[tomgp]

>it would have massive negative effect on trade and would probably cost the US far more than it would save.

I'd love to share that certainty, it's a rational position but the Republican party are fully in thrall to an ideological commitment to capture or destroy the institutions of state and can't be relied upon to behave rationally. If you think the political right won't commit economic vandalism in the name of this idiological crusade just take a look at my home, Britain, where first austerity, then Brexit, then Liz Truss's free market extremism dumpded our economy in the trash and pushed our public services to the brink.

[ofalkaed]

This goes far beyond what happened in the UK, this would mean thousands of planes being grounded because of the lack of reliable weather reports and every cargo ship coming into US waters taking on less cargo and possibly skipping the US all together if that decrease in cargo means the profit is just not there. NOAA is the source for the nautical charts shipping uses so navigation would become more difficult and slower, more money and incentive lost. Every plane and ship crossing the Atlantic and Pacific depends on NOAA at least indirectly, directly if they are going to/coming from NA. Every farmer in the US relies on NOAA for determining when they should plant and harvest, fishing industry for water and weather information, every meteorologist in the country relies on the data provided by NOAA, the list goes on.

The effect these changes would have on the international economy would be massive affecting every country that trades with the US which would compound the internal effects of dismantling NOAA. If the threat was sincere the article would be talking about this stuff instead of how it would effect your ability to plan a weekend picnic.