NCAR Faces 'Demolition Threat' as Climate Research Center Faces U.S. Abandonment: What Could Go Wrong?
It’s been months since President Trump revealed plans to dismantle the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), a Colorado-based hub dedicated to improving weather prediction and understanding climate change. The potential loss of this monumental scientific effort has sparked a wave of concern, protests, and accusations across the nation.
The unfolding controversy over NCAR’s future raises critical questions about federal oversight, scientific collaboration, and national security. At its core, NCAR represents more than just a research facility; it is a collaborative hub that integrates observational data into tools designed to predict weather patterns and climate shifts—abilities that could save countless lives during natural disasters.
Daniel Swain, a climate scientist at the University of California, caught wind of the proposed dismantling when the news broke on Twitter. The unfolding drama took place in Boulder, Colorado, where Swain was taking a break from his duties at NCAR, a center he helped found over two decades ago. Local media reports detailed how swains’s colleagues were likewise floored by the announcement, with many accusing Trump of prioritizing climate alarmism over legitimate scientific research.
TheWhite House’s proposed move to dismantle NCAR has drawn sharp criticism from scientists and local advocates. Critics argue that the center is not merely a tool for weather prediction but a vital institution for advancing our understanding of Earth’s atmosphere and its role in shaping global climate patterns. Swain emphasized that while climate science has advanced significantly, the idea of separating weather forecasting from broader atmospheric research seems increasingly perilous.
The letter published by the National Science Foundation (NSF) seeking input on how to redistribute NCAR’s core functions has only fueled the fire. The proposed reshaping of NCAR’s operations—including the transfer of aircraft and supercomputers—has drawn accusations of prioritizing scientific utility over public good. Meanwhile, ongoing protests in Boulder have shown little sign of abating, with local officials and activists warning that the center could be depopulated within months.
The Trump administration’s proposed dismantling of NCAR has not gone unchallenged. The center currently employs more than 830 people nationwide, with many warning that its closure would leave gaps in critical weather prediction tools and scientific research capabilities. Proponents of NCAR argue that the center is a quintessential example of how science can be used to address real-world challenges— challenges that are far too pressing to leave to chance.
The ongoing debate over NCAR’s future underscores the delicate balance between federal funding, scientific collaboration, and public trust. As the nation grapples with climate change, extreme weather events, and rapidly evolving health crises, the stakes could not be higher. The survival of NCAR—and its role in shaping the future of atmospheric science—hangs in the balance.
In a letter published by the NSF, officials acknowledge that the proposed reshaping of NCAR’s operations has drawn mixed reactions from across the scientific community. While some researchers applaud the opportunity to repurpose certain resources for new purposes, others remain deeply concerned about what could happen if the center is no longer a unified hub for atmospheric science.
Kevin J. Beaty/Denverite
The National Center for Atmospheric Research, above Boulder. Dec. 20, 2025.
A recent request confirms the federal threat hasn’t disappeared. In a letter published Jan. 23, the National Science Foundation asks for ideas to redistribute NCAR’s core functions or even cancel certain projects. The NSF has already begun work on transferring ownership of two research aircraft and a supercomputer jointly operated with the University of Wyoming in Cheyenne, Wyoming.
The letter was also published just days after Congress passed an appropriations package that included no safeguards for NCAR. Colorado Sen. John Hickenlooper and Sen. Michael Bennet proposed an amendment to protect the center from funding cuts, but it failed to win enough votes even after Hickenlooper held up the funding package for weeks.
Meanwhile, NCAR supporters are organizing efforts to defend the research center ahead of a March 13 deadline. More than 800 people have signed a petition demanding that Congress ensure NCAR’s survival. Activists argue that the center represents not just a tool for climate science but a vital resource for addressing some of humanity’s most pressing environmental challenges.
"The most important thing I can say about NCAR is it's not a collection of things," Carlos Martinez, a senior climate scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists, recently opined. "It really is a whole entity, and it is greater than the sum of its parts."
The debate over NCAR’s future could potentially extend into the 2027 budget cycle. Last year, the Trump administration proposed a 50% reduction to the NSF’s $9 billion budget. But Congress ultimately decided to preserve nearly all of the funding.
“Congress holds the power of the purse. They can include guardrails in language for this institution to ensure that it will continue to be fully intact, fully funded and fully staffed to benefit all of us,” Martinez said.
The NCAR controversy is far from over. As the nation faces an uncertain future marked by climate change and rapid health transformations, the question remains: What happens if the center that has been shaping our understanding of atmospheric science for decades is no longer a unified force?
From a scientific perspective, NCAR represents more than a tool—it’s a symbol of what science can achieve when collaboration, funding, and public trust come together. The potential for its destruction raises concerns about the broader implications for national security, climate research, and global health.
As NCAR supporters organize to defend their work, they also hope to rally public support ahead of the 2027 budget cycle. In a recent op-ed, Carlos Martinez called on scientists and anyone else to reply to the NSF’s Dear Colleague letter by March 13, emphasizing that NCAR’s survival is not just a matter of scientific merit but a question of national resilience.
The NCAR controversy will likely continue to unfold in the coming months. For now, the immediate threat lies in the potential loss of this vital hub for atmospheric science. The longer-term implications could shape debates about federal oversight, scientific collaboration, and the role of institutions like NCAR in addressing some of our most pressing global challenges.
In a world marked by uncertainty, one thing is clear: the NCAR controversy will not be resolved without careful consideration of its broader implications. As the nation prepares for an uncertain future, the question remains: Will we risk another generation of scientific breakthroughs—or will we lose them to the chaos that comes from unchecked ambition?
Source:
