DistantNews
Support us

US lawmakers fight Trump administration cuts to $386m ocean monitoring program: ‘supreme stupidity’

From The Guardian · () English

Summarized and contextualized by DistantNews.

At a glance

News Named sources New plan
  • U.S. lawmakers are fighting the Trump administration's plan to dismantle a $386 million ocean monitoring network.
  • The Ocean Observatories Initiative, comprising over 900 sensors, has provided crucial data for scientific research and public information for a decade.
  • Critics accuse the National Science Foundation of acting illegally and with "supreme stupidity" by proposing to remove instruments by 2027 without scientific review.

A coalition of Democratic senators, one Republican, and two House committees are challenging the Trump administration's decision to dismantle a significant ocean monitoring network, accusing the National Science Foundation (NSF) of acting illegally and with "supreme stupidity."

It just seems like this is supreme stupidity and a violation of the fundamental distribution of powers in our Constitution.

— Jeff MerkleyThe Democratic senator of Oregon expressed his strong disapproval of the NSF's plan to dismantle the ocean monitoring network.

The Ocean Observatories Initiative (OOI) is an extensive network of over 900 ocean sensors, built at a cost of $386 million. For the past decade, it has been instrumental in tracking ocean circulation, marine ecosystems, climate change, and extreme weather. The data generated by the OOI is publicly accessible and has informed more than 500 scientific publications. The project was initially planned to operate for another 15 to 20 years.

Despite its scientific value, the NSF has directed the removal of most of the OOI's instruments from waters off Oregon, Washington, Alaska, North Carolina, and Greenland by 2027. Scientists expressed surprise and concern, stating the decision was made without warning or scientific review. The NSF described the move as a "descoping" to prioritize "evolving scientific priorities and emerging technologies," a rationale that emerged after the Trump administration's proposed 2026 budget included a 55% cut to the agency.

This program is authorized, it's funded, and for the administration to shut it down without direction from Congress violates that vision in which the people's representatives decide what's done and funded, and the executive branch executes that vision.

— Jeff MerkleySenator Merkley explained his view that the administration's action oversteps its authority.

Senator Jeff Merkley of Oregon criticized the NSF's decision, calling it a violation of constitutional powers. He argued that the program, which is authorized and funded, should not be shut down by the executive branch without congressional direction. Merkley, along with Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and other Democratic senators, urged the NSF to halt the dismantling and conduct a thorough review in consultation with the marine science community.

Eliminating most of this complex ocean monitoring system threatens the safety of our coastal communities while undermining our nation's ability to monitor coastal environments, marine currents, and extreme weather events.

— SenatorsA group of senators outlined the potential negative consequences of dismantling the OOI.

In a more forceful response, Democratic members of the House science and natural resources committees sent a joint letter demanding the agency immediately cease what they termed "expensive, destructive, and – crucially – illegal action." The lawmakers emphasized that eliminating the monitoring system threatens coastal community safety and undermines the nation's ability to track vital environmental and weather patterns.

cease this expensive, destructive, and – crucially – illegal action at once

— House lawmakersDemocratic representatives from the House science and natural resources committees demanded the NSF halt its plan.
DistantNews Editorial

Originally published by The Guardian. Summarized and contextualized by our editorial team with added local perspective. Read our editorial standards.