Trump Plan to Break Up NCAR Alarms Scientists and State Leaders
A plan to dismantle the National Centre for Atmospheric Research has ignited fierce debate over climate science, federal priorities, and the future of weather forecasting in the United States.
The Trump administration’s move to dismantle the National Centre for Atmospheric Research, one of the most influential climate and weather science institutions in the United States, has sparked sharp backlash from scientists, state leaders, and research advocates who say the decision risks undermining decades of publicly funded work critical to forecasting extreme weather and understanding climate change.
The proposal, revealed through statements from senior administration officials, would effectively break apart NCAR, which is based in Boulder, Colorado, and funded primarily through the National Science Foundation. The administration has framed the move as part of a broader effort to refocus federal science spending, arguing that climate research has drifted toward what it characterises as ideological advocacy rather than practical forecasting.
A cornerstone of American climate science
Founded in 1960, NCAR has long been regarded as a central pillar of atmospheric and climate research in the United States. Its work spans everything from hurricane modelling and air quality studies to long-term climate projections. The centre operates some of the world’s most advanced supercomputing systems dedicated to atmospheric science and provides data and modelling tools used by universities, federal agencies, and international partners.
For decades, NCAR has functioned less as a single laboratory and more as a shared national resource. Researchers across the country rely on its infrastructure to run simulations that individual universities often cannot afford on their own. Much of the modelling that feeds into weather forecasts, climate assessments, and disaster preparedness planning traces back to NCAR-developed systems.
Scientists warn that dismantling the institution would disrupt that ecosystem in ways that cannot be easily replicated elsewhere. While some functions could theoretically be moved, critics say the loss of an integrated, independent research hub would leave gaps that smaller labs and agencies are ill-equipped to fill.
Political fault lines sharpen
The administration’s decision has drawn swift criticism from Colorado officials, including Governor Jared Polis, who said the state was not consulted and warned that weakening climate and weather research could have real-world consequences for public safety. In a statement, Polis said accurate forecasting saves lives, particularly as extreme weather events become more frequent and severe.
Democratic lawmakers have echoed those concerns, framing the move as part of a broader pattern of rolling back federal climate science. Over the past year, the administration has also proposed deep cuts to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, including the elimination of its Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, which conducts much of NOAA’s long-term climate and weather science.
Supporters of the administration argue that federal research agencies should focus narrowly on short-term weather prediction rather than long-range climate modelling, which they claim has become politicised. They contend that essential forecasting capabilities can be preserved without maintaining institutions they view as overly focused on climate change.
Scientists warn of cascading effects
Within the scientific community, concern runs deeper than the fate of a single institution. Researchers say dismantling NCAR would have ripple effects across multiple disciplines, from hydrology and wildfire science to aviation safety and public health.
NCAR’s models and datasets feed directly into systems used by the National Weather Service and other agencies responsible for issuing storm warnings, flood forecasts, and air quality advisories. Disruptions to those pipelines, scientists say, could reduce the accuracy and lead time of forecasts that communities rely on during emergencies.
There is also anxiety about the loss of institutional knowledge. NCAR employs hundreds of scientists, engineers, and technical staff whose expertise has been built over decades. Critics argue that dispersing or eliminating those teams would not only slow research but also drive talent out of public science altogether.
Several research organisations have warned that younger scientists, already facing uncertain funding environments, may leave climate and atmospheric research fields if federal support continues to erode.
A broader retreat from climate research
The controversy surrounding NCAR comes amid what many observers describe as a wider retreat from federally supported climate science. Proposed budget cuts, restructuring plans, and internal restrictions have raised alarms across research agencies, with some scientists reporting increased difficulty securing funding for climate-related work.
Advocacy groups argue that these changes reflect an effort to downplay or sideline research that highlights the long-term risks of climate change. They warn that weakening scientific capacity does not eliminate those risks but instead leaves policymakers and the public less prepared to confront them.
Internationally, the move has also raised questions about the United States’ role in global climate research. NCAR has long collaborated with institutions around the world, contributing data and expertise to international assessments and joint projects. Reducing its capacity, critics say, could diminish US leadership in global scientific cooperation.
Uncertain future, unresolved questions
The administration has not released detailed plans outlining how NCAR’s functions would be redistributed or which programs, if any, would survive in another form. Officials have said essential weather forecasting will continue, but scientists note that forecasting and climate research are deeply interconnected.
As the proposal moves forward, calls are growing for congressional oversight and greater transparency. Lawmakers from both parties have signalled interest in examining the implications for national security, disaster readiness, and economic resilience.
For now, the future of NCAR remains uncertain. What is clear is that the debate over its fate has become a flashpoint in a larger struggle over science, policy, and how the United States prepares for a changing climate.
