A former top scientist from the Trump administration has raised concerns about the politicization of science, particularly regarding the leadership of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The issue centers around Neil Jacobs, President Trump’s nominee to lead NOAA, and his involvement in the controversy known as “Sharpie-gate.”
What is Sharpie-gate?
During Trump’s first term, Jacobs served as the acting head of NOAA. In September 2019, Hurricane Dorian was expected to move along the Atlantic coast. However, President Trump incorrectly tweeted that Alabama was in the storm’s path. Twenty minutes later, the National Weather Service in Alabama clarified that the state would not be affected.
Despite this, three days later, Trump held up a modified hurricane forecast map with a black marker extending the storm’s path into Alabama. This led to widespread criticism, with the incident being dubbed “Sharpie-gate.”
Two days later, NOAA’s leadership released a statement backing Trump and criticizing the work of weather forecasters. This move alarmed Craig McLean, the acting chief scientist of NOAA at the time.
“Public Trust Was Undermined”
McLean, in his first interview since the controversy, told CBS News that many scientists fear a second Trump presidency could undermine scientific integrity once again.
“Folks realize they may be in for a storm,” McLean said, expressing concerns over political interference in scientific data.
The release of NOAA’s statement without his knowledge deeply upset McLean. “To have a political process unplug the public’s trust, that got me stirred. That gave me a sense of rage,” he recalled.
Following the incident, McLean pushed for investigations. Reports from the National Academy of Public Administration and the U.S. Department of Commerce Office of Inspector General found that the NOAA statement supporting Trump was issued under “external political pressure.” It was also concluded that Jacobs violated NOAA’s Scientific Integrity Policy by not consulting with weather forecasters before releasing the statement.
Jacobs Felt Political Pressure
According to the inspector general’s report, Jacobs admitted he felt pressured by the White House. He believed that if he did not comply, a more inflammatory statement would have been issued instead.
CBS News reached out to Jacobs for a response but has yet to receive a reply. NOAA also declined to comment, stating it does not interact with nominees until they are confirmed.
McLean Removed from His Position
After the investigative findings were released, McLean requested NOAA’s leadership acknowledge the results. Shortly after, he was removed from his role. He continued working at NOAA in another position before eventually retiring.
McLean has since issued a stark warning about the importance of accurate hurricane forecasting. “People’s lives are on the line,” he emphasized.
Why This Matters Beyond Hurricane Warnings
NOAA’s research does not just impact hurricane predictions. It plays a crucial role in climate science, helping businesses, insurance companies, and farmers make data-driven decisions. Insurance companies rely on NOAA’s data to assess climate risks, while farmers use weather forecasts to determine the best planting times.
However, Project 2025, a policy roadmap for the next Trump administration, suggests breaking up NOAA. The plan claims that NOAA is part of the “climate change alarm industry.”
Howard Lutnick, Trump’s nominee to lead the Commerce Department, which oversees NOAA, has stated that he does not support breaking up NOAA. The White House has not responded to CBS News’ request for comment on Project 2025’s proposal.
“What We’re Seeing is Very Alarming”
McLean argues that the current climate situation is, in fact, alarming and that NOAA has a legal responsibility to present the full picture.
“We’re required by law to give the full picture, and if there’s a reason to not be alarmist, what is that?” he asked. “What we’re seeing is alarming, is very alarming.”
As the debate over NOAA’s future continues, the scientific community remains concerned about the potential political interference in climate research and weather forecasting under a second Trump administration.
Disclaimer – Our team has carefully fact-checked this article to make sure it’s accurate and free from any misinformation. We’re dedicated to keeping our content honest and reliable for our readers.
