Weather Service Scrambles in Hurricane Season After Trump Purge

Nearly a year after President Donald Trump’s mass government layoffs, the National Weather Service and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association are still scrambling to replace scientists and collect missing data.

The NWS is hiring for hundreds of mostly entry-level positions, after the agency lost about 15 percent of its employees during Trump’s first year back in office, CBS News reported Monday. 

Tom Fahy, legislative director of the National Weather Service Employees Organization, said that the agency had shed roughly 600 workers in 2025. Most of those employees were seasoned workers who accepted early retirement packages, while roughly 100 were probationary employees in their first year of work. Meanwhile, NOAA employed nearly 300 fewer meteorologists and hydrologists at the end of May than it did in January 2025, according to federal data reviewed by CBS News. 

Former government scientists told CBS News that mass layoffs, which forced out experts, have undermined the research and forecasting conducted by these agencies. 

Alan Gerard, a meteorologist who worked for three decades at the weather service and NOAA before retiring last year, told CBS News that the Trump administration’s sudden reductions to the workforce disrupted the flow of institutional knowledge. 

“Obviously, people retiring and new people coming up is a natural part of any business or agency,” Gerard said. “But it’s meant to be done in an organized process, where the new people coming in have the benefit of working for a period with people who are experienced and can help train them and build up their expertise.”

Rick Thoman, a climate specialist in Alaska who worked for three decades as a weather service meteorologist, told CBS News that the sudden layoffs had been “a really bad thing.”

“Alaska is not like forecasting for Nebraska, and there are no schools of meteorology in Alaska. Everyone has to come here and learn it,” Thoman said “So, even though there’s some effort to increase staffing now, because there are no old-timers left, and folks come in here without any experience in high-latitude weather forecasting, it just makes it that much harder.”

Already, the cracks have started to show. Since Trump returned to office, employees, including Gerard and Thoman, have observed a notable decline of “upper air” data collected by weather balloons as several weather stations have stopped launching probes twice daily.  

“There’s concern about the quality of the models because of the lack of upper air data,” Gerard told CBS News. “There’s a lot of expression of just being less confident, and having less confidence in your data tends to undermine a lot of your operational decisions, right?”

Thoman pointed out that in October, weather models had incorrectly predicted a storm that displaced more than 1,000 people, after more than half of the area’s scheduled balloon launches failed to take flight in the days before the storm hit. 

Thoman said it was “inconceivable” that the lack of data had made no impact on the weather model forecast.

This shortage of both data and weather experts is especially concerning with the hurricane season about to start. Climate change has resulted in longer, more intense storms—and now, it looks like some people won’t be as well equipped to face them.

Last month, two ICE agents showed up to David Streever’s front porch in Rochester over one strongly worded email he sent to former Immigrations and Customs Enforcement Director Todd Lyons. Now he’s suing the Department of Homeland Security for First Amendment violations.

Two agents with Homeland Security Investigations, an arm of ICE, rang Streever’s doorbell on June 23 and left a “WARNING NOTICE” with his wife, which said he was possibly in violation of federal law and that Lyons was “requesting that you promptly remove and/or discontinue the aforementioned behavior.”

Streever was in Finland with his daughter at the time. When they returned, federal agents even came to the JFK Airport hotel he stayed at that night and left a note for him at the front desk.

The visit came five months after Streever initially sent the email. The lawsuit, filed Monday by the nonprofit Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, highlights that.

“If someone is really threatening a government official, you don’t wait five months to act on it,” Adam Steinbaugh, senior attorney at FIRE, said. “The fact that authorities didn’t respond immediately shows that David presented no threat. This pursuit is designed to intimidate lawful speech, pure and simple.”

Streever’s January email to Lyons followed ICE’s killing of Americans Alex Pretti and Renee Nicole Good in Minneapolis.

The subject line was “what’s next,” and Streever warned Lyons would be haunted by the shootings.

“You will seek to lose yourself, to escape the burden of knowing the truth about yourself,” he wrote. “But wherever you go, you will find yourself. You will torment yourself until your last day on Earth.” He also equated Lyons with a Nazi.

Streever sent the email on January 26, two days after Pretti was shot and killed by federal agents in Minnesota, and 19 days after Good suffered the same fate.

The lawsuit argues that Streever’s email was speech protected under the First Amendment of the Constitution.

“Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is actively threatening that freedom, tracking down and retaliating against speakers like Plaintiff David Streever because he exercised his fundamental right to criticize one of the highest-ranking law enforcement officers in the United States,” the suit reads. “ICE’s issuance of formal ‘WARNING NOTICE’ documents to critics who engage in protected speech—and its decision to have federal agents deliver those warnings in person—can have only one purpose: to systemically chill ICE’s critics and coerce them into silence.”

Streever said his email came from frustrations with ICE’s violent tactics.

“Like many Americans, I was deeply upset after the shootings in Minnesota and I felt compelled to do something,” Streever said in a statement. “Writing an email to the head of ICE seemed like the least I could do to express my sense of outrage. I never dreamed it would lead to a knock on my door by federal officers or descending on my hotel in the dark of night.”

It certainly shouldn’t have. Yet this pattern of speech repression has become all too common under the Trump administration, as it has attacked or threatened to attack people for anything that threatens its ideology, whether writing op-ed columns in support of Palestine or criticizing Charlie Kirk.

Western alliances are turning away from America.

NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte told reporters at a press conference in Ankara, Turkey, on Monday that NATO’s traditional reliance on the U.S. is no longer a sustainable model for the military and economic coalition.

“What you are seeing is a NATO which indeed is changing in a transformational sense,” Rutte said. “I would argue that the NATO we had only three or four, five years ago was not sustainable.

“It is not sustainable that we ask a country with 350 million people, living eight hours flying from here, to defend against the Russians with 600 million people living in this part of NATO territory—the richest part of the world—being so overly dependent on the United States,” Rutte continued.

“So, rebalancing that—the United States still providing nuclear, the United States still providing crucial conventional support to NATO as a whole and therefore to the transatlantic security, and therefore of course also to their own security—rebalancing that is crucial.

“And therefore a stronger European role, Canada also stepping up, is important, because all of us—the alliance, to be honest—would long-term probably not have been sustainable,” Rutte said. “Stronger Europe, stronger NATO.”

Canada has made generational investments in its defense spending over the last year, and is reportedly on course to meet NATO’s next commitment: using 5 percent of its gross domestic product for defense spending by 2035, according to Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney.

Carney has made a point to publicly criticize Donald Trump and his apparent disinterest in being the leader of the free world. Earlier this year, Carney delivered a scathing address at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, in which he marked the finale of Pax Americana and the reorganization of global power.

“The middle powers must act together because if we’re not at the table, we’re on the menu,” Carney said at the time.

Leaders from NATO member states, including Trump, are meeting in Turkey this week in what foreign policy experts anticipate will be one of the tensest summits yet. Late last week, Trump claimed that the NATO alliance had become “one-sided,” and that the U.S. “didn’t need anything” from the Cold War–era coalition. In a Truth Social post on Thursday, Trump referred to America’s involvement in NATO as “ridiculous” and claimed that “they were not there for us!!!”

But that’s not true. Despite Trump’s rhetoric, there has only ever been one time in history in which NATO’s Article 5 has been invoked: the global mobilization to support America in its military offensive against Afghanistan after 9/11.

Nonetheless, Americans don’t seem to believe that the country’s long-standing European allies would support the U.S. if it were attacked. A Politico survey of more than 31,000 respondents, published Friday, found that just 43 percent of U.S. adults believed that the alliance would assist their home country if it were attacked. That was the lowest score out of any of NATO’s 32 member states when asked the same question.

The U.S. president has been on the offensive against NATO since the early days of his first term in office. He regularly threatens to remove America from the coalition, and has been remarkably cavalier at times about the organization’s potential dissolution. He has also baselessly insisted that other NATO members have failed to pay their dues to the entity and shortchanged the U.S. in the process, even though that’s not how the alliance operates.

It is unclear who in the Western world benefits from the dissolution of NATO. John Bolton, Trump’s first-term national security adviser and a policy hawk who also served under Ronald Reagan, has said that the consequences of exiting the alliance could be dire.

President Donald Trump has thought of yet another useless White House renovation to drain taxpayer dollars—and his rush to show off to world leaders is only making things more expensive.

The Trump administration sped up construction of a new helipad on the White House’s South Lawn, adding $875,000 to the price tag in the process, according to the records from Clark Construction obtained by The Washington Post.

The project to install the helipad, renovate the White House’s South Portico, and re-top the driveway with white stone already cost a whopping $13 million.

The contractor’s documents showed that the company received a last-minute demand to complete construction by September 17, in anticipation of an “upcoming state visit.” The request was made just days after Trump invited Chinese President Xi Jinping to visit the White House on September 24.

This isn’t the first time that the budget for one of the president’s renovations has exploded. Trump originally claimed that his White House ballroom project would only cost $200 million, but that number later ballooned to $300 million, and then $400 million after he decided to tack on extra construction. Last month, a bombshell report revealed that taxpayers would actually be responsible for half of a $600 million price tag.

Speaking to reporters at the White House Monday, Trump announced that Sikorsky, a subsidiary of Lockheed Martin that builds Marine One helicopters, would cover the cost of a $5 million or $6 million helipad, complete with a White House seal carved out of granite.

It’s not clear who’s picking up the rest of Trump’s multimillion-dollar tab—but I have a sneaking suspicion it will be the same people who he wants to pay for his gaudy ballroom: American taxpayers.

President Trump’s intervention to lift the red card ban on U.S. Men’s National Team soccer player Folarin Balogun is breaking the integrity of the World Cup tournament. 

Now the French national team has appealed to FIFA, the soccer governing body, to rescind Michael Olise’s yellow card, which he received during the match with Paraguay on Saturday. Olise was penalized for a tackle for contact with Paraguyan Matias Galarza’s face, but replays showed Olise only held Galarza’s shirt.   

A yellow card doesn’t directly translate into a suspension like a red card, but France evidently feels that overturning Balogun’s suspension has opened the door. It follows British Prime Minister Keir Starmer also intervening with FIFA to prevent the start time for England’s match against Mexico being moved up over weather concerns, with England believing that they wouldn’t have enough time to train for high-altitude conditions at Mexico’s national stadium, Estadio Azeteca. 

British Attorney General Richard Hermer also may intervene with FIFA to overturn England player Jarrell Quansah’s red card, issued Sunday versus Mexico, The Telegraph reports. FIFA, meanwhile, denied an appeal from Belgium Monday challenging the decision to lift Balogun’s red card.

The red card came after Balogun awkwardly stepped on Bosnian defender Tarik Muharemović’s ankle during the match on Wednesday. Hours after the game ended, Trump called up FIFA President Gianni Infantino to complain about the decision, and on Sunday, FIFA’s disciplinary committee announced it was overturning Balogun’s suspension, leaving him free to join the U.S.-Belgium game Monday.

It’s the first time a red card has been rescinded in this manner since 1962, and Trump enlisted the full force of the U.S. government to get the foul overturned, with Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick and White House World Cup task force director Andrew Giuliani quickly engaging lawyers to help U.S. Soccer put together an appeal. 

On Monday in the White House, Trump openly bragged to reporters about his role in getting the suspension overturned, noting that he called Infantino himself, and attacking the match referee’s credibility. 

“He didn’t do anything wrong. He’s our best player, or one of our best players … and [the referee] gave him a red card. Then I started hearing that means he can’t play in the next game.… When they take your best player … and they say you can’t play? That’s very unfair,” Trump said. “So yes, I asked for a review by FIFA.… I’m the one that got them to [rescind the suspension]. It was not Biden. Biden was asleep.”

Correct call or not, this chain of events has ruined the credibility of FIFA and this tournament. Infantino denied any kind of wrongdoing in a statement Monday, claiming that the FIFA Disciplinary Committee is an independent body. 

“Yes, I regularly discuss matters related to the FIFA World Cup with the President of the United States, and on this matter, I did receive a call from President Donald Trump, just as I receive calls from heads of state, government officials, football stakeholders and business executives from around the world on many different issues,” Infantino said. “During our conversation, I explained that there was an ongoing legal process involving FIFA’s independent judicial bodies and that the case would be decided in due course by the competent bodies. That is how FIFA’s system works, and it is a principle that I will always uphold.” 

Infantino’s predecessor, Sepp Blatter, himself banned from soccer activities over corruption allegations, ironically called out Infantino’s decision to overturn the red card in a post on X early Monday morning. 

“Red cards are not overturned by political phone calls. They are overturned by rules, evidence and independent bodies. If a U.S. President intervenes with the FIFA President—and a player is suddenly cleared before a World Cup knockout match—the question is unavoidable: Quo vadis, FIFA? Football must never become a playground for political power. #FIFA #WorldCup #GianniInfantino #DonaldTrump,” Blatter posted.