Privatising the Weather: What Could Possibly Go Wrong?

Diary: Saturday, 12 April, 2025

Apr 12, 2025

In October 2017, President Trump nominated Barry Myers to lead the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the federal agency overseeing the National Weather Service (NWS), oceanographic research, and environmental monitoring. NOAA’s work and mission - largely built on publicly funded research - has always prioritised open access to data for the benefit of all.

The nomination raised the alarm. Myers, then CEO of AccuWeather, a private company that profited from public weather data, had a history of lobbying to limit the NWS’s ability to communicate forecasts directly to the public. In other words, he stood to gain from limiting free public access to life-saving information.

Apart from the obvious conflict of interest, there was a fear that Myers would push for a greater role for private companies in providing weather services. Myers had long promoted a model in which government agencies focused solely on data collection while forecasting and distribution would be handled by private companies like his own – for a fee. It was the classic entrepreneur's playbook in action: promising "improved efficiency and innovation"—those magical chants that somehow transform "we want to make money" into "we're solving humanity's greatest challenges.”

Not everyone bought it. Many saw it as a threat to public accessibility and safety, especially for low-income individuals or marginalised communities, who would be unable to access weather data and alerts. A paywall in a hurricane doesn’t just cost money—it can cost lives.

To calm the backlash, Myers resigned from AccuWeather and promised to divest. Yet, skepticism remained. His nomination stalled in the Senate for over two years due to ethical concerns, conflicts of interest, and opposition from Democrats and even some Republicans. Matters worsened when in 2018, a federal investigation revealed pervasive sexual harassment in AccuWeather. Though Myers denied direct involvement, this scandal further undermined his credibility and the chances of Senate confirmation. In late 2019, he withdrew his nomination, citing health concerns.

But the story didn’t end there.

Back in the early 2000s, AccuWeather supported the National Weather Service Duties Act of 2005, introduced by Senator Rick Santorum. The bill aimed to ban the NWS from providing services that could compete with private weather companies. It failed—but it made clear the long-term ambitions of industry players.

National Weather Service and NOAA were safe, albeit temporarily.

In 2025, the president nominated Neil Jacobs to lead NOAA. Jacobs, an atmospheric scientist, previously held the position of Acting Administrator from 2019 to 2021 during Trump's first term. If the name sounds familiar, it is because his name was involved in what became known as the “Sharpiegate” scandal, when NOAA backed Trump’s incorrect claim about hurricane Dorian’s projected path. Reports later suggested political pressure was exerted to silence NOAA scientists. A forecast map altered with a black Sharpie became a symbol of political interference in science.

While Jacobs awaits Senate confirmation, NOAA’s interim administrator, Laura Grimm, is overseeing the dismantling of NOAA under the administration’s "Project 2025" —a blueprint for reshaping the federal government to align with a hardline ideological agenda.

According to an internal budget document seen by Science, the administration intends to gut climate research funding at NOAA and NASA. The 2026 budget would decimate NOAA’s Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR), slashing its budget by $485 million and essentially shutting down key weather climate research infrastructure that has been built over decades. Hundreds of federal and academic scientists focused on human-driven global warming could lose their funding.

The National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service (NESDIS) will also be hit. Planned instruments for tracking atmospheric pollution and ocean health will also be scrapped – “because as the document puts it, the satellites will deliver exclusively ‘weather’ data.”

NASA doesn’t fare much better: proposed budget cuts include over 50% for Earth science programs and 30% for planetary science.

Why? Because this administration doesn’t like the answers science is providing. But silencing data doesn’t stop rising seas or stronger storms and hurricanes from happening. It just means that the country will be unprepared when the next disaster strikes.

So here we are in 2025 - tearing down the very systems built to protect us—just as the storms are growing fiercer. And when they hit, the only forecast you’ll get might come with a subscription fee.

Thanks for reading! This post is public so feel free to share it.

Donate

Sources: