NOAA’s Research Just Shifted from Climate Change to “Empowering the Economy” and “National Security”

A “shocking change in the mission of one of the nation’s premier scientific agencies.”

This satellite image was taken on the first day of astronomical summer from the NOAA's GOES East satellite. It captures a storm moving across the central United States.NOAA

For indispensable reporting on the coronavirus crisis, the election, and more, subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter.

One of the country’s major federal science agencies seems to have been forced to abandon climate change research as a key organizational focus, the New York Times revealed this week. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Organization is responsible for managing the National Weather Service and using its network of satellites to forecast the effects of climate change. Rather than concentrate on resiliency efforts, NOAA is now charged with prioritizing “a safe, secure and growing economy empowered through accurate, reliable and timely environmental information,” according to a slideshow presented by the agency’s acting director at a Department of Commerce meeting. 

The Times had the details of the policy shift, the latest under President Trump’s watch:

In the presentation, which included descriptions of the past and present missions for the agency, the past mission listed three items, starting with “to understand and predict changes in climate, weather, oceans and coasts.” In contrast, for the present mission, the word “climate” was gone, and the first line was replaced with “to observe, understand and predict atmospheric and ocean conditions.”

The presentation also included a new emphasis: “To protect lives and property, empower the economy, and support homeland and national security.”

NOAA, whose mandate includes forecasting for hurricanes and cyclical storms like El Niño, had remained relatively immune so far from the influence of climate change skeptics within the Trump administration. Just last month, NOAA researchers recorded the highest-ever levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, a historic result that an agency scientist called “a whole lot of bad news” in an interview with Mother Jones. The agency promoted a similar finding on its homepage this week with the headline, “Globe had its 4th warmest May on record.”

While climate skeptics have reached positions of key importance in the Environmental Protection Agency and Department of the Interior, acting NOAA head and retired Navy admiral Timothy Gallaudet explicitly discussed the “warming of waters” and “sea-level rise” in a speech to 600 scientists and industry veterans earlier this month. “Understanding these is more important to the administration, because of what NOAA is doing in terms of advancing the blue economy,” he said. 

Not all agency scientists appear willing to go along with the new protocol. 

Andrew A. Rosenberg, previously the northeast regional administrator of NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service, described the planned shift in a statement to the Times as a “shocking change in the mission of one of the nation’s premier scientific agencies.” He said the decision was “misguided and harmful to our country.”

A current NOAA scientist who spoke anonymously to the Times suggested that the presentation might not result in any substantive changes to day-to-day work. “It’s all in how you interpret the slides,” he said. “Climate won’t be highlighted, but it will remain a fundamental part of the NOAA mission.” 

NOAA has faced opposition from Republicans even before the Trump administration. In July 2015, Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Tx.), who chairs the House Natural Resources Committee, subpoenaed records from the NOAA over a research paper that suggested a 20-year break in global warming trends had been due to inaccurate data. “The research was later validated,” according to the Times. 

Gallaudet diminished any strong reactions to the slideshow by noting that it was “not intended to create change in NOAA mission or policy from what it was before.” But previous government interventions into NOAA affairs suggest the White House would be unlikely not to intervene with an agency under its watch that continues to publicly discuss the potentially devastating effects of climate change.

More MotherJones reporting on Climate Desk


Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend