Two key climate agencies could look different–or cease to exist–under a Trump administration

For his upcoming term, Republican president elect Donald Trump has signaled an aggressive return to his first-term playbook: deep cuts to federal agencies, with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) firmly in the crosshairs. While budget slashes to federal programs may sound like an abstraction to many, the ramifications—especially for states like Nevada—are startlingly tangible.

What might the dismantling of these agencies mean for the Silver State and the country as a whole?

Protecting Air, Water, and Weather: The EPA and NOAA’s Vital Roles

Created under President Nixon in 1970, the EPA embodies a simple, crucial mission: safeguarding the environment and public health. By enforcing national standards, EPA regulations ensure Americans breathe clean air, drink safe water, and avoid toxic exposures. This also means their regulations keep businesses in check by operating within environmentally sustainable limits. These aren’t abstract ideals; they are tangible protections that allow communities and economies to thrive.

Though it’s likely less of a household name, the NOAA is no less vital, and its services are ones most of us use everyday (think of your phone’s native Weather app, or your local news channel’s daily weather reports). Among its many roles, the agency provides accessible daily weather forecasts, severe storm warnings, and climate monitoring. Additionally, its data serves as a cornerstone for ocean conservation, wildfire preparedness, and climate research, offering a bulwark against the increasingly erratic effects of climate change.

Why Target These Agencies?

“On Day One, President Trump will rescind every one of Joe Biden’s industry-killing, jobs-killing regulations,” Trump says on his campaign website. Largely referring to regulations set by the EPA, Trump had similar plans for the agency in his first term as President (the EPA experienced deep budget cuts, the rollback of nearly 100 environmental rules, and significant downsizing in 2017).

For Trump and his allies, the rationale is clear: both agencies present obstacles to business interests. EPA regulations, Trump argues, “kill jobs.” His campaign promises a dismantling of environmental rules enacted under the Biden administration, coupled with what allies describe as a “tear down and rebuild” approach to the EPA itself. The goal? Minimize oversight and unleash industries from regulatory constraints.

In 2025, Trump has plans to further dissolve the agency, touting efforts that include “swift deregulatory decisions that will be enacted in a way to unleash the power of American businesses.”

Former EPA Chief of Staff Mandy Gunasekara has described the approach as “tear down and rebuild.” The ambitions extend far beyond environmental rollbacks. Project 2025, a far-right agenda crafted by the Heritage Foundation, advocates for the dismantling of programs deemed “wasteful,” and shifting responsibilities to states or private entities. The section about plans for the EPA was written by Gunasekara.

The document doesn’t just bear the fingerprints of Trump allies. It is also backed by his own plans to defund and hollow out federal agencies and shift power into the hands of political appointees and industry leaders. To lead the EPA in 2025, Trump has tapped former New York Republican congressman Lee Zeldin, a reported climate change denier.

In addition to slashing the regulatory power of the EPA, the document calls for a dissolution of the NOAA–labeled a “driver of the climate change alarm industry”–as well as the privatization of weather data.

The result would be a profound shift in how the U.S. approaches science and governance: away from federal accountability and toward a patchwork of state policies and corporate-driven initiatives.

The Stakes for Nevada

“There is no question that the environment is threatened by some of the individuals who will oversee the federal agencies responsible for environmental protection,” said emeritus Professor of Natural Resources at the University of Nevada, Reno Glenn Miller. “Nevada’s got good water and air protection measures from the NDEP (Nevada Division of Environmental Protection), but I suspect that the Trump administration is going to push very aggressively to retire those.”

Nevada’s unique geography and climate make it particularly dependent on federal oversight. The state’s arid environment and limited water resources mean the EPA plays a pivotal role in preserving air and water quality. Take the Truckee River, which sustains 400,000 residents. Without EPA-enforced safeguards, its waters could become a flashpoint for pollution. Or, air quality standards that are required to be met, even when factoring in periods of wildfire smoke.

NOAA’s importance to Nevada is equally pronounced. The Sierra Nevada’s snowpack, vital to agriculture and recreation, faces mounting threats from climate change. NOAA’s forecasts help manage water supplies, prepare for wildfires, and support industries like skiing, which contribute significantly to the state’s economy. Dismantling NOAA would strip away these protections, leaving Nevadans more vulnerable to environmental and economic shocks.

James Lindholm, a marine scientist at California State University, Monterey Bay and a former NOAA employee, says if NOAA were to vanish, his life and the lives of millions of other Americans would become significantly more difficult.

“It would be fraught with peril,” he told The Sierra Club.

While Trump’s exact plans for the agencies remain undefined, any dissolution would create significant gaps in weather monitoring, disaster response, and potentially environmental standards, forcing local agencies and communities to fill the void—likely without the necessary resources or expertise. The result: higher economic costs, environmental degradation, and increased risks to public safety.

The Cost of Privatizing Science

Before 1980, a share of the U.S. economy referred to as research and development (R&D) was largely federally funded. Today, private funding for R&D is nearly four times greater than federal funding. This shift, which scientists say is likely to expand under the Trump administration, has important implications for what scientific questions are asked, and how easily we can assess the quality.

Proponents of privatizing NOAA argue it would ensure “neutrality” in data presentation, untainted by what they view as climate change “alarmism.” But critics warn that privatization threatens public safety and undermines the transparency that federal research provides.

If NOAA’s data became a commodity rather than a public good, the consequences would ripple widely. Farmers could miss critical planting windows, travelers might face unanticipated weather hazards, and communities would lose early warnings for disasters like floods or wildfires.

“The people who can’t afford weather services are often the ones who need them most,” noted climate scientist Rick Thoman in an interview with The Sierra Club.

This shift also raises broader questions about scientific integrity. Under a decentralized funding model, private entities would wield disproportionate influence over research priorities, favoring short-term profits over long-term societal needs. Consider the EPA’s work on air pollution, which has led to regulations saving countless lives. Replacing federal oversight with industry-funded studies risks undermining these gains, with fossil fuel giants steering the narrative.

“Putting polluters in control of our air and water instead of EPA scientists is bad news for anyone who breathes,” says environmental advocate Jeremy Symons. “It would put millions of lives at risk from asthma attacks, cancer, and heart disease.”

A Future of Unequal Access

In the absence of federal protections, the state would face an uphill battle to manage its environmental challenges, leaving its water, air, and economy vulnerable to forces beyond its control.

Beyond the immediate impacts, defunding the EPA and NOAA would signal a retreat from addressing climate and environmental challenges. This could stall progress on renewable energy, biodiversity conservation, and greenhouse gas reduction. For Nevada, where environmental health underpins public safety and economic stability, the stakes couldn’t be higher.

For a state as ecologically and economically diverse as Nevada–and as vulnerable to the effects of climate change–EPA and NOAA services are not just a luxury, but a lifeline. Defunding them would mean reduced oversight from these agencies, leaving the state vulnerable to environmental changes, less prepared for extreme weather events, and underprepared for the future.

“The truth of the matter is I think Americans truly value their land, air and water protection,” said Miller. “And if you don’t have someone who’s fairly aggressive on enforcing environmental regulations, they simply will not get enforced.”

---

Get involved: Citizens can make their voices heard by contacting their representatives, advocating for environmental protections, and supporting organizations fighting to preserve these agencies. Communities across Nevada can begin to prepare by rallying around local conservation initiatives, supporting state-level environmental protections, and fostering public awareness of the stakes.

Grassroots action has the power to fill some gaps, but ultimately, preserving federal oversight is critical for long-term stability and equity.

---

This work is made possible by Press Forward, a national coalition investing more than $500 million to strengthen local newsrooms and close longstanding gaps in journalism coverage. Donate to join the movement and support coverage on civics, climate and community in the Sierra Nevada region.