Every other Tuesday, the team behind Civics 101 joins NHPR’s All Things Considered host Julia Furukawa to talk about how our democratic institutions actually work.

Wherever you go to get the latest weather update – be it your phone or here on NHPR – that information comes from the National Weather Service. But like many other federal agencies, the National Weather Service has been the target of deep cuts and significant changes by President Trump’s administration and DOGE.

Civics 101 senior producer Christina Phillips joins Julia to talk about the role of the National Weather Service and how its work affects public safety, food production and even national security.

Transcript

First, can you tell me more about the work and research of the National Weather Service?

Yeah. So the National Weather Service is a government agency that is the foundation of meteorology and weather modeling in the United States. So it manages and collects data from satellites and other weather instruments. It synthesizes and studies that data, and then it shares that data with local and federal government agencies, private companies and the public. And the National Weather Service is also the epicenter for responding to severe weather, such as hurricanes and tornadoes. They track it best and they share that information with everyone else.

Okay, so how does that work exactly intersect with other agencies and interests at the federal level?

Yeah. So if you think about it, understanding the weather is essential for everything from farming to national defense, to trade, to travel, as you said. So as a result, agencies like the Federal Aviation Administration, the military, FEMA, the Department of the Interior, the Department of Agriculture, they are all in constant communication with the National Weather Service, and they depend on information they get from them. It’s also worth mentioning that there are dozens of regional offices around the country that provide information to local governments and the media, and there’s an international component, too. So the U.S. is part of the World Meteorological Organization, where 193 countries share data and research with one another.

As we said at the top, the Trump administration has made some significant cuts to the National Weather Service, including firing staff. Are we seeing the politicization of weather? What’s been the fallout there?

Yeah, I think we’re still in the early days to know exactly how this might affect us. But in the short term, we’ve seen several things, which is the loss of expertise when the administration fired those career scientists. We’ve had an interruption in communication about weather events. For example, the National Weather Service ended a contract with a company that translated weather alerts into Spanish. And [we’ve had] an interruption of regular weather monitoring, such as the launch of weather balloons. I think the idea that you can maybe move this to a more private industry, it’s definitely a political lean here. But I think it’s a little difficult to imagine, because weather science has never existed without government investment, what it would look like if it moved more private.

What’s really at stake here, Christina?

Yeah. So the equipment that collects this information is expensive. And I spoke with one scientist who said that if the government doesn’t pay for it, who would? The National Weather Service is designed just like it sounds. It’s a service for everyone. That includes other agencies. It includes the public, and it includes private companies. So less resources and staff at the federal level means a loss of expertise and data and less preparedness for extreme weather. And I think on a more day to day level, it could impact the ability of, say, an airport to safely get airplanes on and off the ground, or for a hiker to know whether or not it’s safe to hike in the White Mountains, or a ski slope to monitor avalanche risk. And here’s one final example I want to leave you. It could also impact the ability of towns and cities to adjust their building codes, or where they put things because they have less of an understanding of rising flood waters or how severe storms could affect infrastructure.