Neil Jacobs has recently taken charge of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) at a challenging time, marked by government shutdowns and proposed budget cuts. However, we, as former administrators, feel he’s entering this role with an essential responsibility. There’s a degree of reassurance in his statements, especially during his confirmation hearing where he outlined his ambitions for the first 100 days.
Three of us held positions under Democratic administrations, but our hopes for Jacobs extend beyond political lines. Our common goal remains ensuring the integrity of NOAA’s science and the services that support the American public.
We’re looking forward to seeing if Jacobs shares this commitment.
NOAA has established itself as a leader in research and has been effective at gathering and distributing critical data for public benefit. The return on every dollar spent on NOAA is impressive, leading to significant benefits across various sectors, including agriculture and emergency management.
During his confirmation, Sen. Ben Ray Lujan (D-NM) questioned Jacobs about the potential commercialization of predictive data that might force the public to pay for services meant to safeguard their families and property during disasters.
“No,” Jacobs responded. “This is a vital service that every American deserves.”
To Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), he added that weather and climate data should be readily accessible to all. We fully concur and want to ensure that this promise does not become hindered by costs or political bias. No one should incur extra charges for what they have already funded through NOAA’s research.
Jacobs also committed to not endorsing false statements due to political pressures, a marked improvement from his previous experience as acting administrator. During that time, misleading claims were made regarding weather predictions. We expect that his commitment to maintaining NOAA’s integrity will be upheld, supported by the scientific community, including our own involvement.
Yet, we do find ourselves questioning how Jacobs can fulfill these promises. He stated intentions to enhance staffing and resources for the NOAA team: “I assure the committee that I will do everything in my power.” However, he expressed uncertainty about budgeting for extensive research.
This raises concerns, especially with his backing of a budget plan for 2026 that proposes a 27% cut to NOAA’s workforce—the most severe reduction in decades. Such cuts could easily lead to further staff losses and damage to research capabilities. Reducing funding translates to weaker storm predictions, slower disaster responses, and an increased risk to public safety. We urge Jacobs to uphold his mission and advocate fiercely for the needed resources.
We do appreciate Jacobs’ commitment to tackling illegal fishing and enhancing seafood regulations. He mentioned prioritizing Great Lakes research, but again, these initiatives cannot thrive under a budget that significantly slashes NOAA’s funding.
Sen. Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-DE) noted Jacobs’ acknowledgment of the importance of partnerships with local communities to harness big data for development and safety; however, the proposed budget would likely eliminate such partnerships.
Jacobs countered by referring to the National Weather Service and National Ocean Service as examples where key functions would continue. But we caution that shifting research into operational roles with the aim of efficiency often leads to underfunded long-term research initiatives.
On climate change, Jacobs did recognize human contributions, which we appreciate, yet we’ll be keeping an eye on how he applies this understanding.
NOAA has greatly contributed to public welfare over the last fifty years. The test of Jacobs’ leadership will rest on whether he can safeguard the organization’s mission and essential personnel or if he will oversee its decline as an invaluable resource for public safety.
