It’s Not Just NOAA People They Fired, It’s NOAA’s Mission

Disclaimer: This post was written by Dr. Andrew Rosenberg in his personal capacity and not on behalf of any organization or entity. The views expressed herein are Dr. Rosenberg’s and his alone

On Thursday, February 27th at 3:30pm between 800 and 1000 civil service staff at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration were informed by email that their positions had been terminated and that they should leave immediately or not later than 5pm. These staff were on “probationary status” meaning they had attained their current position relatively recently. Probationary periods are often set for both new hires and for promotions of existing staff; in my understanding, they can be from 6 months to two years.

To quote from a copy of the email I have seen (I don’t know if everyone got the same email but suspect so as it was poorly drafted): “OPM has advised that probationary periods are an essential tool for agencies to assess employee performance and manage staffing levels. In light of that guidance, the Agency finds that you are not fit for continued employment because your ability, knowledge and/or skills do not fit the Agency’s current needs.”

A Travesty

I quote that part of the dismissal email because a) it is offensive for people who have worked so hard to serve the public, b) it specifically refers to each staff members abilities, knowledge and skills, and c) it refers to the Agency’s needs. But, let’s be clear, there was no review of the agency’s needs to meet its mission. There was no review of what staff was required to meet those needs. There was no review or assessment of the abilities, knowledge, and skills of the people who were fired, though they were hired because they had exactly those abilities, knowledge, and skills to do the jobs they were doing. And there was no review of their performance that resulted in a finding that they were not suited to their jobs.

In other words, the firing email is a complete fabrication, as are so many of the statements of this administration. That includes co-President Elon Musk saying that many federal employees are being paid but don’t exist or don’t work or show up. Or that Musk’s DOGE group has found tremendous waste, fraud and abuse of federal resources. Beyond that, firing civil servants, most of whom work outside of DC, doesn’t save a significant amount of money. Non-military civil servant compensation makes up about 4% of the federal budget, or approximately $350 billion, less than Elon Musk’s supposed fortune. But all those fired workers will likely be due compensation for unfair dismissal. The lawsuits will cost the government more millions or billions. Then there is the unemployment insurance costs. Overall, it would save more money and do far less damage to simply cancel all of Elon Musk’s federal contracts and claw back the huge federal subsidies his business was built upon.

How Not To Govern

What is happening at NOAA is tragic for the dedicated employees who lost their jobs. But the loss of NOAA’s ability to meet its mission for the American people is even more tragic. The people who were fired, along with their colleagues who dodged yesterday’s bullet, work each and every day to fulfill every element of that mission: Doing great science that can be used to save lives and property; providing critical information to the public, state and local governments, and businesses large and small; conserving public trust resources on the ocean and coasts. Whether it is weather forecasting, climate predictions, ocean mapping, planning and implementing conservation management and more, NOAA is a science-based service agency providing essential services in all 50 states and US territories, and yes, internationally as well. It is a mission that I took pride in when I worked for NOAA, as do all current and former NOAA people I have ever encountered over the past 30+ years.

The Trump Administration, with Elon Musk as its operational leader, takes pride in talking about the flood of actions he and the DOGE team are taking. “Shock and awe” is their boast. Musk believes he should, “move fast and break things.” All very exciting. But two things I would note. First of all, this isn’t Twitter. Go ahead, buy and break Twitter. If there is a gap, it will be filled by something else (and already has been in many ways). We’re talking about the US government here, and it isn’t yours to break. You didn’t buy and you don’t own it, no matter how much money you have or gave to elect Trump who won with less than 50% of the vote.

Secondly, you do realize that the “shock and awe” term was borrowed from the military, most famously used in the invasion of Iraq to depose Saddam Hussein? That campaign “broke” Iraq quickly. And mired our country in a costly war, in lives and resources, and engagement for many years thereafter. So perhaps the use of the term is apt after all. Shock and awe it is. Though that didn’t work out for us last time.

That’s it for today - Thank you so much for reading SciLight!

If you enjoyed today’s post, please like it or share it with others. You can also support the work we do to shine a light on the politicization of science by becoming a paid subscriber!

If you want to share today’s post as a web page with your network, click this button:

If you have suggestions, questions, comments, or want to drop us a line - send it all to scilightsubstack@gmail.com