosophy or benefits certain companies—it’s about asking: “Is this actually workable? Will this keep people safe?”

If your plan boils down to “the government should spend less money” or “we should trust the private sector to do better,” I get where you’re coming from. Or maybe you’re skeptical of climate science and don’t like what the Weather Service represents politically. There are all kinds of reasons someone might want this—but opinions don’t change the reality on the ground.

And the reality is, these proposed cuts and changes aren’t just controversial—they’re dangerous. They raise questions about whether the government is truly putting people first. Our government’s job is to look out for the public, not just for corporations or political donors. I just can’t see how anyone can say these cuts are “looking out for us.”

So, is it even possible for states or private companies to take over what the National Weather Service does? Here’s what I found, and why so many experts warn this plan is not just unrealistic, but dangerous:

Weather crosses state lines and doesn’t care about borders. Tornadoes, hurricanes, floods, and blizzards don’t stop at a welcome sign. If each state (or a private company) is in charge of its own warnings, you end up with a patchwork of messages, confusion, and gaps. Storms don’t respect boundaries—and neither should our warning systems.
States and private companies can’t match the NWS’s resources. The National Weather Service runs satellites, radar networks, hurricane hunter aircraft, and supercomputers—costing billions and requiring teams of highly trained scientists. No state, and no for-profit company, could afford to maintain or operate this technology on their own. Rural and poorer states would fall behind the fastest.
Disaster response requires national coordination. FEMA and the NWS work together to get warnings, data, and help where it’s needed—across state lines, in real time. Without that coordination, emergencies could be slower and less effective, especially for disasters that cover more than one state.
Privatization leaves people behind. If weather forecasting becomes a business, companies are likely to focus on areas where they can make money—big cities and paying customers. That means rural, low-income, and disabled people could lose out, or have to pay for services that are now free and public.
History proves a patchwork system is dangerous. Before the modern NWS, local or fragmented warning systems led to tragedy. One of the most devastating examples was the 1953 Beecher tornado in Flint, Michigan. My mom and her family actually lived through that tornado—the roof was blown off their home, and many lives were lost that day, in part because there was no coordinated warning system. I’ll share more of their story at the end of this post, because it’s a powerful reminder of what’s at stake.
Every major expert says this plan would make us less safe. The American Meteorological Society, National Weather Association, and emergency management professionals on all sides agree: breaking up the NWS would set public safety back by decades and cost lives. No single state or company can replace what our national weather system provides.

And honestly, I understand all about states’ rights and the history behind them—but we’re not fifty separate countries. We’re one nation, and things like emergency response and public safety should be national priorities. In my opinion, issues that impact everyone—like the weather, disasters, and national defense—are exactly why we have a federal government in the first place. Project 2025 isn’t just about weather; from what I’ve read, it’s about shrinking the federal government’s role on many different issues, leaving states to fend for themselves. But what’s the point of having a federal government if every state is just supposed to go it alone? Some things really are too important to leave to chance.

What Is Government For, Anyway?

As I’m writing this post, I have to be honest—reading about these proposed cuts is making me angry. I’m not usually a person who gets angry easily. I feel things deeply, but true anger is rare for me. Yet, the more I dig into this, the more frustrated I feel. Maybe it’s because, as someone who’s disabled, I know firsthand how much we depend on systems that are supposed to look out for all of us—not just those with money or the ability to act fast.

There are people in this country—more than some might realize—who can’t just hop in a car and get out of town when a hurricane is coming. Whenever there’s a disaster, someone always says, “Why don’t people just leave?” But it’s not that easy for everyone. Some folks don’t have the money, a car, or family to help. Some of us physically can’t. That’s where a government comes in—to protect people who would otherwise be left out or left behind.

Want to learn more about why evacuation isn’t so simple for everyone? Check out these articles:

I know there are people who believe government is inherently bad, or that it should be as small as possible, with private companies or individuals taking the lead. That’s the mindset behind a lot of these cuts—not just in weather, but across the board. And while I agree that some programs could be more efficient or better managed, I don’t support the idea of making everything private and just “going all capitalist.” Like my late friend Cindy Bryant used to say, “Why is it that people always want to go one direction or the other? Why can’t we meet in the middle more often?” I always thought she had a really strong point about how we debate things in this country.

At the end of the day, I believe our government is supposed to look out for us—especially those who need it most. If it’s not doing that, then what is it for? The reason cuts to weather forecasting matter is because they’re part of a bigger push to shrink government, sometimes without thinking about who gets left behind. I don’t mind smart reforms, or cutting true waste. But I can’t support a vision where we just get rid of the structures that help keep us safe, informed, and protected.

Lessons Learned—And What’s at Stake Now

Disasters like the Beecher tornado forced our country to change. We built better systems—sirens, coordinated weather alerts, 24/7 forecasting—so families could be warned before disaster struck. But all that progress is fragile. The cuts we’re seeing now threaten to undo decades of hard-won advances. Recent storms, from the Gaylord tornado in Michigan to Hurricane Ian in Florida, show how critical these systems still are—and how quickly tragedy can strike if we’re not prepared.

We can’t afford to go backwards. We don’t want to lose the progress we’ve made, or take steps back to a time when families were left in the dark and disasters caught people by surprise. Protecting and strengthening our weather services means protecting everyone, everywhere.

Hopefully, it won’t take a terrible disaster to wake people up to what’s happening to our weather services. I’m not trying to sound alarmist, but the risk is real—and the consequences could be severe even with the way things are right now.

Thank you for reading this post. I know not everyone is as tuned in to the weather as Josh and I are—we have our alerts set and are always paying attention—but that’s exactly why this is so important. Many people may not even realize when weather services are being cut, or when warnings aren’t as reliable as they used to be. I hope this post helps more people become aware of what’s at stake, because these changes really do affect every one of us.

If you care about these issues, consider reaching out to your senators and congressional representatives. You can look up your elected officials and send a message through USA.gov’s Find Your Elected Officials tool. Even a short email or phone call can help remind them that weather services matter—and that you want to see progress protected, not undone.