This chapter covers trade, patents and the weather. It says the department has lost its way. Its biggest idea is to break up the weather and ocean agency. It also wants tighter rules on selling tech abroad.
The document says “should”Who acts: President, CongressHow: legislationp. 664 in the PDF
What the document says
“The National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) should be dismantled and many of its functions eliminated, sent to other agencies, privatized, or placed under the control of states and territories.”
This appears in a list of structural changes the chapter says the next President should consider. The agency houses the National Weather Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service and four other offices, and the chapter records that it takes $6 billion of the department's $12 billion operating budget and more than half its staff. A later passage says the agency has become one of the main drivers of what it calls the climate change alarm industry and is harmful to future prosperity, that this is not to say it is useless but that its current organization corrupts its useful functions, and that it should be broken up and downsized.
What the document actually says
“The National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) should be dismantled and many of its functions eliminated, sent to other agencies, privatized, or placed under the control of states and territories.”
That sentence, in plain words
Break up the weather and ocean agency. Close some parts. Move others, sell some off, or hand them to the states.
What this is about
One agency runs the weather service and watches the oceans. The book says it is too big. It says it drives alarm about the climate. It wants it broken up.
What is disputed
What this means is contested
Widely reported as a proposal to abolish the National Weather Service. The chapter does not say that. It proposes breaking up the parent agency and separately says the Weather Service should focus on gathering data and 'fully commercialize its forecasting operations', which leaves the forecasting function in private hands rather than ending it. Readers who describe this as abolition point to the combination of dismantling the parent, commercializing forecasts and downsizing; readers who reject it point to the chapter saying the agency is not useless and naming data-gathering as a continuing public role.
Read against the documents indexed here on August 26, 2026, and nothing was found that answers this. That act works on one NOAA program rather than the agency's structure. It reorganizes the Marine Debris Act, renumbers its sections, lets the Under Secretary contribute in kind toward project costs, and requires the approval of the Secretary of Commerce for appointments to the Marine Debris Foundation board. The program stays inside NOAA. No indexed action breaks up the agency, moves its offices to other departments, privatizes them, or hands them to the states. That is a record of a search, not a finding that nothing has happened: an act this site does not hold, or one that answers the proposal in words unlike its own, would not be caught by it.
The document says “should”Who acts: NOAA, CommerceHow: internal managementp. 675 in the PDF
What the document says
“the NWS should fully commercialize its forecasting operations.”
The chapter states that Americans rely on forecasts produced not by the Weather Service but by private companies such as AccuWeather, that studies have found private forecasts more reliable, and that the Weather Service supplies the data those companies use and should focus on data gathering. It adds that the service should be a candidate to become a performance-based organization.
What the document actually says
“the NWS should fully commercialize its forecasting operations.”
That sentence, in plain words
The weather service should let private firms do the forecasts.
What this is about
The weather service makes forecasts and warnings. Private firms make them too, using its data. The book says the private firms should do the forecasting.
Section 114 of the Commerce title of this appropriations act, approved January 23, 2026, provides that the National Weather Service shall maintain staffing levels in order to fulfill the mission required under 15 U.S.C. 313 to protect life and property to the maximum extent possible. That is a statutory direction to keep the service staffed for its own mission, which runs the other way from a proposal to move its forecasting operations to private companies and leave it gathering data. The fit breaks down because the section speaks only to staffing and names no number and no baseline, because it says nothing about who produces forecasts and does not bar the service from relying on or contracting with private forecasters, because 15 U.S.C. 313 is a separate statute that is not indexed here so what that mission covers is not recorded, and because the same sentence appears in the Act for several other agencies, which makes it a general staffing provision rather than an answer aimed at this proposal.
In plain English
A part of the 2026 spending law tells the weather service to keep enough staff to do its job. That runs against a plan to hand forecasts to private firms. But the line speaks only to staff and sets no number. It says nothing about who makes forecasts, and the same line covers other agencies.
The document says “should”Who acts: Commerce, NOAAHow: internal managementp. 676 in the PDF
What the document says
“Data collected by the department should be presented neutrally, without adjustments intended to support any one side in the climate debate.”
The chapter makes this point while reviewing the work of the National Hurricane Center and the environmental satellite data centers, which it says provide important public safety and business functions and are used by forecasters and scientists internationally. It notes that data continuity is an important issue in climate science.
What the document actually says
“Data collected by the department should be presented neutrally, without adjustments intended to support any one side in the climate debate.”
That sentence, in plain words
Show the data plainly. Do not change it to help one side of the climate argument.
What this is about
The government collects climate data. The book says it should be published as it is. It says no changes should be made to favor one side.
EO 14303 of May 23, 2025 sets rules for how agencies use, interpret and communicate scientific data. Agency heads must publish the data, analyses, conclusions and models, including source code, behind information that will have a substantial effect on public policy or private decisions; employees must document uncertainty and how it propagates through models; and employees must be transparent about the likelihood of the assumptions and scenarios used, with highly unlikely or overly precautionary scenarios relied on only where the law requires it. The order's statement of reasons names agency use of the RCP 8.5 climate scenario as an example of a worst case presented as likely. Where the fit breaks down: this is a government wide scientific integrity order run through the Office of Science and Technology Policy, not a Commerce Department policy about its own records. It says nothing about the National Hurricane Center or the environmental satellite data centers, does not address adjustments made to collected data, and does not touch the continuity of long climate series that the chapter raises.
In plain English
The order tells agencies to post the data and models behind their claims. They must say how likely each guess is. The chapter asked one department to keep its own records free of slant. This order runs across the whole government. It says nothing about changes made to the data.
Each of these names the order above in its own summary, preamble or filing. That is a fact about the document, not a finding that it carries out this proposal: it is one step further away than the order is, and what it does about the proposal is a reading nobody has made here.
The document says “could”Who acts: Congress, CommerceHow: legislationp. 676 in the PDF
What the document says
“These functions could be transferred to the U.S. Coast Guard and U.S. Geological Survey to increase efficiency.”
The chapter notes that survey operations have historically accounted for almost half the National Ocean Service budget, and separately asks that the expansion of the National Marine Sanctuaries System be reviewed.
What the document actually says
“These functions could be transferred to the U.S. Coast Guard and U.S. Geological Survey to increase efficiency.”
That sentence, in plain words
Two other agencies could take on this work.
What this is about
One office charts the seabed and coasts. That is about half its budget. The book says two other agencies could do it.
Read against the documents indexed here on August 26, 2026, and nothing was found that answers this. That rule authorizes the incidental taking of marine mammals during geophysical surveys run by industry in the Gulf, so it is NOAA regulating other people's surveys rather than moving NOAA's own charting and survey work anywhere. Nothing indexed transfers a National Ocean Service function to the Coast Guard or the Geological Survey, and nothing reviews the National Marine Sanctuaries System. The Coast Guard candidate, rule-2025-04018, only changes the name of the Gulf of Mexico in Coast Guard regulations. That is a record of a search, not a finding that nothing has happened: an act this site does not hold, or one that answers the proposal in words unlike its own, would not be caught by it.
The document says “should”Who acts: PresidentHow: executive orderp. 676 in the PDF
What the document says
“Withdraw the 30x Executive Order and Associated America the Beautiful Initiative.”
The chapter says the order and initiative are being used to advance an agenda closing vast areas of ocean to commercial activity including fishing, while rapidly advancing offshore wind development to the detriment of fisheries and other ocean industries. The initiative sets a goal of conserving 30 percent of US lands and waters by 2030.
What the document actually says
“Withdraw the 30x Executive Order and Associated America the Beautiful Initiative.”
That sentence, in plain words
Cancel this order and the plan that goes with it.
What this is about
One order sets a goal to protect three tenths of land and sea by 2030. The book says it closes fishing grounds. It wants the order canceled.
EO 14148 of January 20, 2025 revokes EO 14008 of January 27, 2021 (Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad) outright. That is the order that set the goal of conserving at least 30 percent of United States lands and waters by 2030 and directed the report that became the America the Beautiful initiative, so the instrument the chapter asks to be withdrawn is withdrawn. Where the fit breaks down: the revocation is one entry in a list of 78 revoked actions and names neither the 30 percent goal nor the initiative, and it does nothing about designations, grants or agency plans made while the order stood. EO 14313, a candidate here, later sets up a separate conservation commission rather than restoring or replacing the goal.
In plain English
The book asked that a 2021 climate order be pulled. This order pulls it. That order had set the goal to protect 30 percent of land and water by 2030. The goal is not named here, and it is one of 78 items pulled at once. Land set aside, grants and plans made under it still stand.
The document says “should”Who acts: Commerce, CEQHow: regulationp. 676 in the PDF
What the document says
“Allow a NEPA Exemption for Fisheries Actions.”
The chapter argues that the requirements for analyzing biological, economic and social impacts are already contained in the Magnuson-Stevens Act, that environmental review overlays them with what it calls onerous, redundant and time-consuming process requirements, and that the department and the Council on Environmental Quality should collaborate to reduce the redundancy.
What the document actually says
“Allow a NEPA Exemption for Fisheries Actions.”
That sentence, in plain words
Let fishing rules skip that green check.
What this is about
Big federal decisions need an environment report first. The book says fishing rules already do that check. It says the extra step should be dropped.
Read against the documents indexed here on August 26, 2026, and nothing was found that answers this. The Council on Environmental Quality removed its government wide environmental review regulations from the Code of Federal Regulations, and agencies including Energy, Interior, Agriculture and Veterans Affairs then rewrote their own procedures. That changes the procedural overlay the chapter objects to, but it exempts nothing: the statute still applies, and no fisheries action is excluded from it. No NOAA or National Marine Fisheries Service environmental review procedure appears among the rules indexed here, and the fisheries candidates, such as rule-2025-07884, are catch limit actions rather than review policy. That is a record of a search, not a finding that nothing has happened: an act this site does not hold, or one that answers the proposal in words unlike its own, would not be caught by it.
The document says “should”Who acts: President, CongressHow: legislationp. 664 in the PDF
What the document says
“Industry and Security (BIS) should be streamlined and moved to the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR)”
The Bureau of Industry and Security administers export controls on sensitive technology. The chapter lists this among the structural changes the next President should consider, alongside consolidating other trade programs and considering whether many of them should exist federally at all.
What the document actually says
“Industry and Security (BIS) should be streamlined and moved to the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR)”
That sentence, in plain words
Slim down the export control bureau. Move it to the trade office.
What this is about
One bureau decides what technology may be sold abroad. The book says it should move to the trade office.
Read against the documents indexed here on August 26, 2026, and nothing was found that answers this. The nearest candidate adds a congressional reporting duty to the export control statute the Bureau of Industry and Security administers, and leaves the bureau where it is, inside the Commerce Department. Nothing indexed moves the bureau, or any part of it, to the Office of the United States Trade Representative. The candidate whose title mentions an office reorganization, rule-2026-02179, is the Surface Transportation Board renaming its own legal offices and has nothing to do with export controls. That is a record of a search, not a finding that nothing has happened: an act this site does not hold, or one that answers the proposal in words unlike its own, would not be caught by it.
The document says “needs to”Who acts: Commerce, BISHow: regulationp. 671 in the PDF
What the document says
“BIS needs to move unilaterally while it works with allies to implement complementary export control policies.”
The chapter says waiting to act until allies are ready to move in lockstep is not an option while national security is at risk. It asks for stronger rules against technology transfer to adversaries, for export controls to be used to prevent theft of personal data, and to encourage companies to shift production out of China.
What the document actually says
“BIS needs to move unilaterally while it works with allies to implement complementary export control policies.”
That sentence, in plain words
Act alone if needed. Keep working with allies at the same time.
What this is about
Some tech cannot be sold to certain lands. Allies often act as one. The book says America should not wait for them.
Read against the documents indexed here on August 26, 2026, and nothing was found that answers this. That act amends the Export Control Reform Act of 2018 to require an annual report to two congressional committees on license applications and end use checks involving listed entities in arms embargoed countries, with most of the report exempt from public disclosure. It is a reporting duty, not a new control, and it says nothing about acting ahead of allies. The other near candidate, rule-2025-23998, is a State Department arms trade exemption built jointly with Australia and the United Kingdom, which is coordinated rather than unilateral action, and it is not administered by the Bureau of Industry and Security. No rule from that bureau appears among the rules indexed here. That is a record of a search, not a finding that nothing has happened: an act this site does not hold, or one that answers the proposal in words unlike its own, would not be caught by it.
The document says “should”Who acts: CommerceHow: internal managementp. 666 in the PDF
What the document says
“Upon entering office, all such committees should be reviewed regarding whether they are required by statute and abolished if they are not.”
The chapter states that many of the department's advisory committees are populated by activists from organizations it describes as openly hostile to conservative principles who use the committees to impede conservative policy. It asks that the membership of surviving committees be reconstituted.
What the document actually says
“Upon entering office, all such committees should be reviewed regarding whether they are required by statute and abolished if they are not.”
That sentence, in plain words
Check which of these panels the law requires. Close the rest.
What this is about
The department takes advice from outside panels. The book says some are stacked against it. It says panels not required by law should close.
Read against the documents indexed here on August 26, 2026, and nothing was found that answers this. EO 14354 continues 22 advisory committees created by the President until September 30, 2027 and supersedes the matching sections of the 2023 continuance order. It is the periodic continuance order for presidential committees, and none of the committees on its list belongs to the Commerce Department. It orders no review of whether a committee is required by statute, abolishes none by name, and says nothing about who sits on them. The other candidates, EO 14378 and EO 14397, continue one specific council at the Federal Emergency Management Agency. That is a record of a search, not a finding that nothing has happened: an act this site does not hold, or one that answers the proposal in words unlike its own, would not be caught by it.
The document says “should”Who acts: CongressHow: legislationp. 664 in the PDF
What the document says
“The Economic Development Administration’s grant programs, which are among a broad set of duplicative and overlapping federal economic development grant programs, should be consolidated with other programs and/or eliminated;”
This appears in the chapter's list of structural changes for the next President to consider. The chapter argues that many programs at the department overlap with other government programs and that consolidating them could increase accountability and return on taxpayer investment.
What the document actually says
“The Economic Development Administration’s grant programs, which are among a broad set of duplicative and overlapping federal economic development grant programs, should be consolidated with other programs and/or eliminated;”
That sentence, in plain words
These grants overlap with others. Join them together or end them.
What this is about
One office gives grants to help local economies. Other agencies do the same thing. The book says that is a duplication.
Read against the documents indexed here on August 26, 2026, and nothing was found that answers this. The Commerce, Justice, Science appropriations act does act on the Economic Development Administration, but it funds the programs rather than consolidating or ending them: $400,000,000 for economic development assistance under the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965, available until expended, plus $66,000,000 for administering those programs. No indexed action merges the agency's grant programs with any other program or eliminates them. EO 14255, also a candidate, creates a new Commerce office for large investments and takes over the CHIPS Program Office, which is a different set of programs. That is a record of a search, not a finding that nothing has happened: an act this site does not hold, or one that answers the proposal in words unlike its own, would not be caught by it.
The document says “should”Who acts: President, OMBHow: internal managementp. 664 in the PDF
What the document says
“The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) should be made into a performance-based organization”
The chapter lists this among the structural changes to consider, and offers as an alternative that the patent office be consolidated with another agency. A performance-based organization is a federal body given management flexibility in exchange for measurable performance commitments.
What the document actually says
“The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) should be made into a performance-based organization”
That sentence, in plain words
The patent office should be run against set targets.
What this is about
The patent office grants patents and trademarks. The book says it should be run more like a business. It would be judged on results.
Read against the documents indexed here on August 26, 2026, and nothing was found that answers this. Nothing in the candidate set concerns the Patent and Trademark Office. EO 14402 is the nearest by wording, setting efficiency and performance rules for federal contracting, which is a different subject from an agency's organizational status. No indexed action makes the patent office a performance-based organization or consolidates it with another agency. That is a record of a search, not a finding that nothing has happened: an act this site does not hold, or one that answers the proposal in words unlike its own, would not be caught by it.
Thomas F. Gilman, “Department of Commerce,” in Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise, edited by Paul Dans and Steven Groves (The Heritage Foundation, 2023), pp. 663-690. https://static.heritage.org/project2025/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf
This page
“Department of Commerce,” Project 2025, chapter 21. Read the Mandate, https://readthemandate.org/project-2025/chapter-21/ (retrieved October 7, 2026).
Cite the document when the claim is about what the document says. Cite this page when the indexing, the wording or the record of what has happened is what is being relied on.
What This Page Covers, and What It Leaves Out
The chapter's proposals for reorganizing or eliminating parts of the department, its treatment of the weather and ocean agency, export controls, and advisory committees.
The chapter's detailed export control classification recommendations, its country-by-country priorities, and its treatment of the census and the patent office beyond the structural proposal.
The chapter opens by listing structural options the next President should 'consider' rather than do. Those are recorded with the chapter's own word, and it is worth weighing: an invitation to consider abolishing something is not the same as a plan to abolish it.
