The Trump administration’s proposal to dismantle the National Center for Atmospheric Research has sent shockwaves through the U.S. scientific community, raising concerns about the future of weather forecasting, disaster preparedness, and publicly funded research that has shaped meteorology for more than six decades. The plan, first reported by USA Today on Dec. 16, would break apart one of the world’s most influential atmospheric science institutions, a move critics describe as both politically motivated and operationally destructive.
The proposal became public after Russell Vought, director of the Office of Management and Budget, posted on social media that the federal government would be “breaking up” the Colorado based center. In the post, Vought called NCAR “one of the largest sources of climate alarmism in the country” and said a “comprehensive review is underway.” He added that “any vital activities such as weather research will be moved to another entity or location.”
Scientists and administrators familiar with the structure of NCAR say the promise to relocate key functions overlooks the purpose for which the institution was created. Founded in 1960, NCAR was designed to centralize costly, complex research tools that individual universities could not afford on their own. The center is administered day to day by the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research on behalf of the National Science Foundation and is funded largely by federal grants.
NCAR provides researchers with access to supercomputers, specialized research aircraft equipped with sensitive measurement instruments, long term climate and weather data repositories, and advanced atmospheric and ocean modeling systems. According to scientists who rely on those resources, separating them would severely weaken their effectiveness.
“It’s the mecca of meteorology, and there’s no place like it in the world,” said Ankur Desai, a professor of atmospheric and oceanic sciences at the University of Wisconsin Madison, who completed a postdoctoral fellowship at NCAR. “This really seems existential for our field and certainly the U.S.” Desai added, “It’s a tantrum being thrown to break things, with no plan for how to fix things.”
Over decades, NCAR researchers have produced discoveries that underpin modern weather forecasting. In the 1970s, scientists Roland Madden and Paul Julian identified a repeating atmospheric pattern now known as the Madden Julian oscillation, a finding that allows forecasters to anticipate global weather patterns weeks to months in advance. NCAR scientists later developed GPS dropsondes, instruments deployed from aircraft into storms that collect data critical to predicting hurricane strength and paths.
The center’s work has also had direct implications for aviation safety. Research into downdrafts in the lower atmosphere during the 1970s and 1980s led to the development of wind shear detection systems now used at airports across the United States. Those systems are credited with helping address the cause of hundreds of aviation accidents during that era and remain in use today.
“I can write a proposal to the National Science Foundation saying I need a state of the art modeling system, and I need an aircraft,” said Kenneth Davis, a professor of atmospheric and climate science at Penn State. Without NCAR’s infrastructure, he said, “there’s no way in hell that happens.” Davis added, “I don’t see what you gain. The purpose is to smash. All it does is take away our ability to do important research work. U.S. universities get damaged by this.”
Other scientists emphasized that NCAR’s role extends well beyond climate modeling. Liz Maroon, a professor at the University of Wisconsin Madison, said the center’s research supports wildfire prediction, flood forecasting, irrigation planning, and early warning systems for extreme weather events.
“The idea of losing this crowning jewel in the atmospheric science community, it would be devastating,” Maroon said. “Having access to this kind of science is saving life and property. And its technology goes into improving national security and the economy.” She added, “NCAR is at the heart of atmospheric and earth systems science in the U.S. It allows the scientific community to do bigger things together that no one scientist or university could really do.”
The administration has defended the move by framing NCAR’s work as ideological. Officials have cited research projects related to climate resilience and Indigenous knowledge as examples of what they consider political overreach. Yet experts across ideological lines have pushed back against that characterization.
“If you asked me where you’d find the most politicized elements of climate research, NCAR would be way down that list,” said Roger Pielke Jr., a political scientist at the American Enterprise Institute who has frequently criticized climate researchers elsewhere. “A lot of what NCAR does is atmospheric science beyond climate change, like improving short term weather forecasts.” He added, “Destroying it makes no sense.”
The proposal also carries economic consequences for Colorado. NCAR employs more than 800 people and anchors a network of research institutions and technology firms clustered around Boulder. Mayor Aaron Brockett warned that dismantling the center would reverberate through the local economy. “The ripple effects would be significant,” he said. “You’d have those iconic buildings empty. It would have a very strong negative impact on the Boulder community.”
Colorado Governor Jared Polis said the federal government had not yet formally notified the state of its plans, but he warned that the consequences would be far reaching. “If true, public safety is at risk and science is being attacked,” Polis said. “Climate change is real, but the work of NCAR goes far beyond climate science.” He added, “NCAR delivers data around severe weather events like fires and floods that help our country save lives and property, and prevent devastation for families. If these cuts move forward, we will lose our competitive advantage against foreign powers and adversaries in the pursuit of scientific discovery.”
Scientists nationwide have begun mobilizing in response, while universities are activating their federal relations offices to explain the stakes to lawmakers and the public. Raymond Ban, a former executive vice president of the Weather Channel and a former trustee of UCAR, described NCAR as “one of the most valuable R&D enterprises that we have in the earth, water, and atmospheric science community.” He said, “We need to hope that the value of NCAR and everything it produces will be realized, and there’ll be voices in the decision room that will understand that value.”
At an annual gathering of Earth science researchers in New Orleans, Antonio Busalacchi, president of the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, framed the proposal in stark terms. “What we are seeing is the administration canceling the freedom of scientific thought and inquiry.”
COMMENTS