BalancedWx Special: House releases draft detailed FY26 budget for science agencies

Joins Senate in clearly rejecting massive cuts proposed by Trump Administration

Ahead of Thursday’s full House Appropriations Committee hearing to “markup” (review, debate and vote) the FY2026 House Commerce, Justice and Science (CJS) bill, the committee released the draft of the “bill report” which provides detailed agency and program level funding lines and Congressional direction to the various bureaus covered by the bill. This bill funds the primary science agencies that I focus on with Balanced Weather, namely NOAA, NASA and the National Science Foundation (NSF). Since the committee hearing and vote has not yet happened, my understanding is that the bill could still be adjusted before approval by the committee. It should however be mainly complete and final, and provides insight with regard to the intent of the House for the agencies.

At a high level, the House bill is very favorable for NOAA and the primary NOAA weather entities, namely the National Weather Service (NWS), Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR), and National Environmental Satellite and Data Service (NESDIS), particularly in comparison to the budget proposed by the Trump Administration. For the agency as a whole, the proposed House budget is $5.8B, which is about a 6.5% cut over what the agency was funded in FY2025, but is $931M above what the administration has proposed for FY2026. The topline budget number for NWS is $1.4B, an increase of about 12% over the last fully authorized agency level Congressional budget in FY2024. OAR’s topline number in the House bill is $667M, an increase of about 4%. Both of these budget numbers are actually a bit higher than the corresponding proposed numbers in the Senate budget.

With regard to NESDIS, the House budget for the primary operations account is $380M, which is flat in comparison to FY24 but significantly higher than the $330M proposed by the administration. It is slightly lower than the Senate mark of $400M. With regard to procurement funds for satellites, the House budget is $1.225B, which is a bit lower than the Senate mark $1.282B and actually less than the administration’s proposed $1.4B. I am planning a full article in the near future to do a deeper dive on the complexities of the NOAA satellite programs and associated budgets.

As far as some additional specific NOAA programs are concerned, the House budget rejects the elimination off NOAA Sea Grant and funds it at a similar level to previous years. It also funds the regional climate centers which have been targeted for elimination by the administration, and continues the Regional Integrated Sciences and Assessments (RISA) Program. In fact, the budget includes $1M for “increased staff capacity at the Southern Climate Impacts Planning Program (SCIPP) to continue responding to severe weather events and advancing physical science research in the southern U.S;” SCIPP is the RISA program based at the National Weather Center in Norman. The House budget bill does not contain any wording or authorization regarding the VORTEX-USA/Southeast tornado research program, which the Senate bill did propose reauthorization for FY2026; it does recommend that NOAA/NSSL move forward with procurement of a new Phased Array Radar research radar test article.

As far as some specific with NWS, the House makes similar statements about NWS staffing as seen in the Senate bill, including the call for a report from NOAA about local office staffing within 90 days of passage of a bill:

NWS Staffing.—The Committee recognizes the vital importance of accurate and timely weather forecasting. NWS employees, particularly those responsible for the regular launching of weather balloons, are seen by the Committee as critical for public safety and staffing such positions should be prioritized and categorized accordingly.

Weather Forecast Office Staffing.—The Committee is concerned about vacancies at local weather forecast offices in areas with higher-than-average severe storm impacts. NOAA is directed to report to the Committee, no later than 90 days after the enactment of this Act, on its plan to address staffing gaps at weather forecast offices.

Another interesting directive from the Committee is directed at radar gaps, and the desire for the use of commercial radar data to help the NWS enhance their radar coverage:

Radar Gaps.—The recommendation includes up to $12,600,000 for the NWS to purchase commercial weather radar data from private sector providers to supplement the existing NWS radar systems in areas that lack adequate radar coverage. The lack of comprehensive weather radar coverage leaves over 130 million Americans across the entire country and their communities vulnerable to severe weather risks. By leveraging commercial radar data partners to obtain higher resolution gap-filling data, NOAA agency officials and forecast meteorologists will be able to make more accurate, timely decisions during severe weather outbreaks and will be able to potentially mitigate life threatening impacts.

The topic of radar gaps has been a source of significant discussion and concern within the weather community for many years. This is another topic that needs a full newsletter to discuss - but essentially there are parts of the country that do not have radar coverage at lower levels (below ~5,000 ft AGL) due to the placement of the current NWS NEXRAD radars and the fact that the curvature of the earth causes the radar beam to increase in height farther from a radar site. This Washington Post article gives a good overview of the topic. The House budget bill is essentially directing NWS to spend money to contract with private companies to provide gap-filling radar data to help with this issue.

As far NASA is concerned, the topline House budget number is $24.838B, which is flat in comparison to 2025 and ~$6B above the Trump Administration proposed budget. NSF is the science entity that receives the brunt of cuts within the House budget, with a proposed topline of $7B, which is ~$2B (30%) below 2025, although still significantly better than the administration’s proposed agency budget which would cut an additional $3B from what the House is recommending. Both of these agencies’ budget numbers are significantly below the Senate recommendations that included increases for both agencies.

With regard to the administration’s proposed elimination of OAR as a line office, the House bill opens with a paragraph of general comments about agency reorganization plans contained within the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) proposed FY2026 budget:

The Committee notes that the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) request includes a number of important proposals to reform and reorganize the Federal government. The Committee applauds these efforts to improve efficiency while reducing waste, fraud, and abuse. Such reforms are long overdue. The Committee notes that the authorizing committees of jurisdiction have not yet had the opportunity to consider these reorganizational proposals. Accordingly, the Committee’s bill and report reflect the current organizational structure of the agencies funded herein. The Committee looks forward to working with the authorizing committees of jurisdiction as they act on the proposed organizational reforms.

I interpret this along the same vein as similar wording specific to OAR in the Senate version of the CJS budget bill, namely that the House is open to a reorganization of NOAA, but they do not feel that the administration has provided sufficient details or justification for their proposed moves. I discussed in my article about the Senate CJS bill that there have been increasing signs of Congressional frustration about the administration’s handling of the budget, and that there were places in their bill where that frustration seemed to be reflected. This paragraph about reorganization implies similar frustration, and there are other sections of the House bill that actually demonstrate even clearer and stronger frustration to me than the Senate bill did. For example:

REPROGRAMMING PROCEDURES Section 505 of the bill contains language concerning the reprogramming of funds between programs, projects, and activities. The Committee reminds the departments and agencies funded in this bill that the reprogramming process is based on comity between the Congress and the Executive Branch. This process is intended to provide departments and agencies enough flexibility to meet changing circumstances and emergent requirements not known at the time of congressional review of the budget while preserving congressional priorities and intent. In the absence of comity and respect for the prerogatives of the Appropriations Committees and the Congress in general, the Committee may opt to include specific program limitations and details in legislation and remove language providing the flexibility to reallocate funds. Under these circumstances, programs, projects, and activities become absolutes and the Executive Branch shall lose the ability to propose changes in the use of appropriated funds except through legislative action. Each department and agency funded in this Act shall follow the directions set forth in this bill and this report and shall not reallocate resources or reorganize activities except as provided herein.

I want to make clear that I am by no means a federal budget expert, but I have been reviewing these bills for many years, and to me this seems like a pretty clear warning “shot across the bow” to the Administration that they are ready to start putting some clear limitations on OMB if they persist in unilateral activities such as the recent elimination of the EPA Office of R&D .

Given this recent action at EPA and stories about the EPA potentially eliminating climate change funding and programs, the administration’s plans to eliminate OAR and essentially eliminate NOAA’s climate activities as outlined in OMB’s FY26 budget would seem to be a clear tension point to watch in the evolving friction between the legislative and executive branches regarding appropriations. While both the House and Senate have indicated openness to discussing a reorganization of NOAA, they have also made it clear with their proposed budgets a strong desire for the NOAA work targeted by OMB to not only continue but potentially even expand, including climate research and data services. While these draft budget bills do not have the force of law yet, administration actions to eliminate NOAA research or climate programs at this point would to me be a clear “shot across the bow” from OMB to Congress expressing disdain for and rejection of Congressional priorities for NOAA.

In summary, this House budget is obviously another positive sign from Congress with regard to federal science programs. While by no means perfect - especially the House NSF cut - the House and Senate CJS bills clearly express the value and priority that Congress still places on federal science, and serve as a clear rejection of much of the administration’s stated plans for federal science. Again, it must be stressed that these are still just committee approved bills. Before they become law, they still have the entire floor processes to go through, as well as resolving House and Senate differences, and then would have to be signed by the President. This process will likely take many months, and a continuing resolution will likely be needed on October 1st to fund the government until any budget bills become law. So there is a long way to go, and the administration may continue to take their own unilateral actions as with EPA Office of R&D. Still, given the continual pressure that science has been under the last 6 months, positive developments are welcome, and Congress expressing their bipartisan support a large part of federal science is indeed a welcome development.