SUNSET: 
8Deep cuts to NASA, the National Science Foundation, and other science-funding institutions are causing grave concerns in the community.
Last week saw the release of President Trump’s Fiscal Year 2026 budget blueprint. But it is being greeted by the space exploration community as more of a budgetary bombshell, one that proposes a 24.3% reduction to NASA’s top-line funding and slashing the space agency’s science budget by 47%.
The budget plan would also cut 56% from the National Science Foundation and 14% from the Department of Energy’s Office of Science.
Individuals and organizations are seeing this onslaught of large cuts as an affront to space science exploration — a reckless and destructive budget that undercuts American leadership in probing our solar system and the universe writ large.
Among NASA projects cross-haired by the budget is the government-backed Space Launch System (SLS) mega-booster, now to be retired after an Artemis 3 “rebooting” of humans on the Moon. The new proposal for NASA also retires the Orion crew capsule and does away with the Gateway lunar space station. Likewise canceled in the projected financial plan is NASA’s role in the Mars Sample Return mission, labeled in the White House budget as “grossly over budget and whose goals would be achieved by human missions to Mars.”
The budget suggests refocusing NASA funding to ensure “beating China back to the Moon and putting the first human on Mars.”
“Reaction from Congress and the aerospace community is a combination of shock and a reminder that this is just one step in a lengthy process, not a final result,” said Marcia Smith, founder and editor of the informative SpacePolicyOnline.com
A watchdog of Washington, D.C. space policy, Smith noted that rumors had been rampant that NASA would suffer significant cuts along with many other science-focused agencies. “But seeing the numbers is startling anyway. Even the human spaceflight program, which fares the best, would be in for significant changes if the proposal is adopted,” she explained.
Here’s the Skinny
White House
On May 2nd, the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) released President Trump’s “skinny” version of his budget request for Fiscal Year 2026; skinny means that the document contains brief descriptions of programs and recommended financial reductions or increases. Yet to come is the “Full Monty” of budget specificity.
The OMB oversees the performance of federal agencies and administers the federal budget. The intent of the number-crunching is to “to achieve significant budgetary savings for the American people” within the spending programs detailed, explains OMB Director Russell Vought. (Significant increases are called for in defense spending, however.)
Grave Concerns
KPNO / NOIRLab / NSF / AURA / R. Sparks (NSF’s NOIRLab)
Reacting to the OMB budget forecast is The Planetary Society an influential public space advocacy organization.
“Slashing NASA’s budget by this much, this quickly, without the input of a confirmed NASA Administrator or in response to a considered policy goal, won’t make the agency more efficient — it will cause chaos, waste the taxpayers’ investment, and undermine American leadership in space,” the group states.
Common in view is the American Astronomical Society (AAS), stating it has “grave concerns” about the deep cuts to science funding.
“These cuts would damage a broad range of research areas that will not be supported by the private sector,” says the AAS in a statement. “The negative consequences would be exacerbated because many research efforts can require years to decades to mature and reach fruition.” The AAS warns that without robust and ongoing federal funding, the U.S. will lose at least a generation of talent to other countries that are increasing their investments in facilities and workforce development.
“This will derail not only cutting-edge scientific advances, but also the training of the nation’s future STEM [science, technology, engineering, and mathematics] workforce,” the AAS statement continued. “These proposed cuts will result in the loss of American leadership in science.”
Battle Lines
The important thing to keep in mind is that it isn’t over till it's over.
Battle lines are being drawn and now Congress has to spin up their reaction to the proposed cuts. Every year, budget requests are just that — requests. Congress makes the final decision.
As an example, putting on her boxing gloves is lawmaker Judy Chu of California, whose district includes the Jet Propulsion Laboratory and Caltech. She said in a pre-budget release statement that the Mars Sample Return program is the nation’s highest planetary science priority. She was “horrified” by the reports that the Trump White House wants to defund the MSR mission entirely.
“I can’t be clear enough: this decision would devastate our region, our workforce, and our future scientific discoveries,” Chu stated. “Completing this mission and bringing back these samples — which are already being collected on Mars’ surface — is essential to maintaining American leadership on Mars and paving the way for eventual human exploration of the planet.”
The bottom line of all of this budgetary ping-pong is still to be determined. That is, as long as senators and congresspeople from the states that’ll be most hurt by the proposed budget impacts decree an emergency call-to-action on behalf of their constituents as well as America’s broader leadership in space.
Where’s Jared?
NASA
Still to officially enter the financial fray is President Trump’s nominee for running NASA, entrepreneur and two-time private space traveler, Jared Isaacman. He appeared before the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation on April 30th, getting the nod to advance to approval from the full chamber.
However, that full Senate confirmation might take days, weeks or even months.
Previously, in response to Senate committee questions, Isaacman called the projected Trump administration’s planned NASA cuts not “an optimal outcome.” Still, perhaps it’s too late for Isaacman to have any influence on the Trump budget request. He may have to support whatever that budget says.
Portfolio of Successes
Adding his voice of anxiety about the proposed budget is Robert Zubrin, a leading advocate for advancing American space undertakings and founder of the Mars Society.
“I’m very concerned about this,” Zubrin tells Sky & Telescope. “It’s a $6 billion cut to NASA overall, of which $3.5 billion is taken from the space science directorate which is by far the most effective part of NASA. It has been the jewel in NASA’s crown…and one of the jewels in America’s crown,” he said.
The NASA space science portfolio of successes, Zubrin said, “has been the people that did, for instance, Viking, Voyager, Spirit and Opportunity, Curiosity, and Perseverance, as well as Juno at Jupiter and New Horizons to Pluto, along with Hubble and the James Webb Space Telescope. This is now, practically, a shut-down budget.”
“So this is wrong,” Zubrin concludes, “and this is going to do tremendous damage.”
Comments
Andrew James
May 5, 2025 at 7:19 pm
As the rest of the world is aghast at the total irrationality of the Trump Administration, we continue to devalue anything the US is doing nor wishing to be associated with its agenda. As I've said before, especially in the scientific fields, science is done through collaboration -- yet the demonstrable behaviour Trump Administration aims intimidate or destroys collaborations to its own or international universities or scientific institutions.
It still amazes me that much of the success of NASA and the space sciences
iswas also been dependent on foreign contributions. The number of spacecraft that have technology from multiple countries is one of humanity's link to a better future. For example, when the space shuttle was in operation, the arm used to put satellites into orbit was of Canadian design. America also shares it's communications with its deep space network. There are so many other examples.These cuts will ultimately damage America's international relations with all the countries. Of course the biggest damage, is that America is now unreliable.
The general feeling I see is that no one in their right mind wants to go into partnership with a xenophobic country that treats the rest of the world with such contempt. People in my country are very angry with the United States, and have turned their backs on anything to do with economic or unifying ties. The sanctioned tariffs have done the biggest damage. My countrymen genuinely think this is not the way to treat a good reliable friend or ally - especially as we are one of the few countries that have a trade surplus with America. Also our tourism visiting America has dropped significantly, with the biggest fear is being interrogated or arrested by ICE. (Whilst this is not directly related to the gist of this article, it reflects the attitude when we see the consequences of devaluing science and the work that NASA and the other scientific institutions has contribute to humanity. It is important to say though.)
As for NASA and the science institutions' future, I actually think that this projected cuts works to great advantage for the rest of the world. It means it forces other countries to look for alternative means of research and advancement of the sciences.
If this goes ahead, the damage will not be immediate. In the long-term, the American people wake up one day and realise that their xenophobic-like isolationism was a huge mistake. If this is the sort of thing has happens in just a couple of months, heaven knows what America will look like fouryears from now.
In a nutshell... Trust is earned by deeds. Once lost, it is difficult to get that back.
Note: Thank heavens the ESA is smart enough to want other countries to invest in the sciences through collaboration with them. Let NASA die, because it forces the issue, and lets other countries benefit both economically and morally with their futures. Your choice.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Paul Vondra
May 6, 2025 at 12:29 pm
I couldn't have said it better. Thank you! I fear the same kind of 'brain drain' Russia experienced in the 1990s when the funding dried up.
Our country is in the hands of extremist ideologues, and science, which is based on open inquiry and reproducible data, observations and experiment is antithecal to rigid ideologies based on creed, dogma and unquestioning belief.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Ludovicus
May 13, 2025 at 11:27 pm
An excellent book to read (especially the second half!) is "A Demon-Haunted World..." by Dr. Carl Sagan. He warned of the trends already taking place to the early 1990s, before he passed away and lived to see the internet in full swing.
What is amazing is that later in the book, he addresses the seeming (almost contempt in a way) that countries at the time, esp. the US educational system, had been eroding slowly the push for STEM and sciences, while promoting sports and arts. Sad, really, because the advances we get through solid scientific research and collaboration is what will ensure our species future.
But, bear in mind that a lot of Trump supporters also come from the very conservative bible belt, and that if cuts in science are done, then their agendas florish!
Not knocking those who are religeous, just stating that science has found an alternate that is not within the paradigm. BTW, I am saddened that Trump has also created these rifts. Whether for "show" or "muscle flexing", he feels all importent, as it is about HIM! Sad that ego trumps (punny!) common sense and true, enlightened leadership! Oh, where are the Lincolns, J.A. MacDonalds, Kennedy's, Thatchers, and Lauriers when we need them most!
I wish all our true American friends on here the best of luck, as I believe these measures happening affect them most of all! Hang in there... only 3.5y to go! Buckle up!
BTW, one thing came to mind, what if high-tech startup companies are actually the target of all this, and it is a form of "shell game"? By creating a situation that new Techs cannot get through (but the GEs, Boeings, etc. CAN), they can buy out them at a song, and hoard the technologies developed when it no longer threatens them? There are also larger players in the space sector who truly benefit from NASA's shrinkage! (can you say... Mr. Musk?)
DH, Alberta Canada
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Enrico the Great
May 15, 2025 at 3:26 pm
Stipulation: The NASA cuts are too much and too deep---and go way beyond what might have been necessary to address issues of redundancy, waste, inefficiency and political posturing. Was hoping they would not go after the meat and confine themselves to the fat.
However, our favorite government agency, as I have said elsewhere operates in a political context----and is going through the same ordeal as every other Federal agency. The American people have DEMANDED a closer scrutiny of the Federal Government. (With good reason, I might add). The changes outlined in the article ARE preliminary---and some may be restored. The political give and take almost assures this. But even if the WORST-case scenario occurs, we should be rooting for NASA to achieve as much as it can with the available resources.
Lecturing the public and dismissing them as xenophobic extremist religious fascist ignoramuses on the other hand does nothing to promote anything positive---ESPECIALLY when they're the ones paying for it. Ditto for wingeing on about Big Bad Orange Guy. The TRUE assessment will come after 12:01 Eastern Standard Time on 1/20/2029. Political cant and hectorinf will at this time only drive the public away.
But---let's say NASA becomes very narrowly focused-, even as we still want it to achieve its objectives, why not at least consider alternatives? ISRO, JAXA, ESA, and others CAN take up some of the slack. Uranus and Neptune need Cassini type missions to continue the studies started in 1989 by Voyager. ESA could do tis---especially the ACTUAL Cassini probe was a joint project with ESA. Might consortia of universities be able to fund other probes---or instruments on them?
Messrs, Bezos and Musk could take part of course---their launch vehicles are innovative--and even Mr. Bezos might consider it more satisfying to do science instead of or in addition to launching c-class "celebrities" a few kilometers past the Karman Line. In any event it's an opportunity to make money---which is quite the motivator.
But---to the whiners---maybe America took your advice ----and YANKEE WENT HOME?
The bellyaching started with one of us alas---H.L. Mencken called us all sorts of names in the 1920s. !00 years of cliche---nice going boys.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Andrew James
May 17, 2025 at 3:02 am
Never liked apologists, and your rambling nonsense is not convincing. The reactions that I've been getting to this kind of obfuscating is only pity. Most of the nations allied to the United States have attitudes were many are simply angry and feel completely letdown. No one has a clue about what the long-term aim is, and businesses especially, I confused and frustrated by the incoherent US policy. You are fracturing the world down the middle without clarity, which is making attitudes even more divisive.
What is far more offensive is pretending "nothing to see here" as a domestic or foreign policy. e.g. One would think that America was the only country spending all its money for space exploration. In 2024, America was estimated to have spent $79 billion, with rest-of-the world spent $66 billion. The total is $135 billion. NASA's budget in 2024 was $24.875 billion, with the difference not paid by the American tax payer, but by private industry. As the majority of the spending in foreign countries is mostly from their governments, we can roughly say that the foreign countries are contributing slightly more than the American taxpayers does to NASA. (All we hear is that America is the only country doing anything, this includes things like foreign aid, etc.)
As much as the exploration of spacecraft continues, the point is that it is not just one country contributing to missions. As usual, you just don't get that a lot of space exploration is done through collaboration. This is a pertinent statement, making the current Administration's utter falsehood that America is the only country doing the heavy lifting.
You say: "The American people have DEMANDED a closer scrutiny of the Federal Government." Sure, you have to deal with the spiraling debt that America has been producing for decades, but by blaming everyone else but yourself for the mess. Instead you want to do is punish everyone else for the delusion just to make you feel better with tariffs and eliminating all agreements for cooperative research via universities or aid programs.
Other countries are "whining" about it because damage America causes with international relations with all the 'friendly' countries and that America is now unreliable. Pretending this will all go away after 25th January 2029 is absolutely nuts.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Andrew James
May 17, 2025 at 3:12 am
Pleased you quoted Mencken;
"The men the American people admire most extravagantly are the most daring liars; the men they detest most violently are those who try to tell them the truth."
H. L. Mencken (1924). “Prejudices Fourth Series”
Hole in one!
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Enrico the Great
May 20, 2025 at 5:05 pm
Careful, here---Mencken was probably rooting for the other side in the big one---what with his Nietzche fixation. Just Sayin'
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Andrew James
May 28, 2025 at 5:03 am
Rubbish
You must be logged in to post a comment.
You must be logged in to post a comment.