SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
NOAA Websites Set to Go Dark in Continued Assault on Scientific Research
Statement by Dr. Juan Declet-Barreto, Union of Concerned Scientists
Vital National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) research websites will reportedly go dark overnight in another shocking setback to the nation’s core scientific enterprise, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS).
According to several news reports, many of NOAA's websites will go offline beginning at midnight due to the cancelation of a cloud service contract. The main site, NOAA.gov, is expected to be unaffected. This is the latest purge of publicly accessible, lifesaving scientific information and cuts to research budgets across the federal government.
Below is a statement by Dr. Juan Declet-Barreto, senior social scientist for climate vulnerability in the Climate and Energy Program at UCS:
“If this disruptive and reckless move by the Trump administration goes forward, vital research information will disappear from public view, depriving the public and businesses of critical weather and climate information that helps guide services such as shipping and aviation. Far from providing cost savings, this is a broadside assault on taxpayer-funded investments in science and the infrastructure needed to support it.
“Together with continuing indiscriminate staff and budget cuts at NOAA and its National Weather Service, gutting technological resources needed for the agency to conduct and communicate its world-class scientific research will havedevastating consequences. Losing public access to this vital information is an existential threat to the work of those who rely on it to help prepare and protect communities, critical infrastructure, and commerce.
“This research and information were paid for by taxpayers and belongs in the public domain. This threat is the newest chapter of the Trump administration’s unrelenting assault on scientific research, government services and public information that will have dangerous impacts across the nation and the world.
“We urge Commerce Secretary Lutnick to reverse this decision before it takes force, or he will bear responsibility for enabling this attack on NOAA. Congress too must raise the alarm and demand accountability on behalf of people across the country.”
Additional Resources:
- The blogpost “We Need a Strong and Independent NOAA to Protect Our Lives and Homes from Climate Change.”
- The blogpost "A Day Without NOAA, a Day Without the National Weather Service?"
- Open letter organized by UCS and signed by more than 2,500 scientific experts, which was sent to Congress and the Commerce Secretary urging protection of NOAA.
The Union of Concerned Scientists is the leading science-based nonprofit working for a healthy environment and a safer world. UCS combines independent scientific research and citizen action to develop innovative, practical solutions and to secure responsible changes in government policy, corporate practices, and consumer choices.
LATEST NEWS
Supreme Court Lets Trump Freeze Millions in Funding to Tackle Teacher Shortages
One legal expert called it "unquestionably a win for the Trump administration, but on remarkably narrow and modest terms."
Apr 04, 2025
Republican-appointed justices handed the second Trump administration its first win at the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday, allowing the Department of Education to temporarily freeze millions of dollars in grants intended to help states combat K-12 teacher shortages while a legal battle over the money plays out.
The emergency order was unsigned, but the three liberals—Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor—all dissented, and Chief Justice John Roberts noted that he "would deny the application" without offering further explanation. That means the decision came from the other five right-wingers, including three appointees of President Donald Trump.
The decision stems from a federal lawsuit filed in the District of Massachusetts by a coalition of Democratic state attorneys general last month after the U.S. Education Department "arbitrarily terminated approximately $600 million in critical grants" for two programs: the Teacher Quality Partnership (TQP) and Supporting Effective Educator Development (SEED).
The coalition's initial complaint explains that Congress authorized the funding "to address nationwide teacher shortages and improve teacher quality by educating, placing, and supporting new teachers in hard-to-staff schools, especially in rural and other underserved communities, and in hard-to-staff subjects, such as math and special education."
"The department's actions appear to encompass 'policy objectives' of ending disfavored but lawful efforts to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion—objectives that Congress expressly directed grantees to carry out in creating these programs, including by identifying that these teacher preparation programs should assist 'traditionally underserved' local education agencies... and ensure 'general education teachers receive training in providing instruction to diverse populations, including children with disabilities, limited English proficient students, and children from low-income families," the document details.
U.S. District Judge Myong Joun—an appointee of former President Joe Biden—found that the coalition was likely to succeed on the merits of its claims under the Administrative Procedure Act and issued the temporary restraining order sought by offiicals in California, Colorado, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Wisconsin.
However, the country's high court granted a stay on Friday, concluding that the Trump administration "is unlikely to recover the grant funds once they are disbursed," the plaintiff states "have the financial wherewithal to keep their programs running" during the legal fight, and if they "ultimately prevail, they can recover any wrongfully withheld funds through suit in an appropriate forum."
In a dissent that was under two pages, Kagan wrote that "nothing about this case demanded our immediate intervention. Rather than make new law on our emergency docket, we should have allowed the dispute to proceed in the ordinary way."
Jackson argued in her longer dissent, joined by Sotomayor, that "this court's eagerness to insert itself into this early stage of ongoing litigation over the lawfulness of the department's actions—even when doing so facilitates the infliction of significant harms on the plaintiff states, and even though the government has not bothered to press any argument that the department's harm‐causing conduct is lawful—is equal parts unprincipled and unfortunate. It is also entirely unwarranted."
In a footnote that drew attention from court watchers, Jackson accused the majority of handing the Trump administration "an early 'win'—a notch in its belt at the start of a legal battle in which the long-term prospects for its eventual success seem doubtful," and expressed concern that "permitting the emergency docket to be hijacked in this way, by parties with tangential legal questions unrelated to imminent harm, damages our institutional credibility."
I am fascinated by this fourth wall–breaking footnote from Justice Jackson criticizing the majority for handing the Trump administration "a notch in its belt at the start of a legal battle in which the long-term prospects for its eventual success seem doubtful." It's more about optics than law ...
[image or embed]
— Mark Joseph Stern ( @mjsdc.bsky.social) April 4, 2025 at 4:44 PM
Trump's billionaire education secretary, former wrestling executive Linda McMahon, welcomed the ruling as "an important step towards realizing the president's agenda to ensure that taxpayer funds that support education go toward meaningful learning and serving our students—not to train teachers in radical racial and gender ideologies."
Meanwhile, Steve Vladeck, CNN's Supreme Court analyst and a Georgetown University Law Center professor, said that Friday's decision "is unquestionably a win for the Trump administration, but on remarkably narrow and modest terms."
"It leaves open the possibility that the plaintiffs are going to win not just this case, but a bunch of other challenges to the government's cancellation of grants, while freezing the order in this specific case. And even that was a bridge too far for Chief Justice Roberts and the three Democratic appointees," he added. "It's a victory for the government, but a short-lived one that may soon be overtaken by far more significant losses in the other pending cases in which Trump has asked the justices to intervene."
CNN noted that the Supreme Court "has already resolved two emergency appeals from the Trump administration" and is still considering others on topics including Trump's efforts to end birthright citizenship and to invoke the Alien Enemies Act for mass deportations.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Dem to Appeal 'Deeply Misinformed Decision' Threatening Over 60,000 Voters in North Carolina
"The North Carolina Republican Party is one step closer to stealing an election in broad daylight," said one state Democrat.
Apr 04, 2025
Allison Riggs, a Democratic associate justice on the North Carolina Supreme Court, vowed to continue a legal battle over her narrow November victory after a state appeals panel on Friday took a major step toward invalidating more than 60,000 votes.
Riggs' GOP challenger, Judge Jefferson Griffin, lost by 734 votes—but rather than conceding, he has sought to have select ballots thrown out. In Friday's 2-1 decision, Republican Judges Fred Gore and John Tyson gave the targeted citizens 15 days to provide documentation to election workers confirming their eligibility to vote. If they don't do so, their votes could be discarded.
"We will be promptly appealing this deeply misinformed decision that threatens to disenfranchise more than 65,000 lawful voters and sets a dangerous precedent, allowing disappointed politicians to thwart the will of the people," Riggs said in a statement.
"North Carolinians elected me to keep my seat, and I swore an oath to the Constitution and the rule of law—so I will continue to stand up for the rights of voters in this state and stand in the way of those who would take power from the people," she added.
Since Riggs has recused herself from the case, only six of the North Carolina Supreme Court's justices will hear her appeal, "raising the possibility of a 3-3 deadlock," The News & Observerreported Friday.
As the Raleigh newspaper detailed:
If that were to happen, the most recent ruling of a lower court prevails, which means Friday's decision from the Court of Appeals could stand.
Riggs has said that if she loses at the state court level, she intends to return the case to federal court.
Republicans already hold a 5 to 2 majority on the state Supreme Court. If Griffin ultimately wins his case and replaces Riggs, that majority will grow to 6 to 1, further complicating Democrats' hopes to retake control of the court in coming elections.
Although the court fight is far from over, Griffin spokesperson Paul Shumaker and North Carolina GOP Chair Jason Simmons cheered Friday's decision, from which Democratic Judge Toby Hampson dissented.
Hampson's dissent begins by pointing out that Griffin "has yet to identify a single voter—among the tens of thousands petitioner challenges in this appeal—who was, in fact, ineligible to vote in the 2024 general election under the statutes, rules, and regulations in place in November 2024 governing that election."
"Changing the rules by which these lawful voters took part in our electoral process after the election to discard their otherwise valid votes in an attempt to alter the outcome of only one race among many on the ballot is directly counter to law, equity, and the Constitution," Hampson argued.
Democratic leaders in North Carolina and beyond also blasted the majority's decision. State Democratic Party Chair Anderson Clayton said that "Judge Tyson and Gore put party affiliation above the rights of North Carolina voters" when they "legitimized Jefferson Griffin's unconstitutional challenge" to tens of thousands of legally cast votes.
Reminder: From my legal and partisan sources, this ultimately gets decided based on how fed courts address military and overseas voters who didn't provide photo ID (and were expressly advised before election that they didn't need to). Why it matters: andersonalerts.substack.com/p/nc-supreme...
[image or embed]
— Bryan Anderson (@bryanranderson.bsky.social) April 4, 2025 at 2:23 PM
North Carolina House of Representatives Minority Leader Robert Reives (D-54) declared: "We cannot mince words at this point: The North Carolina Republican Party is one step closer to stealing an election in broad daylight. Justice Allison Riggs won her election—full stop. Our democracy continues to be tested, but we cannot allow it to break."
Democratic National Committee Chair Ken Martin warned that "this partisan decision has no legal basis and is an all-out assault on our democracy and the basic premise that voters decide who wins their elections, not the courts. If upheld, this could allow politicians across the country to overturn the will of the people."
"North Carolinians chose Allison Riggs to be their North Carolina Supreme Court justice," Martin stressed. "They won't stand for Republicans trying to take their votes away or those of active duty North Carolina military. It's six months past time for Jefferson Griffin to concede this race that he lost."
Bob Phillips, executive director of the nonpartisan voting rights organization Common Cause North Carolina, was similarly engaged, saying: "Today's ruling is a disgrace. This poorly conceived decision is an extreme overreach and sides with a sore loser candidate over the citizens of our state. If allowed to stand, the ruling would inject chaos into North Carolina's elections in ways that could disenfranchise tens of thousands of lawful voters and invite similar challenges nationwide."
Phillips continued:
Let's be clear: these North Carolina voters did absolutely nothing wrong. They followed the rules and cast ballots that should count. To say otherwise now is an affront to the rule of law and our Constitution.
If Griffin gets his way, never again will the people of North Carolina be able to have confidence in the outcome of our elections. Instead, Griffin's reckless lawsuit will open the door to an endless stream of other sore loser candidates who will attempt to throw out enough votes until they can cheat their way into office.
This fight is not over. We are confident that the courts will ultimately see Griffin's ploy for what it is: an unconstitutional attack on our freedom to vote.
"The people of North Carolina will continue to protest against Griffin's outrageous attack on our rights," he added, "as we continue our work to protect our family members, friends, and neighbors who are targeted by Griffin's disgraceful scheme."
Keep ReadingShow Less
US Court Orders Return of Man Trump Sent to Salvadoran Prison in 'Error'
"How the government reacts will tell us so much about how far down the road to autocracy we are," said one lawyer.
Apr 04, 2025
A U.S. judge on Friday ordered the return of a Maryland resident who the Trump administration mistakenly deported to a prison in El Salvador last month, according to The Associated Press.
Prior to issuing the ruling, U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis called the deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia "an illegal act."
The judge, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, gave the Trump administration end of the day of the day on Monday to bring him back to the United States.
Supporters outside the courtroom cheered as the judge handed down her order, according to The Washington Post.
Responding to the ruling on social media, U.S. Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) said: "This is a big win. Now Trump must comply with the judge's order."
Immigration lawyer Ava Benach wrote: "The right decision. How the government reacts will tell us so much about how far down the road to autocracy we are."
The right decision. How the government reacts will tell us so much about how far down the road to autocracy we are.
[image or embed]
— avabenach.bsky.social (@avabenach.bsky.social) April 4, 2025 at 3:27 PM
Abrego Garcia was among hundreds of people the administration expelled in mid-March to a notorious megaprison in El Salvador after targeting them for alleged gang ties.
In a court papers filed earlier this week in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) acting field office director admitted that the removal of Abrego Garcia on March 15 "was an error."
Abrego Garcia was deported despite the fact that in 2019, a U.S. immigration judge ruled that he could not be deported to his native El Salvador because he would likely face gang persecution there.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular