UCAR, for its part, has issued a statement indicating that the USA Today article was the first it has heard of the matter.

In many cases where the administration has attempted to take drastic actions like this, courts have ruled that they run afoul of a legal prohibition against “arbitrary and capricious” federal actions. That said, courtroom losses haven’t inhibited the administration’s willingness to try, and the time spent waiting for legal certainty can often accomplish many of its aims, such as disrupting research on politically disfavored subjects and forcing scientists to look elsewhere for career stability.

Scientists, meanwhile, are reacting with dismay. “Dismantling NCAR is like taking a sledgehammer to the keystone holding up our scientific understanding of the planet,” said Texas Tech climate researcher Katharine Hayhoe. “Everyone who works in climate and weather has passed through its doors and benefited from its incredible resources.”

Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, called NCAR a “unique and valuable asset” and emphasized the wide range of research conducted there.

Obviously, shutting down one source of information about climate change won’t alter what’s happening—greenhouse gases will continue to behave as physics dictates, raising global temperatures. But the Trump administration seemingly views everything through the lens of ideology. It has concluded that scientists are its ideological opponents and thus that its own ideologically driven conclusions are equal to the facts produced by science. Because of that perspective, it has been willing to harm scientists, even if the cost will eventually be felt by the public that Trump ostensibly represents.

Story was updated on Dec. 17 to reflect a recently issued statement by the NSF.