The Trump administration quietly retired a federal database that tracked billion-dollar weather disasters back in May. The database, maintained by NOAA, documented the most expensive storms, floods, wildfires, and other climate-related events in U.S. history. It was a key tool for researchers, policymakers, and insurance companies trying to understand the growing costs of extreme weather.
Now the database is back, but not because the government brought it back. An independent group relaunched it outside the federal system using the same methodology NOAA developed. And the first update shows more than 100 billion dollars in disaster losses that occurred while the tracker was dark.
This is climate data suppression dressed up as bureaucratic housekeeping. The Trump administration claimed the database was being retired for technical reasons and promised a replacement. Five months later, no replacement appeared. Instead, the data simply vanished from public view.
The timing was suspicious from the start. Trump has spent years downplaying climate change and dismissing scientific warnings about worsening extreme weather. Killing a database that showed those warnings were accurate fits the pattern. If the data is inconvenient, get rid of the data.
NOAA’s Billion-Dollar Weather and Climate Disasters Database had tracked major events since 1980. It provided a clear picture of how disaster costs were escalating. The total reached over 2 trillion dollars before the database went offline, with costs accelerating sharply in recent years. That trend contradicted Trump’s repeated claims that climate concerns were overblown.
The independent relaunch came from a coalition of climate scientists and data analysts who refused to let the information stay buried. They obtained the historical data, applied NOAA’s methodology to recent events, and published the results. What they found was stunning.
More than 100 billion dollars in disaster losses occurred between May and October 2025 while the federal tracker was offline. That includes massive wildfires in California, severe flooding in the Midwest, and hurricane damage along the Gulf Coast. All of it would have been documented by the NOAA database if it still existed.
The losses are not just numbers on a spreadsheet. They represent destroyed homes, ruined businesses, displaced families, and communities that will take years to rebuild. The database existed to make those costs visible so policymakers could respond appropriately. Shutting it down did not stop the disasters, it just made them harder to track.
The administration never provided a coherent explanation for retiring the database. The official statement mentioned outdated technology and the need for modernization, but NOAA scientists said the system worked fine. It was regularly updated and widely used. The problem was not technical, it was political.
Suppressing climate data serves several purposes for the Trump administration. It makes it easier to roll back environmental regulations when the consequences are less visible. It helps fossil fuel industries avoid accountability for their role in worsening climate impacts. And it lets politicians deny the severity of the crisis without inconvenient facts getting in the way.
But data suppression only works if no one notices. The independent relaunch ensures the information remains public even without federal support. That is good for transparency, but it should not be necessary. Americans should not have to rely on volunteer scientists to track information the government is supposed to provide.
The 100 billion dollar figure is also likely an undercount. The independent group had to rely on insurance claims, news reports, and state-level data to reconstruct disaster costs. NOAA’s original database had access to federal resources and standardized reporting that made the numbers more accurate. Losing that infrastructure means losing precision.
Climate change is making extreme weather more frequent and more expensive. That is not a political opinion, it is observable reality. The costs show up in insurance premiums, federal disaster aid, and local budgets strained by repeated emergencies. Pretending those costs do not exist by hiding the data does not make them go away.
The relaunch also highlights how vulnerable federal climate research has become under Trump. If a president can simply shut down databases that document inconvenient facts, scientific integrity is at the mercy of whoever holds office. That sets a dangerous precedent for future administrations of any party.
NOAA employees were reportedly frustrated by the decision to retire the database but were overruled by political appointees. Career scientists understand the value of long-term data collection. Political leaders focused on short-term messaging do not care. The clash between science and politics is not new, but it is getting worse.
The independent group that relaunched the database has committed to maintaining it as long as necessary. That could mean years if the Trump administration refuses to restore the federal version. It also means relying on donated time and resources instead of stable government funding.
This is a ridiculous way to track a national crisis. Weather disasters are not partisan. They hit red states and blue states. They cost taxpayers billions in federal aid regardless of who is president. Having accurate data should be basic governance, not a political football.
But here we are. A volunteer effort is doing the job the federal government abandoned because the data was politically inconvenient. That tells you everything you need to know about how seriously the Trump administration takes climate change.
The 100 billion dollar figure will keep growing as more disasters hit and the costs compound. At some point, the numbers will be too large to ignore even for the most determined deniers. But until then, we are left piecing together information that should be readily available from official sources.
If you think tracking weather disasters should not require a volunteer rescue mission, that is a reasonable position. If you think the government should not suppress data because it contradicts the president’s preferred narrative, that is also reasonable. But reasonable is not the world we are living in right now.