Isaacman’s “Golden Age of Science & Discovery” on Shaky Ground

Just two days ago, NASA Administrator-nominee Jared Isaacman spoke glowingly about Trump Administration plans for a “Golden Age of Science & Discovery” at the agency. Yesterday, however, the Office of Management and Budget sent NASA details on what the White House plans to request for FY2026 reportedly showing a 50 percent cut to the science budget as part of an overall 20 percent cut to the agency’s top-line.

As reported by Ars Technica today, OMB’s “passback” to NASA would cut the agency’s roughly $25 billion budget by approximately 20 percent, with the lion’s share coming from the Science Mission Directorate. SMD’s budget would drop from $7.5 billion in FY2025 to $3.9 billion in FY2026. Ars reported that astrophysics would get $487 million, heliophysics $455 million, earth science $1,033 million, and planetary science $1,929 million.

SpacePolicyOnline.com prepared the following chart comparing the FY2026 passback figures published in Ars and expected FY2025 funding based on NASA’s FY2024 spending plan since their FY2025 budget is held to FY2024 levels. The FY2025 spending plan is not posted on NASA’s website yet.

Among the casualties would be the Mars Sample Return mission, the DAVINCI mission to Venus, and the Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope, the next in NASA’s series of great observatories, although operation of the existing James Webb Space Telescope and Hubble Space Telescope would continue. Ars added that “the cuts appear intended to force the closure of Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland,” just outside Washington, D.C. The Roman Space Telescope is being built and managed there. It’s proceeding on pace for launch two years from now in May 2027.

Places, please! ????

NASA engineers completed an environmental testing dress rehearsal to prepare for the thermal vacuum test for Roman’s Spacecraft Integrated Payload Assembly, or SCIPA.

???? NASA/Chris Gunn pic.twitter.com/TViP5nUpSo

— Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope (@NASARoman) February 13, 2025

Agencies submit their budget requests to OMB, part of the White House’s Executive Office of the President. The passback is OMB’s decision on what the White House will send to Congress. Agencies can negotiate with OMB and even appeal directly to the President, although the latter is rare. Ultimately, the White House sends the proposal to Congress, which under the Constitution has the “Power of the Purse” to determine through the appropriations process how taxpayer money is spent.

Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), the top Democrat, or Ranking Member, on the Senate Appropriations Committee’s Commerce-Justice-Science subcommittee that funds NASA, called the cuts to science and Goddard “not just shortsighted, but dangerous.”

“NASA Goddard and the NASA science missions are critical to discovering the secrets of the universe and the planet we live on and have a direct bearing on our leadership in technological innovation and our national security. These missions are the foundation for everything we do in space – and provide insight for much of what we do here at home, from GPS to weather monitoring. To gut NASA Goddard and the NASA Science Mission Directorate is not just shortsighted, it’s dangerous. This move is anything but efficient – as these programs provide us vital information that informs countless innovations and technologies – and in the case of Roman, which will allow us to see even greater images of the universe than those provided by Webb, the mission is both under budget and almost fully complete. This is a wholly unserious budget proposal. In my role on the Appropriations CJS Subcommittee, I will fight tooth and nail against these cuts and to protect the critical work being done at NASA Goddard.” – Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD)

Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), the Ranking Member on the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee, similarly vowed to fight the proposal.

“President Trump and OMB Director Vought are proposing a slash and burn of NASA’s world-leading science programs. Effectuating these absurd cuts would destroy NASA’s ability to carry out its fundamental objectives, cut off their societal benefits, and spell catastrophe for the U.S. Earth and space science enterprise by throwing billions in already-made taxpayer investments into the trash heap. As the top Democrat of the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee, I will do everything in my power to ensure these reckless proposals never come to fruition.” — Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA)

Committee Vice Ranking Member Rep. George Whitesides (D-CA) posted on X that the “massive cut to NASA Science will not stand.”

My statement on the huge cuts to NASA science proposed by the President, which would decimate American leadership in space and damage NASA facilities across the county — including JPL in California: pic.twitter.com/3moNX7XkMZ

— Rep. George Whitesides (@Rep_Whitesides) April 11, 2025

Many members of the House and Senate are unavailable today. Both chambers have left town for a two-week spring break.

NASA told SpacePolicyOnline.com it couldn’t comment on the report at this time other than to say: “NASA has received the fiscal year 2026 budget passback from the Office of Management and Budget and has begun the deliberative process.”

The Planetary Society (TPS) and the American Astronomical Society (AAS) both reacted with alarm.  TPS, which already had warned of a possible 50 percent cut to NASA’s science programs, said this “budget would halt the development of nearly every future science project at NASA, wasting billions of dollars of taxpayer funds already spent.”

“The Planetary Society condemns this proposal for NASA and for NASA science. We urge Congress to swiftly reject this proposal and restore funding for NASA’s Science Mission Directorate. We remain committed to joining with all stakeholders to protect and promote U.S. leadership in the scientific exploration of space.”

AAS said it is “gravely concerned” and impacts “would not only be devastating to the astronomical sciences community, but they would also have far-reaching consequences for the nation.”

During his confirmation hearing on Wednesday, Isaacman expressed deep support for NASA’s science programs, listing “NASA as a force multiplier for science” as one of his three objectives with “more telescopes, more probes, [and] more rovers”.

“Third—NASA will be a force multiplier for science.

“We will leverage NASA’s scientific talent and capabilities to enable academic institutions and industry to increase the rate of world-changing discoveries. We will launch more telescopes, more probes, more rovers and endeavor to better understand our planet and the universe beyond.

“… This is why America needs NASA—why the world needs NASA—because there is no more important investment than inspiring our children to build a better, more exciting future. And the best way NASA can do that is by delivering on our mission and ushering in a new Golden Age of Science & Discovery—and we will not fail.” — Jared Isaacman

If confirmed as NASA Administrator, he will be expected to champion the President’s budget request and dissuade Congress from changing it.

During his first term, Trump took aim at NASA’s earth science programs trying year after year to cancel several of them including Plankton, Aerosol, Clouds and Ocean Ecosystem (PACE), Orbiting Carbon Observatory-3 (OCO-3), Climate Absolute Radiance and Refractivity Observatory (CLARREO Pathfinder), and operation of the two NASA instruments on the Deep Space Climate Observatory (DSCOVR). Congress disagreed and funded all of them. PACE and OCO-3 are now in orbit, DSCOVR continues to operate all of its instruments, and CLARREO is awaiting launch to the International Space Station.

He also targeted the program that is now the Roman Space Telescope. At that time it was the Wide-Field Infrared Survey Telescope (WFIRST). As with the earth science cuts, Congress rejected his proposal. Symbolically, the first Trump Administration reformatted NASA’s budget documentation starting in FY2019 moving science from first place to fourth, after the human spaceflight accounts.  Congress never adopted that change either. Science remains first in the appropriations bills.

 

This article has been updated.

Note: Ars Technica reported: “Among the proposals were: A two-thirds cut to astrophysics, down to $487 million; a greater than two-thirds cut to heliophysics, down to $455 million; a greater than 50 percent cut to Earth science, down to $1.033 billion; and a 30 percent cut to Planetary science, down to $1.929 billion.” However, NASA’s FY2025 heliophysics budget should be $805 million based on FY2024, so the cut to $455 million would be about 44 percent, not two-thirds.  (The story has since been corrected to say “nearly 50 percent.”)

Note: After NASA receives its appropriations from Congress, it develops a “spending plan” outlining how it plans to spend the appropriated dollars and sends it to Congress for approval.  A version of the spending plan is typically published on NASA’s budget website when that approval is obtained, which can be months after the appropriations bill is finalized. Since it is not published yet, we used the FY2024 spending plan.