A Seattle lab lost cleaning, tech help & trash pickup while waiting for Commerce Dept to sign off on big contracts.

Question

A Seattle lab lost janitorial services, hazardous waste support, IT and building maintenance while waiting for the Commerce Department secretary to personally approve all contracts over $100,000.

By @lisalsong.bsky.social

Answer 1

The claim is true and was published in the Seattle Times; the author tackles the issues the NOAA is facing with hazardous waste and deadly chemicals not being cleaned up due to issues regarding their contracts while also taking a deep dive into the conditions of the job and its workers who are forced to work five days a week in the hazordus enviorment due to the Trump administration."Nor can people escape by working from home: the Trump administration has increasingly ordered federal workers to return to the office five days a week." Although the article is true and many sources warn people about the "bottleneck" of contracts being put on hold or delayed, I am unable to find a reason as to why Howard Lutnick is personally reviewing all contracts since NPR.Org states, "Rarely did contracts lapse. It is out of the ordinary for the commerance secretary to personally review them." Therefore I believe the real questions lie with Commerce and their reasons for personally reviewing these contracts. 

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/climate-lab/noaa-scientists-are-cleaning-bathrooms-in-seattle/

https://www.npr.org/2025/04/09/nx-s1-5356166/noaa-contracts-reviewed-one-by-one

Comments

I think your analysis is very good, and it was a strong point to show the consequences NOAA workers faced such as being exposed to hazards and forced to clean. I think you could have explained more on why the contract review process is being centralized. After a quick look at your linked sources, I found that the commerce department blamed efficiency improvements for the delays which was surprising and not what I expected.

---

I found your comment to be relevant and very clear. It did a great job at showing the struggles that these NOAA workers go through due to the hazards they are exposed to. I found you sources to be credible and a good choices to prove the initial fact check correct.

---

I really like that you’ve clearly identified the source of the claim and backed up the main points about NOAA and hazardous work conditions with direct quotes, which helps build credibility. I also like your references to diving deeper into the work conditions.

Answer 2

This claim seems to be true. The article cites reputable sources including The Guardian and NPR on the actions NOAA has been taking to cause the lost of many jobs including the ones listed in this article. There is no use of bias words or opinions given by the author. Besides the reliable sources referenced, the text also relies on quotes directly from interviews of people working at the Seattle Montlake Lab as evidence. The author of this article, Lisa Song, and author of the NPR source, Alejandra Borunda, have education in journalism writing and are seen as reliable researchers. Additionally, the article and reliable sources used in the text were all published recently (around April 2025), showing they are highlighting the same events happening in a logical timeline.

Sources:

https://www.npr.org/2025/04/09/nx-s1-5356166/noaa-contracts-reviewed-one-by-one

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/apr/10/noaa-firings-trump

https://sciwrite.mit.edu/person/lisa-song/

Comments

You did a great job pulling in credible sources and laying out the credentials of the journalists, that definitely strengthens your case for the claim being true. One thing I’m curious about, though, is how much direct causality we can really pin on the Commerce Secretary’s contract approvals. You mention NOAA’s broader actions, but it might be helpful to distinguish what’s happening because of NOAA’s own policies versus what’s happening specifically due to the Commerce Department’s delays. For example, were the lost services at the Seattle lab definitely caused by the $100K contract bottleneck, or could there be other contributing factors? I’d love to see a bit more clarity on that chain of cause and effect.

Also, your point about the timeline is solid, all the sources lining up in April 2025 adds credibility. Maybe you could even expand on whether this is an ongoing issue or a recent shift. That might help readers understand if it’s part of a broader bureaucratic trend or a sudden disruption.

---

You did a good job supporting your claim with credible evidence. I like how you highlighted the reliability of both your articles's sources and its author. It's also great that you pointed out the use of the direct quotes from those affected, with strengthens the articles credibility.

---

You explained this really well. It’s clear you looked at the article closely and pointed out why it’s trustworthy, like the quotes from people at the lab and the use of solid sources like NPR and The Guardian. Mentioning the authors backgrounds and how recent the info is also helps show it’s reliable. Good job keeping it clear and to the point.

---

I really appreciate how you engaged in pointing out the credibly of the article and naming out the true information expressed to the readers to fully understand the complexity of the issue. I also enjoyed your evidence by bringing in credible sources, such as the Guardian and NPR, and having those articles highlight the main source provided. Almost like backup singers to make the main act shine! Everything is very well explained!

---

This is a great fact check! I like the use of sources and names to cement your fact checks solidarity. Further more, the use of checking the dates and time of the sources is a really great way to see if the info you are reading is up to date and reliable. The sources you used are also highly credible which is a plus all around.

---

I think that your explanation was very clear. Highlighting the direct quotes from the lab and the use of reputable sources such as NPR and The Guardian effectively supported the trustworthiness. In addition, mentioning the authors' backgrounds and the recency of the information further reinforced its reliability. The clarity and conciseness of your analysis made it very easy to understand.

---

You made a great point about using quotes directly from lab workers direct experiences always make a story better.    But I do think that you need to think about if the piece gives the right history on NOAA's total budget or mission changes.    Are these layoffs for example coming globally or are they limited to programs or areas?

---

You did a good job pointing out what sources the article used and how they use them for their claim. It is also good how you bring up there was no bias that could have impacted the opinion on the authors view point of this topic and how we are getting just facts.

---

You did a really good job looking into the credibility of the information given. You not only went in and cited the source of the original article but also went in and found the sources used in the that original article. I like the no nonsense approach, getting straight to a factual point and not leaving room for any bias or agendas.

---

You did a great job explaining what aspects of the sources made the claim true, but it would've been helpful to explain what makes the website itself reliable. I am unfamiliar with these platforms and would love to know what makes them credible. For example, has there been data taken on the website's credibility, or does the source of the website end in something that tends to be reliable, like .gov? I liked how you ended that they had an education in journalism, but you said they are "seen" as reliable. Adding exactly what makes them " seen" as reliable would be helpful because I don't believe getting an education automatically makes you reliable.

Answer 3

According to the ProPublica article given in the description of the post, "Northwest Fisheries Science Center, part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, staffers told ProPublica. Ecologists, chemists and biologists at Montlake Laboratory, the center’s headquarters in Seattle, are taking turns hauling garbage to the dumpster and discussing whether they should create a sign-up sheet to scrub toilets.". Upon further research this claim seems to hold itself true. As of today, Cascade PBS has publish an article, describing how "Hazardous waste removal at a Seattle lab has stopped after the feds failed to renew several services, which could delay research on endangered salmon.". The article describes how the Federal scientists responsible for monitoring the health of West Coast fisheries are cleaning office bathrooms and reconsidering critical experiments after the Department of Commerce failed to renew their lab’s contracts for hazardous waste disposal, janitorial services, IT and building maintenance. Now the scientists who work and run the lab are trained in basic lab safety, so all the chemicals are properly stored, handled and placed into appropriate waste containers after use. But there’s a limit to how much chemical waste can be kept on site. And the contractors who left were experts on handling emergencies like large chemical spills or serious toxic exposures, thus creating an increasingly hazardous work zone. And if this continues the lab might have to pause research to find a proper solution. Overall, this claim is true and the facts back it up, the publisher used reputable sources that are recently published and further prove this claim to be true, there is no exaggeration or misleading information used as well, all facts. 

Works Cited:

1. ProPublica Article

2. CascadePBS Article

Answer 4

The claim that "A Seattle lab lost janitorial services, hazardous waste support, IT, and building maintenance because the Commerce Department secretary is personally approving all contracts over $100,000" is true. This was first reported by ProPublica, a nonprofit newsroom that focuses on holding power accountable, not just making money, so it’s a reliable source.

Reporter Lisa Song explains that the lab handles dangerous chemicals while researching West Coast fisheries, and without proper waste removal and cleaning services, scientists have had to delay important work to stay safe. According to NPR, the delays are happening because the Secretary of Commerce is now reviewing every large contract one by one (NPR, para. 1), which is causing backups across NOAA facilities, not just in Seattle.

Sources:
https://www.propublica.org/article/noaa-contracts-seattle-lab
https://www.npr.org/2025/04/09/nx-s1-5356166/noaa-contracts-reviewed-one-by-one

Comments

Your answer was very clear and straight to the point. It is really clear that you did some of your own research into this issue and didn't just restate was was made in the original claim. You added more valuable information that is relevant to the issue at hand. It makes me worried to think about what other important facilities could be handicapped due to changing policy.

Answer 5

The claim made above appears to be true. A report by ProPublica goes deep into the story and what is causing these highly qualified and expert NOAA scientists to be forced to perform typically mundane and uncomplicated tasks, such as cleaning their bathrooms and performing basic building maintenance while the regular workers who would usually take those on are out of contract. Even worse, the conditions are becoming dangerous for these scientists, as the waste removal services are no longer helping out, leading to the scientists being forced to work through hazardous conditions several days a week. These scientists being required to perform the basic task has proven to be a great barrier to their productivity. These bright minds are not able to focus on carrying out their scientific exploration and are instead cleaning their bathrooms. Humans are wired to only be able to focus on one thing at a time, and when you take them away from their task at hand, their minds will switch off a little bit, leading to morale and productivity greatly diminishing. Thinking about the reliability of the source, it would usually be odd that no one else is covering the story. Looking online, searching specific key words, it seems that ProPublica is the only news anchor covering the story. While this would usually be a big red flag, ProPublica has gained a reputation as a very reliable source of news. Reading through the article, there is next to no signs of any political bias or agenda, which shows that the news anchor is really just looking to cover what is going on and not aiming to create any fake stories for anyone's agenda.

Source:

https://www.propublica.org/article/noaa-contracts-seattle-lab 

Answer 6

This is true. Not only is the linked article from a reputable source, the author, Lisa Song, is a known reporter on environmentalist issues, winning a Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting in 2013. The article provides great evidence from NPR and the Guardian, both trusted sources, and every other article I could find on the issue is in agreement with the claim made. ProPublica, the non-profit organization that published the article, is said to lean left but ultimately is considered a relatively objective organization.

The ProPublica article: https://www.propublica.org/article/noaa-contracts-seattle-lab?utm_source=bluesky&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=propublica-bsky

ProPublica's bias and reliability: https://adfontesmedia.com/propublica-bias-and-reliability/

Lisa Song's reputation: https://www.pulitzer.org/winners/lisa-song-elizabeth-mcgowan-and-david-hasemyer

The Seattle Times reporting on the same issue: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/climate-lab/trumps-noaa-firings-bring-doubt-for-pnw-fisheries/

Answer 7

This claim does appear to be true and trustworthy. The claim is supported by other staffers in different NOAA locations. Staffers report that pauses to contracts at NOAA have led to chaos, specifically related to this claim, maintenance contracts are being paused leading to, “bathrooms running out of toilet paper” ​​​​https://www.npr.org/2025/04/09/nx-s1-5356166/noaa-contracts-reviewed-one-by-one

Other claims, like NOAA losing tech help, have also been reported across other NOAA locations, NPR reporting that websites like Climate.gov had gone down. While the majority of the website is back up, pages about Climate Literacy are inaccessible, links leading to a error message.https://toolkit.climate.gov/tool/climate-literacy-essential-principles-understanding-and-addressing-climate-change

Its worth noting that this article does not directly link or quote their sources, reporting as hearing this information from anonymous employees. It does appear to be credible however, with one employee being quoted directly, Montlkae union representative, Nick Tolimieri, who claims; ““all part of the large-scale bullying program” to push out federal workers.” https://www.propublica.org/article/noaa-contracts-seattle-lab?utm_source=bluesky&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=propublica-bsky

Due to the variety of claims across the country that NOAA employees are struggling with maintenance contracts, staffers being laid off, dealing with unsaintory conditions, and problems directly from the governments websites this claim appears to be true. However, janitorial services were reported as restored by the same article from a update on April 16th.