One of the nation’s largest environmental groups is challenging the Trump administration’s closure of a leading climate institute, filing a lawsuit Thursday in federal court saying the closure is unlawful.
The administration had announced in December that it would dismantle the Colorado-based National Center for Atmospheric Research, or NCAR, which conducts advanced climate and weather modeling. The closure is part of a broader assault on climate science by the White House. But the lawsuit filed by the Environmental Defense Fund also says it was an illegal act of political retribution against Colorado.
The lawsuit, filed in federal district court in Colorado, says the closure will deprive scientists at the environmental organization and across the globe of critical research that underpins their work trying to protect people from the harms of climate change.
“When we check the weather or track the path of a hurricane, we’re leaning on science generated by the National Center for Atmospheric Research,” said Erin Murphy, lead counsel for clean air and energy markets at the Environmental Defense Fund, in a statement. “The federal government’s investment in climate science plays a critical role in our ability to understand and prepare for more frequent and intense extreme weather events caused by climate pollution. The Trump administration is attempting to eliminate NCAR’s vital climate science research and close its Mesa Laboratory at a time when Americans everywhere are suffering from the impacts of climate change, including more intense heat and fires, more dangerous floods and storms, and skyrocketing insurance costs.”
The complaint says the National Science Foundation, which sponsors NCAR, and the White House’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB), which directed the center’s closure, violated the Administrative Procedure Act by failing to ground their decision in facts or to provide a satisfactory explanation for the action.
It joins another lawsuit challenging NCAR’s closure filed by the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, which operates the center, and a broader case filed by the state of Colorado.
NCAR houses some of the nation’s most advanced climate and weather modeling. Its supercomputers developed climate models that have informed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and U.S. government climate reports. Its scientists have helped improve forecasting of tropical storms and other extreme weather. Scientists describe its pairing of climate and weather science in one institution as unparalleled in the country.
The topics NCAR studies—the causes and impacts of climate change—“are among the most important scientific issues that federal policymakers have ever confronted,” the new lawsuit says.
The lawsuit says the plan to dismantle NCAR began in fall 2025 within the White House. In December, OMB director Russell Vought announced the administration would break apart NCAR, which he called “one of the largest sources of climate alarmism in the country.”
Around that time, President Donald Trump was ramping up a campaign to try to free a former county clerk in Colorado, who had been convicted in state court of election-related crimes tied to the 2020 election, which Trump lost.
On Dec. 15, a Trump aide sent an email scheduling a call to “prioritize Colorado for the purposes of ensuring grants and federal support are in line with administration priorities,” according to a document released in one of the other lawsuits challenging NCAR’s closure and reported on by The Denver Post.
Vought’s announcement to close NCAR came the next day.
This week’s lawsuit says the closure is “the antithesis of the reasoned decision-making that the Administrative Procedure Act requires.” Instead, it says, the decision “represents a politically-motivated, predetermined outcome driven by ideological animus rather than reason.”
Michael Oppenheimer, the director of the Center for Policy Research on Energy and the Environment at Princeton University, said NCAR’s closure would be a huge loss to climate science. Beyond its critical contributions to global climate modeling, Oppenheimer said one of NCAR’s most important products is a community climate model that makes it easier for scientists anywhere to use the models themselves. The center has also produced critical research on how climate change is harming people.
The Trump administration does not want to know about climate change, Oppenheimer said, so “it’s blinding itself by destroying key institutions like NCAR.”
A White House spokesperson referred questions to the National Science Foundation, which declined to comment, and OMB, which did not immediately reply to questions.
The Environmental Defense Fund lawsuit also accuses the administration of violating the National Historic Preservation Act by planning to close NCAR’s Mesa Lab, which the complaint says represents “a significant historic site of scientific discovery and modernist architecture,” without proper procedure.
To date, NCAR continues to operate despite the announcement that it would be broken apart. In June, a judge issued an injunction as part of the University Corporation lawsuit temporarily blocking the transfer of NCAR’s supercomputer to a different site.
About This Story
Perhaps you noticed: This story, like all the news we publish, is free to read. That’s because Inside Climate News is a 501c3 nonprofit organization. We do not charge a subscription fee, lock our news behind a paywall, or clutter our website with ads. We make our news on climate and the environment freely available to you and anyone who wants it.
That’s not all. We also share our news for free with scores of other media organizations around the country. Many of them can’t afford to do environmental journalism of their own. We’ve built bureaus from coast to coast to report local stories, collaborate with local newsrooms and co-publish articles so that this vital work is shared as widely as possible.
Two of us launched ICN in 2007. Six years later we earned a Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting, and now we run the oldest and largest dedicated climate newsroom in the nation. We tell the story in all its complexity. We hold polluters accountable. We expose environmental injustice. We debunk misinformation. We scrutinize solutions and inspire action.
Donations from readers like you fund every aspect of what we do. If you don’t already, will you support our ongoing work, our reporting on the biggest crisis facing our planet, and help us reach even more readers in more places?
Please take a moment to make a tax-deductible donation. Every one of them makes a difference.
Thank you,
Facts Only
* An environmental group filed a lawsuit in federal court alleging the closure of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) was unlawful.
* The administration announced plans to dismantle NCAR, which conducts advanced climate and weather modeling.
* The lawsuit claims the closure deprives scientists globally of research underpinning climate change protection efforts.
* Erin Murphy, lead counsel for the Environmental Defense Fund, stated that federal investment in climate science is critical for understanding extreme weather events.
* The complaint alleges the National Science Foundation and the Office of Management and Budget violated the Administrative Procedure Act by failing to ground their decision in facts or provide a satisfactory explanation.
* NCAR houses advanced climate and weather modeling capabilities.
* The lawsuit claims the closure is the antithesis of reasoned decision-making required by the Administrative Procedure Act.
* The administration announced plans to dismantle NCAR in fall 2025, with an announcement regarding its breakup made by OMB director Russell Vought in December.
* The lawsuit also accuses the administration of violating the National Historic Preservation Act by planning to close NCAR’s Mesa Laboratory.
Executive Summary
An environmental group is suing the Trump administration alleging that the closure of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Colorado was unlawful, claiming it constituted an illegal act of political retribution against the state. The lawsuit argues that closing NCAR will deprive scientists globally of critical research necessary to understand and prepare for climate change impacts. Counsel for the Environmental Defense Fund asserted that federal investment in climate science is crucial for understanding extreme weather events, and the administration's actions exacerbate current climate suffering.
The complaint further alleges that the National Science Foundation and the White House's Office of Management and Budget violated the Administrative Procedure Act by failing to base their decision on facts or provide a satisfactory explanation. The lawsuit joins other legal challenges concerning NCAR’s closure brought by the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research and the state of Colorado.
NCAR is noted for housing advanced climate and weather modeling capabilities, having produced models that inform government reports and forecasting efforts regarding extreme weather. Critics argue that dismantling this research eliminates vital knowledge about the causes and impacts of climate change, and that the decision was driven by political animus rather than reasoned decision-making required by law.
Full Take
The narrative centers on a conflict between scientific institutional function and political prioritization, framed as an attack on established knowledge rather than a policy dispute. The structure suggests that the mechanism of government action (closure) is being interrogated not for its stated goals, but for its legitimacy in light of broader political context. The juxtaposition of the closure—an institutional act involving complex scientific infrastructure—with concurrent political maneuvers concerning Colorado and election-related issues introduces an element of perceived political motivation into a scientific decision. This layering suggests that the pursuit of climate science is being framed as ideological opposition rather than an objective pursuit of knowledge, which shifts the debate from policy outcomes to fundamental legitimacy. The core tension lies in whether decisions affecting foundational scientific infrastructure can be separated from political animus, especially when those decisions influence public safety regarding extreme weather events. The involvement of multiple lawsuits points toward a systemic challenge where institutional integrity is being defended through legal means against administrative action.
Patterns detected: ARC-0043 Motte-and-Bailey, ARC-0024 Ambiguity