The National Weather Service is facing one of its fiercest political tests in years after a Republican from Texas publicly blamed federal forecasters for a deadly flood. Instead of absorbing the criticism in silence, agency leaders and staff have pushed back, arguing that their warnings were timely and that years of budget and staffing cuts, driven by President Donald Trump’s allies, left them struggling to cover every community at risk. The clash has turned a local disaster into a national fight over science, funding and responsibility in an era of increasingly extreme weather.
At the center of the dispute is whether the tragedy was the result of a “botched forecast,” as the Republican critic claimed, or the predictable outcome of a system that had been hollowed out even as storms intensified. The answer matters far beyond Texas, because it will shape how Congress, the White House and the public judge the value of federal weather services the next time lives are on the line.
Texas Republican outrage meets a rare NWS counterpunch
In the days after catastrophic flooding along the Guadalupe River, Texas Republicans moved quickly to pin blame on Trump’s National Weather Service, accusing forecasters of missing the scale and timing of the deluge. One widely shared complaint, echoed by state and local officials, framed the event as a failure of basic forecasting, with critics insisting that residents along the river had not been given clear enough notice to evacuate. That anger crystallized in a wave of statements and interviews in which Texas leaders charged that the federal government had let their communities down, a narrative amplified in coverage of how Texas officials slammed Trump’s National Weather Service for a “botched forecast.”
Instead of quietly absorbing the criticism, the National Weather Service responded with an unusually direct defense of its work. Senior leaders stressed that local weather forecasting offices, known as WFOs, had issued flood watches and warnings in line with agency protocols, and that staff had been on duty as the storm intensified. In a detailed statement, the agency said the WFOs had “adequate staffing and resources” and had delivered “timely forecasts and warnings” ahead of the flooding, insisting that communities did receive alerts even if not everyone heard or heeded them, a point underscored in the agency’s public effort to defend its flood.
A deadly flood and a “neglected” alert system
Behind the political rhetoric lies a stark human toll. The Texas flood along the Guadalupe River killed 43 people, including 14 children, a level of devastation that has seared itself into the state’s memory and fueled demands for accountability. The National Weather Service has acknowledged that its flood impact area notifications were limited and that its notifications department only began looking at expanding those zones shortly before the disaster, even as a flood watch was in place roughly 12 hours before the waters rose. Those details, including the 43 deaths and the 14 children lost, have become central to the debate over whether the tragedy reflected a failure of forecasting, communication or both, as documented in accounts of the deadly Texas flood and its “neglected” alert system.
On the ground, television footage from central Texas showed residents stunned by how quickly the water rose, with some insisting they never saw or heard a warning before the river left its banks. Morning broadcasts replayed scenes of submerged neighborhoods and frantic rescues as anchors described how the floodwaters in parts of central Texas receded to reveal extensive damage and a rising death toll. Those images, captured as Texas flood coverage focused on the Guadalupe River, gave emotional weight to the Republican charge that the system had failed, even as forecasters pointed to the alerts they had issued and the structural limits of the tools at their disposal.
Budget cuts, Ted Cruz and the hollowing out of forecasting
When the National Weather Service insists that its offices had “adequate staffing,” it is speaking relative to a workforce that has already been significantly reduced. Over the past several years, Trump’s budget policies have cut deeply into federal weather programs, with Senator Ted Cruz playing a pivotal role in steering a Trump spending bill that slashed weather forecasting funding. Critics argue that those cuts degraded the very models and staffing levels that Texas now depends on, and that the severity of the Guadalupe River disaster was worsened by a system operating with fewer resources than it had a decade ago, a link highlighted in reporting that Ted Cruz ensured Trump’s spending bill cut forecasting budgets.
The staffing picture is equally stark. According to internal tallies cited by experts, the NWS lost 600 of its approximately 4,200 staff, including a further 100 people who were ultimately fired as part of broader government cuts. Those figures, which describe how the NWS shed 600 positions out of a 4,200 person workforce and saw 100 people pushed out in a later round, have become a rallying point for those who say the service is being asked to do more with less at precisely the wrong time. Analysts warn that such reductions leave some offices operating without the necessary staffing, a concern laid out in detail in assessments of how the NWS lost 600 staff from its 4,200 employees.
Inside the agency: warnings from the front lines
Long before the Guadalupe River flood, National Weather Service employees had been warning that cuts were eroding their ability to cover severe weather around the clock. Forecasters and technicians described a patchwork of vacancies, overtime and burnout, with some offices struggling to maintain 24/7 operations as retirements and departures outpaced hiring. Those concerns were not abstract; staff explicitly cautioned that reductions could affect radar coverage, warning lead times and the capacity to communicate clearly with local emergency managers, as reflected in internal alarms from National Weather Service about severe weather coverage.
Agency leadership has acknowledged that the budget picture remains difficult even after the Texas disaster. The National Weather Service can fill some, but not all, of the positions it lost during last year’s purge of federal workers, and its director has warned of “bumpy” budget days ahead as the agency tries to restore staffing while still running its network of offices 24 hours a day. That tension, between the need to rebuild and the reality of constrained appropriations, shapes every forecast and every staffing decision, a reality laid out in recent comments from National Weather Service chief about the agency’s constrained ability to refill lost jobs.
Political fallout: investigations, NOAA and the future of public forecasting
The Texas flood has already spilled into the broader political arena, with Democrats seizing on the disaster to argue that Trump-era cuts and climate skepticism have real-world consequences. Isaiah Martin, a Democratic candidate for Texas’s 18th Congressional District, has called for an immediate congressional investigation into how spending reductions and policy choices shaped the state’s vulnerability, framing the flood as a case study in what happens when science agencies are sidelined. His criticism sits alongside broader attacks on Trump’s approach to climate change and federal preparedness, including arguments that spending cuts and regulatory rollbacks were a catalyst for the catastrophic flooding in Texas, as laid out in critiques that quote Isaiah Martin and other Democratic voices.
At the same time, the Senate has been weighing the nomination of a new head for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the parent agency of the National Weather Service, in hearings where the Texas flood and the performance of federal forecasters have been front and center. Lawmakers have pressed the nominee on how NOAA will modernize flood warnings, improve communication with local officials and ensure that communities along rivers like the Guadalupe are not left in the dark, with the hearing framed as a test of whether the next NOAA leader can restore trust after the disaster, as seen in coverage of a WATCH Senate committee session on the NOAA nomination.
More from Morning Overview