Yesterday, Senator Mazie Hirono's office issued the following:
September 11, 2019.
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Senator Mazie K. Hirono
(D-Hawaii) and 13 Senate Democrats wrote to U.S. Department of Commerce
Inspector General Peggy Gustafson demanding answers following recent
reports of improper behavior at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Association (NOAA), including one that Commerce Department officials
threatened to fire NOAA employees for contradicting the President’s
false assertions about the projected path of Hurricane Dorian.
In their letter, the Senators also denounced the
administration’s repeated attempts to censor, withhold, and undermine
science for partisan political gain at the U.S. Departments of
Agriculture and the Interior as well as the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.
“Scientists within the federal government work
for the American people, not for private industry or the President’s
personal vanity. Individuals and families across the country rely on
weather forecasting to determine everything from what they wear each day
to the decision to evacuate a home during extreme weather events. As
deadly extreme weather becomes more and more common, maintaining public
trust in these reports becomes increasingly important. Agency officials
should not be sacrificing trustworthy weather reporting for political
gain,” the Senators wrote.
The Senators also requested the following
information related to the circumstances surrounding the past week’s
events within NOAA:
- Whether Department officials who are not subject matter experts have suppressed or altered—or are actively suppressing or altering—scientific products or communications;
- Whether Department officials were pressured or explicitly directed by the White House to take the actions reported or to overrule career staff;
- The legality of any actions by Department officials, who are not subject matter experts, who altered or witnessed any alterations to scientific products of communications; and
- Whether Department officials retaliated or made political decisions that have impacted NOAA’s ability to fulfill its mission to understand and predict changes in climate, weather, oceans, and coasts, to share that knowledge and information with others, and to conserve and manage coastal and marine ecosystems and resources.
Joining Senator Hirono on the letter to
Inspector General Gustafson are U.S. Senators Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.),
Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), Dianne Feinstein
(D-Calif.), Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Amy
Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Bernard Sanders (D-Vt.), Mark
Warner (D-Va.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.),
and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.).
The full text of the letter to Inspector General Gustafson is available here and below:
Inspector General Peggy E. Gustafson
U.S. Department of Commerce
Office of Inspector General
1401 Constitution Avenue N.W.
Washington, DC 20230
Dear Ms. Gustafson,
We are aware that you have opened an
investigation and are writing to request you gather information on
specific activities that have been highlighted in recent reporting.
These reports have indicated that officials at the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) have put forward directives
interpreted as warning NOAA employees against contradicting the
President, regardless of the veracity of his statements and the negative
impact they may have. These incidents appear to be another example of
this administration’s attempts to silence and undermine important
science that is critical in preserving the safety and well-being of
millions across the country.
On September 1, 2019, President Trump tweeted
about Hurricane Dorian, warning that beyond Florida, “South Carolina,
North Carolina, Georgia, and Alabama will most likely be hit (much)
harder than anticipated by the storm.” Birmingham National Weather
Service (NWS) quickly issued a factual tweet stating that the hurricane
would remain too far east for Alabama to be impacted. Reporting by the
Washington Post indicates that later that day an agency-wide directive
issued that was interpreted as a warning to NOAA staff against
contradicting the President.
According to the same reporting, a second
directive “warning scientists and meteorologists not to speak out” was
handed down on September 4, after the President showed a map that had
been modified to support his claims that Alabama had been in the
hurricane’s path. Finally, on September 6, NOAA officials released a
statement attributed to an unnamed spokesperson that supported the
President’s claim that Alabama had been at risk and was understood to be
a rebuke of the Birmingham NWS office.
In response to these actions, the acting chief
scientist at NOAA announced that they will open an investigation as to
whether or not NOAA’s response to the President’s tweets violated the
NOAA Administrative Order on Scientific Integrity. Taken in their
totality, the reported activities are a part of an alarming pattern
within this administration, where officials have repeatedly shown a lack
of support for the federal scientific community and a willingness to
suppress and disregard science in favor of political expediency. The
U.S. Departments of Agriculture and the Interior as well as the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency have taken actions under the direction
of the Trump administration to withhold and handicap science and the
federal scientists that produce it.
Scientists within the federal government work
for the American people, not for private industry or the President’s
personal vanity. Individuals and families across the country rely on
weather forecasting to determine everything from what they wear each day
to the decision to evacuate a home during extreme weather events. As
deadly extreme weather becomes more and more common, maintaining public
trust in these reports becomes increasingly important. Agency officials
should not be sacrificing trustworthy weather reporting for political
gain.
As such, we request that, as part of your
investigation, you seek information related to the circumstances
surrounding these events within NOAA, specifically:
- Whether Department officials who are not subject matter experts have suppressed or altered—or are actively suppressing or altering—scientific products or communications;
- Whether Department officials were pressured or explicitly directed by the White House to take the actions reported in Footnote 1 or to overrule career staff;
- The legality of any actions by Department officials, who are not subject matter experts, who altered or witnessed any alterations to scientific products of communications; and
- Whether Department officials retaliated or made political decisions that have impacted NOAA’s ability to fulfill its mission to understand and predict changes in climate, weather, oceans, and coasts, to share that knowledge and information with others, and to conserve and manage coastal and marine ecosystems and resources.
Thank you for your attention to this request.
Sincerely,
###
