The Trump administration is moving to dismantle one of the country’s most important climate and weather research hubs, a decision that scientists say could ripple through everything from wildfire forecasts to airline routes. The plan targets the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, a federally funded lab that has shaped modern understanding of the atmosphere for more than half a century.
By breaking up the lab’s core programs and scattering its staff, the White House is not just trimming a budget line, it is attempting to unmake a central pillar of U.S. climate science at the very moment extreme weather is becoming more dangerous and more expensive.
The Trump plan to carve up NCAR
The Trump administration has signaled that it intends to disassemble the National Center for Atmospheric Research, shifting its work into smaller units and relocating key functions away from Boulder. In public messaging, officials have framed the move as a “comprehensive review” of federal research spending, but the practical effect is a breakup of the country’s largest federal climate research center, with core programs slated to be split among multiple agencies and private contractors. According to the administration’s own description, the restructuring would pull apart the integrated modeling, data, and computing capabilities that have made NCAR a one stop shop for atmospheric science.
Office of Management and Budget officials have described the plan as a way to streamline operations and reduce what they call duplication across agencies, with OMB Director Russell Vought cited as a key architect of the proposal to divide the lab’s work into separate pieces overseen by different federal offices and outside partners. Reporting on the administration’s blueprint makes clear that the goal is to “break up” the existing center, not simply adjust its funding, with Trump’s OMB Director Russell Vought explicitly tying the move to a broader effort to reshape federal climate research.
A cornerstone of climate science in Boulder
The National Center for Atmospheric Research is not a generic government office, it is a purpose built institution that has anchored climate and weather research in Boulder, Colorado, for decades. Founded in 1960, the center was created to give U.S. scientists shared tools and computing power to study the atmosphere at scales individual universities could not match, and it has since become a global reference point for climate models, severe storm simulations, and long term climate projections. Its campus, perched on a mesa on the south side of Boulder, is housed in a distinctive modernist complex designed by architect I. M. Pei, a physical reminder that the federal government once treated atmospheric science as a national priority worthy of landmark architecture.
Over the years, NCAR’s work in Boulder has underpinned research on everything from wildfire smoke to hurricane intensity, and its location has helped attract top scientists who rely on the center’s supercomputers and shared data sets. Local reporting has emphasized that the lab’s founding in 1960 and its I. M. Pei designed building are not just historical trivia but symbols of a long standing federal commitment to climate and weather research in Colorado, a commitment now threatened by the Trump administration’s push to shutter the national climate lab in the state, as detailed in coverage of the Founded 1960 Pei campus on Boulder’s mesa.
How NCAR became the “global mothership”
NCAR’s influence rests on more than its location or architecture, it has functioned as what scientists describe as the “global mothership” of climate science. For more than half a century, the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, has provided shared models, observational data, and computing platforms that researchers around the world use to simulate the climate system and project future warming. Its climate models have fed into international assessments and national risk analyses, and its atmospheric datasets have become benchmarks for studies of everything from jet stream shifts to monsoon behavior.
That central role is why researchers warn that dismantling the institution would reverberate far beyond Colorado. The center’s long history as a hub for international collaboration, and its reputation as a place where new generations of scientists learn to use cutting edge models, have led some to call it the “global mothership” of climate science, a phrase that underscores how deeply other institutions depend on its tools and expertise. Reporting on Trump’s push to take down this “global mothership” notes that the National Center for Atmospheric Research, or NCAR, in Boulder has been a milestone for the field of climate science, with National Center for Atmospheric Research NCAR Boulder Colorado described as central to how the world understands climate risks.
The federal structure behind the lab
Although NCAR is often described as a federal lab, its governance structure is more complex, and that structure is now at the heart of the breakup debate. The National Science Foundation established the center in 1960 as a federally funded research and development center, and it has relied on NSF support ever since to maintain its supercomputers, observational networks, and modeling teams. Rather than being run directly by a federal agency, the lab is managed by a nonprofit consortium that brings together universities with strong programs in atmospheric and related sciences.
That nonprofit, the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, or UCAR, is a consortium of more than 120 colleges and universities that collectively oversee NCAR’s operations and help set its scientific priorities. On Wednesday, UCAR publicly pushed back on the Trump administration’s plan, warning that breaking up the lab would undermine a model of shared governance that has allowed universities and the federal government to collaborate on large scale atmospheric research for decades. Coverage of the administration’s move to “break up” this top climate research center has highlighted how the National Science Foundation created the lab and how the The National Science Foundation relies on UCAR’s consortium structure to manage the federally funded research center.
UCAR, Busalacchi, and the scientific backlash
Inside that consortium, leaders have been unusually blunt about what they see as the stakes. Antonio Busalacchi, president of the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, has warned that the Trump administration’s plan would fracture a research ecosystem that took generations to build. In a statement posted on the NCAR website, he argued that dividing the lab’s programs among multiple agencies and contractors would erode the integrated modeling and observational capabilities that make NCAR unique, and he framed the proposal as a direct threat to the nation’s ability to anticipate and respond to extreme weather.
Busalacchi’s comments reflect a broader scientific backlash from researchers who depend on NCAR’s shared infrastructure for their own work. UCAR has stressed that the lab’s value lies in its ability to bring together university scientists, federal agencies, and international partners under one roof, and that this collaborative model would be difficult to replicate if the center were broken apart. Reporting on the Trump administration’s plans has underscored Busalacchi’s role as a leading critic, noting that NCAR Antonio Busalacchi University Corporation has publicly challenged the administration’s rationale and warned of long term damage to U.S. atmospheric research.
What the White House says it wants
From the White House perspective, the NCAR breakup is part of a broader effort to reshape federal climate and weather research, not an isolated decision. Officials have described the Boulder lab as a “premier research station” that, in their view, has grown too large and too independent, and they argue that its functions can be redistributed without sacrificing scientific quality. The Trump team has framed the move as a way to reduce what it calls mission creep in federal science, suggesting that core forecasting and modeling work should be more tightly aligned with agency specific mandates rather than housed in a semi autonomous national center.
In public messaging, the administration has emphasized cost savings and efficiency, but it has not yet provided detailed estimates of how much money would be saved or how the transition would be managed without disrupting ongoing research. The White House has also linked the NCAR plan to earlier efforts to scrutinize climate related spending at agencies like NOAA, where Trump officials previously floated cuts to climate change research programs and questioned the scope of federal environmental monitoring. Coverage of the current proposal notes that Trump The White House has cast the Boulder lab as a symbol of what it sees as bloated climate bureaucracy, even as scientists counter that the center’s work is central to public safety.
Life and property on the line
For communities that rely on accurate forecasts, the debate over NCAR’s structure is not abstract. The center delivers data and modeling around severe weather events like fires and floods that help emergency managers, utilities, and local governments make decisions that can save lives and property. Its simulations inform wildfire spread predictions used by firefighters, flood risk assessments that shape evacuation plans, and storm surge estimates that guide coastal infrastructure design. Scientists warn that fragmenting these capabilities across multiple agencies and contractors could slow the flow of information and make it harder to maintain consistent, high quality forecasts.
Climate experts have been explicit about the stakes. One prominent scientist, Katharine Hayhoe, has compared the Trump administration’s plan to taking a sledgehammer to the keystone holding up the nation’s scientific arch, arguing that dismantling NCAR would weaken the entire structure of U.S. climate and weather research. Local reporting on the administration’s move to shutter the national climate lab in Colorado has echoed those concerns, highlighting how the lab’s severe weather work underpins practical decisions across the country and quoting Hayhoe’s warning that Hayhoe Dismantling NCAR would have cascading effects on public safety and resilience.
Part of a broader pattern on climate research
The NCAR breakup proposal fits into a longer pattern of Trump administration skepticism toward federal climate science. Earlier in his presidency, Trump officials targeted climate change research at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, proposing funding cuts and organizational changes that would have reduced the agency’s ability to study long term climate trends. Those efforts signaled a willingness to treat climate research as discretionary rather than essential, and they set the stage for more sweeping moves against institutions like NCAR that sit at the center of the climate science ecosystem.
Critics argue that this pattern reflects an ideological hostility to climate science rather than a neutral push for efficiency, pointing to repeated attempts to downplay or sideline research that links human activity to global warming. The proposed breakup of NCAR, they say, is the most dramatic expression yet of that approach, because it targets an institution that not only studies climate change but also supports day to day weather forecasting and hazard planning. Reporting on earlier efforts to cut climate programs at NOAA has documented how NOAA climate change research came under pressure from Trump officials, a backdrop that helps explain why scientists now see the NCAR plan as part of a sustained campaign rather than a one off budget decision.
Scientists, universities, and local leaders push back
The response from the scientific community and local leaders in Colorado has been swift and unusually unified. Researchers who rarely speak out on policy have warned that breaking up NCAR would erode the United States’ leadership in atmospheric science and hand an advantage to other countries investing heavily in climate research. University partners within UCAR have raised alarms about the impact on graduate training and collaborative projects, noting that NCAR’s shared facilities and data sets are woven into the fabric of atmospheric science programs across the country.
Local officials in Boulder and across Colorado have also voiced concern about the economic and scientific fallout of shuttering or hollowing out the lab. They point to the thousands of jobs, direct and indirect, that depend on the center’s presence, as well as the region’s identity as a hub for environmental research and innovation. Detailed coverage of the administration’s move to shutter the national climate lab in Colorado has highlighted how the plan would affect the I. M. Pei designed campus on the south side of Boulder and the broader community that has grown up around it, with national climate lab in Colorado described as both a scientific and economic anchor for the region.
What happens if the breakup goes ahead
If the Trump administration succeeds in breaking up NCAR, the immediate effects would likely include staff departures, project delays, and uncertainty about the future of key modeling and data programs. Scientists warn that complex climate and weather models cannot simply be lifted out of one institutional context and dropped into another without disruption, because they depend on teams of experts, specialized computing infrastructure, and long standing collaborations. Fragmenting those elements across multiple agencies and contractors could lead to duplicated efforts in some areas and dangerous gaps in others, particularly in high impact forecasting for wildfires, floods, and severe storms.
Over the longer term, the United States could find itself relying more on foreign climate models and data sets if domestic capabilities erode, a reversal of the current situation in which NCAR’s tools are widely used around the world. Universities might struggle to maintain cutting edge atmospheric science programs without access to a central national lab, and younger researchers could look abroad for opportunities in countries that are expanding, rather than dismantling, their climate research infrastructure. Reporting that describes Trump’s team as “breaking up” a top climate research center has underscored how the National Science Foundation’s decision to establish NCAR in 1960 created a durable platform for U.S. leadership, and how the current plan to breaking up top climate research center risks unraveling that legacy.
Why the fight over NCAR matters beyond Boulder
For all the focus on Boulder and the internal politics of federal science, the NCAR fight is ultimately about how the United States chooses to confront a warming world. The lab’s models inform decisions about where to build levees, how to design power grids that can withstand heat waves, and which communities face the greatest wildfire risk. Weakening that capacity at a time of rising climate impacts would leave policymakers, businesses, and ordinary citizens with less reliable information just as they need it most.
As I weigh the administration’s stated goals against the scientific community’s warnings, the through line is clear: this is not a technocratic reorganization but a political choice about whether to invest in or dismantle shared climate knowledge. The University Corporation for Atmospheric Research has framed NCAR as a “global mothership” for good reason, and its leaders argue that once that mothership is broken apart, rebuilding it would take decades. Detailed reporting on Trump’s team planning to break up this “global mothership” notes that on Wednesday the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, or UCAR, publicly challenged the administration’s plan, with On Wednesday University Corporation for Atmospheric Research UCAR warning that the consequences would be felt in every country that relies on NCAR’s science, not just in the foothills of the Rockies.
Supporting sources: Trump administration moves to dismantle prominent US …, Trump administration to dismantle key climate research center ….
More from MorningOverview