Proposed Trump Cuts to Weather Satellites Could Set Back Forecasting by a Decade, Meteorologists Warn (Exclusive)

Veteran meteorologist John Morales has sounded the alarm over potential cuts to weather satellite funding in the United States, warning that such reductions could detrimentally impact public safety and forecasting accuracy. The consequences of these budgetary adjustments, he asserts, would not only threaten the well-being of Americans but also have financial ramifications for the economy at large.

A recently released report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) highlights the substantial cuts proposed to the Geostationary Extended Observations (GeoXO) programme, which is vital for weather forecasting. The suggested reduction would slash funding from $19.6 billion to just $13 billion, raising concerns about gaps in critical satellite coverage that are essential for accurate weather assessments.

Morales, the founder of ClimaData and a professional in meteorology for over four decades, described these budget cuts as “dangerous.” Speaking to PEOPLE, he emphasised the importance of satellites, which function by remaining fixed over specific locations on Earth as the planet rotates. Such satellites are equipped with advanced technology capable of measuring atmospheric temperature, humidity, wind conditions, and air quality – essential data for meteorologists seeking to provide timely and accurate forecasts.

The satellites currently in use are approaching the end of their operational lifespan, making it crucial to replace them with new technology. Unfortunately, analysts have identified that the replacements suggested by current proposals may result in a downgrade from existing capabilities. This follows a directive from the Trump administration, which reduced the number of satellites operated by NOAA and NASA and eliminated several key scientific instruments.

The tools facing removal include those monitoring air and water quality, ocean currents, and harmful algal blooms, as well as a satellite instrument designed to detect and assess lightning strikes from space. Morales has pointed out that the loss of these monitoring tools would contribute to diminished forecasting capabilities, particularly regarding storm strength.

The implications of these cuts extend to climate-related data collection, as many dismantled tools serve critical roles in gathering information about climate change. The reductions are part of a larger initiative dubbed ‘Project 2025,’ backed by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank aligned with the Trump administration. Among its objectives is a review of NOAA’s operations, citing a desire to present climate data in a way that is devoid of perceived bias.

Morales contends that the timing of satellite launches also poses a challenge. The anticipated GeoXO satellite is not forecasted to launch until 2032, and there may exist a gap in operational weather data due to the current spare satellite reaching the end of its useful life. This could lead to a significant period where fleet redundancy is compromised, potentially jeopardising data collection and forecasting capabilities.

Should these proposed cuts be implemented, Morales predicts a measurable decline in the accuracy of weather forecasts for the average American. He cautioned that these reductions could create public safety issues, increasing the risk of harm due to inaccurate or untimely weather alerts.

In addition to potential safety threats, these changes could also hinder economic stability and exacerbate costs for the general public. “This is coming for your nucleus,” Morales warned, indicating the widespread repercussions these decisions may have on communities and families across the nation.

The discourse around weather satellite funding has become increasingly urgent As the GAO report suggests a clear need for adequate resources to sustain and advance weather forecasting capabilities. The future of reliable meteorological data hangs in the balance, hinging on the decisions made regarding funding and resource allocation in the coming months.

PEOPLE reached out to the White House for comment on the proposed cuts and their implications but has yet to receive a response. As discussions unfold, the scientific community remains vigilant, advocating for the preservation of essential resources that safeguard lives and livelihoods.