This isn't an explanation that can be offered, at least politically. It invites questions that governments in several developed countries have clearly decided they don't want as part of the public narrative influencing policy. This is the default choice when the real explanation is more complicated, obscure, or technical than will fit in a soundbite, which would be the case in the scenario I hypothesized.

Governments rarely give genuine explanations for their actions and rarely need to. Much easier to use a plausible soundbite related to the current thing. Most people aren't paying attention anyway.

> Governments rarely give genuine explanations for their actions and rarely need to.

This is an absurdly cynical take. It certainly doesn't jive with how NOAA has historically operated - which has necessitated as much transparency as possible, because that is the only way it can engender the trust with the public necessary to steward life and property.

The standards have historically been much higher, and we ought to strive for them to be higher still.

> The standards have historically been much higher, and we ought to strive for them to be higher still.

My take isn't cynical, it is what I've seen first hand. I've worked for the US government (and others) and NGOs off and on since Clinton was President. The standards were pretty mediocre when I first got involved and they've only become worse.

The standards were probably higher before the 1990s. All of these organizations have a few true believers in the mission but those are the old guard. They've slowly been replaced by the equivalent of DMV bureaucrats, even in the more science-y parts of the government. People interested in doing science have known those organizations are not where you go to do science since long before the current administration, which has been a long, vicious spiral.

Your experience doesn't jive with what myself and many others have observed at NOAA over multiple decades.