Senate Democrats killed a critical government funding package late Thursday night, sending frustrated lawmakers home just weeks before the January 30 deadline to avoid another government shutdown. The obstruction came not from principled opposition to excessive spending or constitutional concerns, but from two Colorado senators determined to protect a climate alarmism research center that President Trump has targeted for elimination.
The blocked package would have funded the departments of Defense, Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, Commerce, Justice, Interior, Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development—representing a massive portion of Congress's spending responsibilities and significantly reducing the risk of another costly shutdown.
After weeks of negotiations, Republicans had cleared all holds on their side. The deal was ready. But Senators John Hickenlooper and Michael Bennet, both Colorado Democrats, refused to allow the vote to proceed unless they received guarantees protecting the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder from Trump administration scrutiny.
Protecting Climate Alarmism Over Funding the Military
Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought called the National Center for Atmospheric Research "one of the largest sources of climate alarmism in the country" and announced a comprehensive review was underway. Vought assured that any vital activities such as weather research would be moved to another entity or location—but the climate propaganda would end.
This reasonable decision to stop taxpayer funding of climate alarmism triggered Democratic obstruction that blocked funding for national defense, law enforcement, education, and every other agency included in the package.
Think about that priority ordering: Democrats consider protecting a climate research facility more important than funding the Department of Defense, ensuring law enforcement agencies can operate, or avoiding another disruptive government shutdown that hurts federal employees and wastes taxpayer money.
Senator Hickenlooper made clear his position: he and Bennet would lift their hold only if Republicans guaranteed an amendment vote with a predetermined outcome protecting the Boulder facility's budget. This demand violated Senate norms—Republicans have repeatedly told Democrats throughout the year that they cannot guarantee specific outcomes on amendment votes.
"We need to find some Republican supporters. All we're trying to do is just protect the budget that was already there," Hickenlooper claimed. "Whatever disagreement there is between the state, the governor of Colorado, and the President of the United States, that shouldn't affect a scientific institution. Science should be free of that kind of politics."
This argument is fundamentally dishonest. First, science is never "free of politics" when it's funded by taxpayers and used to justify massive government interventions in the economy. Second, climate research at facilities like the Boulder center has been thoroughly politicized for decades, producing alarming predictions that consistently fail to materialize while justifying ever-larger government power grabs.
The Climate Research Racket
The National Center for Atmospheric Research represents everything wrong with government-funded science: researchers whose careers depend on continued federal funding produce studies supporting policies that require...continued federal funding. The incentive structure ensures politically useful conclusions rather than objective science.
Climate research has become a multi-billion-dollar industry where grant money flows to scientists who produce alarming predictions about catastrophic warming, rising sea levels, extreme weather, and ecological collapse. Researchers who question the prevailing orthodoxy—or who produce data suggesting climate change is less severe or slower than predicted—find themselves ostracized, defunded, and excluded from prestigious publications.
This isn't science. It's activism disguised as research, funded by taxpayers and used to justify policies that increase government control over energy, transportation, manufacturing, agriculture, and virtually every aspect of American life.
President Trump and Director Vought are absolutely right to subject these operations to scrutiny. If weather research provides genuine value, it can continue at another facility. But using taxpayer dollars to produce climate alarmism that supports a political agenda should end.
Constitutional Principles: Limited Government and Enumerated Powers
The Constitution grants Congress specific, enumerated powers. Funding climate research facilities doesn't appear anywhere in Article I, Section 8. The Tenth Amendment reserves to states and the people all powers not delegated to the federal government.
Conservatives should ask: under what constitutional authority does Congress fund climate research? The answer typically invokes the General Welfare Clause—the same elastic interpretation progressives use to justify virtually unlimited federal power.
The Founders would be horrified to learn that the "general welfare" language they included to describe the purpose of enumerated powers has been twisted to justify federal funding for climate research centers, university grants, scientific studies, and countless other programs having nothing to do with Congress's actual constitutional responsibilities.
A strict constructionist reading of the Constitution suggests most federal scientific research falls outside Congress's legitimate authority. If climate research provides value, states or private entities should fund it. Federal involvement should be limited to activities directly tied to enumerated powers like national defense or interstate commerce.
Beyond the constitutional question lies a practical one: government-funded science produces government-serving conclusions. When researchers' careers depend on federal grants, and grant money flows toward politically useful findings, the entire enterprise becomes corrupted.
The Broader Pattern: Democrats Prioritize Politics Over Governance
The blocked funding package represents a broader pattern of Democratic obstruction prioritizing political goals over basic governance. Rather than allowing a vote on legislation funding national defense and law enforcement, Colorado Democrats demanded protection for a climate research facility.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer defended the obstruction with characteristic dishonesty: "What the president did to Colorado is disgusting, and Republicans ought to get him to change."
This framing inverts reality. President Trump didn't "do something to Colorado." His administration announced plans to review federal climate research spending and eliminate programs promoting climate alarmism—exactly what voters elected him to do. Coloradans who oppose this policy have recourse through their state government, which can fund climate research if citizens demand it.
But Schumer and Democrats don't want states making these decisions. They want federal power concentrated in Washington, where they can control spending priorities regardless of what citizens in different states prefer. This centralization of power fundamentally contradicts the constitutional design of federalism.
The January Deadline Looms
Senate Appropriations Committee Chair Susan Collins noted that Republicans had cleared all holds on their side after weeks of negotiations. Fiscal hawks who initially opposed the package over earmark concerns had been satisfied through amendment votes and other concessions. The only remaining obstacle was Democratic insistence on protecting the Boulder climate facility.
Senator Katie Britt, who chairs the Senate Homeland Security Appropriations subcommittee, expressed frustration: "If we want the Senate to matter, we should figure it out."
But Democrats wouldn't budge. The package that could have prevented a January shutdown remains stalled because two senators consider climate research more important than national defense, federal law enforcement, and all the other functions of government that would be affected by another shutdown.
Senate Majority Leader John Thune remained diplomatic despite the Democratic obstruction: "The Democrats are indicating that they want to do them, they just didn't want to do them today. So hopefully, when we get back, we'll test that proposition."
This generous interpretation gives Democrats too much credit. They don't want to pass a funding bill that doesn't protect their climate research priorities. If Republicans won't cave on Boulder, Democrats are willing to risk another shutdown.
The Real Stakes: Government Overreach vs. Constitutional Limits
The fight over the Boulder research facility symbolizes a larger battle over the proper size and scope of federal government. Should Washington fund climate research facilities producing politically useful alarmism? Should taxpayers subsidize scientific studies that consistently justify bigger government and more regulation? Should federal grants support researchers whose careers depend on producing alarming predictions?
Conservatives answer "no" to all these questions. Climate research, if valuable, should be funded by states, universities, private foundations, or companies with economic interests in accurate predictions. Federal involvement should be minimal and strictly tied to legitimate constitutional purposes like national defense.
Democrats answer "yes"—federal funding for climate research represents exactly the kind of government activism they believe is necessary and proper. They view Trump's plan to eliminate climate alarmism programs as anti-science attacks on objective research.
This disagreement reflects fundamentally different visions of constitutional government. Democrats believe federal power should extend to virtually any activity Congress deems beneficial to society. Conservatives believe federal power should be limited to enumerated functions, with most decisions left to states and individuals.
What Happens Next
The Senate adjourned for the year without advancing the funding package. When lawmakers return in January, they'll face both the January 30 funding deadline and continued disputes over Obamacare subsidies set to expire December 31.
Republican leadership hopes Democrats will drop their obstruction and allow the funding package to advance. But if Democrats remain committed to protecting the Boulder facility, the standoff could continue into late January, potentially triggering another shutdown.
Neither party wants a shutdown for political reasons—voters tend to blame both sides regardless of who actually caused it. But Democrats appear willing to risk shutdown to protect climate research funding, while Republicans are equally unwilling to guarantee budget protection for what they view as climate alarmism.
The constitutional solution is simple: pass appropriations bills that fund legitimate federal functions like national defense and law enforcement, and eliminate funding for programs like climate research that fall outside Congress's enumerated powers. If Democrats want climate research, they can advocate for it at the state level where such decisions properly belong.
Accountability at the Ballot Box
Colorado voters should pay close attention to Hickenlooper and Bennet's actions. These senators blocked funding for national defense, federal law enforcement, and numerous other government functions because they prioritized protecting a climate research facility over basic governance.
In 2026, voters can render their verdict. Do Coloradans support their senators' decision to obstruct government funding over climate research? Or do they prefer leaders who prioritize defense, law enforcement, and avoiding costly shutdowns?
More broadly, American voters face a choice about the proper role of federal government. Should Washington fund climate research facilities producing politically useful alarmism? Should taxpayers subsidize science that consistently justifies bigger government? Should federal grants support researchers whose careers depend on alarming predictions?
The Constitution provides clear answers to these questions—answers that limit federal power and preserve state and individual liberty. President Trump's plan to eliminate climate alarmism programs represents a return to constitutional governance. Democratic obstruction represents continued expansion of unconstitutional federal power.
The battle over the Boulder facility is really a battle over the Constitution itself. Will America be governed according to limited, enumerated federal powers? Or will elastic interpretations of "general welfare" continue justifying unlimited federal activism?
Hickenlooper and Bennet have chosen their side: expanded federal power, climate alarmism, and obstruction over governance. Constitutional conservatives should respond accordingly—both by supporting Trump's reforms and by working to defeat senators who prioritize progressive politics over constitutional principles.
Another government shutdown may be coming. If it arrives, Americans will know exactly who to blame: Colorado Democrats who considered protecting climate alarmism more important than funding national defense.
