Proposed NASA Budget Would Gut Space Science, Jobs

This past Friday, May 30th, the White House released its proposed 2026 budget for NASA, the detailed version of a “skinny budget” published earlier this month. For many in the space science community, it confirmed their worst fears.

“Were we prepared? A little bit,” says planetary scientist Paul Byrne (Washington University in St. Louis). “But when you actually see the visceral specifics of it, it’s a whole new level of horror.”

The document, compiled by the White House’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB), explains where they plan to spend and strike money across all of NASA’s programs. With a topline goal from the skinny budget to reduce NASA spending by 25%, scientists knew much of the axe would come down on NASA’s Science divisions, said to experience 47% cuts. Now, they can see where those cuts would actually fall, from Earth science to astrophysics to aerospace.

“We’re in uncharted territory,” says astrophysicist Meredith MacGregor (Johns Hopkins University). “I didn’t necessarily anticipate…how many programs they were going to just completely cut.”

With total spending set at $18.8 billion, NASA spending would reach the lowest funding level since 1961, adjusted for inflation — despite making up less than half a percent of the government’s spending. It’s important to note that the OMB is not the final sentencing—this budget will make its way to Congress, where lawmakers will use it as inspiration to craft their own outline for how NASA should receive and spend money.

But data from the Planetary Society shows that since 1961, Congress has never appropriated NASA more than 9% or less than 11% of the money the White House requests. “This is the biggest crisis NASA science has ever faced, no question,” says Casey Dreier, Chief of Space Policy at the Planetary Society.

Under the current proposal, more than 40 NASA missions would be defunded. These include missions in their “extended operations” phase, meaning they have completed their stated objectives but continue to provide valuable science data—often at low costs. Most notably, this set includes the Chandra X-ray Observatory and the Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope, two of NASA’s oldest continuous astrophysics missions and unique in the wavelengths they study.

The Nancy Grace Roman Telescope, NASA’s next flagship mission, is funded at less than 40% of its asking price, jeopardizing its ability to launch on time in 2026—though better than the skinny budget, which had seemed to indicate a cancellation of the mission entirely.

Also on the chopping block are some of NASA’s highly anticipated programs, including Mars Sample Return, aiming to bring home the first samples of Martian rocks, and the DAVINCI and VERITAS missions, slated to study Venus for the first time since the 1990s. The Space Launch System, Orion spacecraft, and proposed lunar Gateway, all part of America’s race back to the moon, would be wound down. Numerous Earth-observing satellites would cease operations.

NASA contributions to European missions both launched and in development are also proposed to be rescinded, including Euclid, which studies dark matter and dark energy, LISA, which aims to measure gravitational waves from space, and the Rosalind Franklin Mars rover mission, which NASA had recently rejoined after pulling out in 2012.

MacGregor isn’t just worried about existing missions, but future ones; the budget essentially turns off the tap for new proposals, which would create a “huge gap” in new science, she says.

The document is “a narrowing of ambition and a narrowing of vision…that will fundamentally damage U.S. leadership in scientific exploration,” says Dreier.

In addition to cutting science, the proposed budget also guts personnel; more than 5,000 civil servants and many thousands of contract workers would lose their jobs if the budget were to stand. As for attracting future talent, the budget zeroes out NASA’s Office of Stem Engagement, which provides internships and grants for early-career researchers, including those from disadvantaged backgrounds. “Similar to prior generations that were inspired by the Apollo lunar landings, NASA will inspire the next generation of explorers through exciting, ambitious space missions,” reads the justification provided.

Though the mood is bleak, researchers are holding out hope for a different result in Congress. “Cuts of this size would devastate our workforce, our ongoing efforts to track natural disasters and the changing climate, and our ability to remain competitive on the world stage,” says Congressman George Whitesides, a former NASA Chief of Staff and Vice Ranking member of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee, in an emailed statement. “My sense is that this budget is dead on arrival in Congress.”

However, warns Dreier, even a slightly fatter budget will likely bear damaging cuts as larger programs garner more mission-saving attention in Congress than the slew of smaller science missions. And, says Byrne, the budget process happens annually; if Congress staves off the worst cuts this year, there’s no telling if history will repeat itself next Spring.

In typical years, adds a mid-career planetary scientist who spoke on the condition of anonymity because their mission has been proposed for termination, the space community rallies around saving the one or two budget-jeopardized missions. This year, the message will be simple: “Save NASA.”