Hundreds protest Trump’s move to dismantle NCAR, a premier climate and weather hub

BOULDER, Colo. — Hundreds of residents, scientists, and elected officials gathered in Boulder over the weekend to protest the Trump administration’s plan to dismantle the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), a federally supported institution long regarded as a cornerstone of American climate and weather science.

The demonstration took place near NCAR’s facilities and nearby federal research buildings, drawing a cross-section of the local community alongside researchers from across the country. Protesters carried signs urging the administration to reconsider, warning that dismantling the center would weaken the nation’s ability to understand and forecast severe weather, study long-term climate patterns, and support public safety.

NCAR was established in 1960 and has spent more than six decades serving as a central hub for atmospheric and Earth-system research. Operated by the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research under funding from the National Science Foundation, the center brings together scientists from universities, federal agencies, and international partners. Its work has contributed to advances in hurricane forecasting, wildfire modeling, aviation safety, and seasonal weather prediction.

The Trump administration’s decision, announced earlier this month, calls for breaking up NCAR and redistributing certain functions to other agencies or institutions. The Office of Management and Budget described the move as part of a broader effort to review federal research priorities and reduce what officials characterized as duplicative or ideologically driven climate work. Administration officials have said that essential weather functions would continue, though many details about how that transition would occur remain unclear.

Critics argue that the explanation fails to account for NCAR’s unique role. Unlike single-agency laboratories, NCAR operates as a collaborative research center, pooling expertise and computational resources that individual agencies often cannot maintain on their own. Scientists at the protest said that dismantling that structure risks fragmenting research efforts and slowing scientific progress at a time when accurate weather forecasting and climate modeling are increasingly important.

Several Colorado lawmakers attended the rally, emphasizing the center’s national importance as well as its local economic impact. They noted that NCAR supports thousands of jobs directly and indirectly and helps anchor Boulder’s reputation as a global center for atmospheric science. Some lawmakers also expressed concern that dismantling NCAR could drive talent overseas or into the private sector, eroding long-standing public research capacity.

Participants were careful to frame their objections in institutional rather than partisan terms. Many speakers stressed that NCAR’s work is not about advocating specific policies, but about producing data and models used by emergency managers, farmers, utilities, and transportation planners. Weather forecasts informed by NCAR research, they said, help communities prepare for floods, heat waves, blizzards, and high-wind events — risks that affect people regardless of political views.

The protest followed earlier demonstrations in Boulder tied to federal workforce reductions and proposed cuts to related agencies, including the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Together, these moves have raised broader questions about the future of federally supported environmental and atmospheric research under the current administration. Supporters of the changes argue that private industry and universities can shoulder more responsibility, while critics counter that no private substitute exists for NCAR’s scale and mission.

University Corporation for Atmospheric Research officials have pushed back strongly against the dismantling plan. They have emphasized that NCAR’s research agenda is driven by peer review and scientific priorities, not political advocacy. They also warned that breaking up the center would disrupt long-term research projects that depend on continuity, shared data, and specialized supercomputing infrastructure.

Some administration supporters say the protest overstates the impact of the decision. They argue that reorganizing federal research does not necessarily mean abandoning climate or weather science, and that a leaner structure could improve accountability. Still, even some observers sympathetic to fiscal restraint have questioned whether dismantling a well-established institution is the most effective way to pursue reform.

For many in attendance, the issue was less about budgets and more about stewardship. Speakers repeatedly returned to the idea that institutions like NCAR represent decades of accumulated expertise that cannot easily be rebuilt once dispersed. In a field where long-term data sets are essential, they warned, disruption carries lasting consequences.

As of now, the administration has not indicated any immediate pause in its plans, though congressional and legal challenges appear likely. Lawmakers from Colorado and other states with strong research ties to NCAR have signaled they will continue pressing for clarity and reconsideration as budget negotiations move forward.

The protest ended without incident, but its message was clear. Those gathered sought to remind federal leaders that while government programs can and should be reviewed, changes to core scientific institutions warrant careful deliberation. In their view, the question is not whether reform is possible, but whether dismantling a premier research hub is the responsible path forward.