Trump Proposes $6 Billion Cut to NASA

President Trump released a “skinny” version of his FY2026 budget request today with top-line numbers for NASA and other parts of the government funded by annual appropriations.  The detailed budget request will be released later this month.  Deep cuts to NASA were expected and are born out in the proposal, which reduces NASA’s budget by 24 percent. Human spaceflight gets a boost, including $1 billion in investments for human Mars exploration, but everything else is down. 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.

The White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) posted the documents mid-morning.  OMB’s summary says the cuts will refocus NASA on “beating China back to the Moon and on putting the first human on Mars” while terminating “multiple unaffordable missions” and reducing “lower priority research, resulting in a leaner Science program that reflects a commitment to fiscal responsibility.”

 

Rumors have 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.

Agency heads like the NASA Administrator work for the President and must support whatever proposals he makes. Acting NASA Administrator Janet Petro did just that today, praising Trump’s support for NASA’s mission: “This proposal includes investments to simultaneously pursue exploration of the Moon and Mars while still prioritizing critical science and technology research.”

NASA is funded under a  Continuing Resolution (CR) for FY2025 at its FY2024 level, but the details of how NASA plans to spend the money — spelled out in a document called the “operating plan” or “spending plan” —  are not available yet so it’s not possible to definitively compare the FY2026 request to FY2025 funding. The figures used here are based on the FY2024 operating plan and are estimates only.

Human Spaceflight

• Artemis
  • The Artemis Moon-to-Mars human space exploration program, labeled “Exploration” in the spending plan, received $7.648 billion in FY2024 so FY2025 should be similar.  OMB’s FY2026 proposal says there’s an increase of $647 million, which would make a new total of $8.295 billion, but that includes “$1 billion in new investments for Mars-focused programs,”  suggesting the Artemis funding is $7.295 billion, a reduction from current spending.
  • The future for Artemis beyond Artemis III, the 2027 mission that will put astronauts back on the Moon for the first time since the Apollo program, is unclear.  OMB’s proposal calls for cancelling NASA’s Space Launch System rocket and Orion spacecraft after Artemis III, and replacing them with commercial systems, but what systems those are and when they’ll be available is unknown.  As Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) repeatedly emphasizes, Artemis is designed to ensure “sustained” lunar exploration, not just one or two landings, but there is no indication how many OMB’s proposal includes. OMB says only there will be “more ambitious subsequent lunar missions.”
  • The proposal also calls for cancelling the Gateway lunar space station where astronauts are supposed to transfer into the Human Landing Systems — SpaceX’s Starship and Blue Origin’s Blue Moon — to take them to and from the surface beginning with Artemis IV.  What if anything will replace Gateway is unclear, as is what changes might be needed to the design of the SpaceX and Blue Origin landers. Gateway is an international project with the European Space Agency, Japan, Canada, and the United Arab Emirates providing modules and other critical hardware.
• International Space Station
  • The proposal calls for “significantly” reducing the number of crew and cargo flights as preparations continue to deorbit the space station in 2030 and replace it with commercial alternatives. OMB would also focus ISS research on Moon and Mars exploration instead of the broad science program currently underway.  ISS funding would be cut by $508 million. For FY2024, ISS received $1.240 billion for the ISS program plus $1.746 billion for crew and cargo transportation, a total of about $3 billion.

Science 

• The fact that dramatic cuts were in store for NASA’s space and earth science programs became public three weeks ago.  NASA’s Science Mission Directorate got $7.325 billion in FY2024, so FY2025 should be similar.
  • OMB would cut that by $3.426 billion ($2.265 billion for space science plus $1.161 billion for earth science), leaving $3.899 billion and —
    • terminate the Mars Sample Return mission “that is grossly over budget and whose goals would be achieved by human missions to Mars.”
    • eliminate funding for “low priority climate monitoring satellites.”
    • restructure the “gold-plated” Landsat Next mission that continues the series of earth remote sensing imaging satellites that began in 1972.

Space Technology

• The Space Technology Mission Directorate got $1.1 billion in FY2024, so FY2025 should be similar. OMB wants to cut that by $531 million, about half, including —
  • “eliminating failing space propulsion projects,” an apparent reference to nuclear thermal and nuclear electric propulsion, both of which have been high priorities for Congress.
  • scaling back or eliminating projects NASA doesn’t need or are better done in the private sector.

Aeronautics

• OMB would reduce aeronautics by $346 million, about a one-third reduction from the $935 million it received for FY2024 and presumably for FY2025.  Specifically it would eliminate “green aviation” spending.

STEM Engagement

• OMB would zero out the $143 million for NASA’s STEM Engagement portfolio.  The first Trump Administration tried to eliminate NASA’s STEM program every year, but Congress always added the money back in.

Mission Support

• This category apparently encompasses both the Safety, Security, and Mission Services account ($3.131 billion in FY2024) and Construction and Environmental Compliance &  Restoration ($326 million).  OMB would cut that by $1.134 billion, leaving $2.323 billion, by reducing workforce, IT services, NASA center operations, facility maintenance, and CECR activities.

 

In a statement to SpacePolicyOnline.com this afternoon, Rep. Brian Babin (R-TX), chairman of the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee, expressed strong support for NASA and said he is “dedicated to staying the course.”

“For over two decades, Congress has charted a bipartisan, sustainable path for space exploration. As China sets its sights on the Moon, we must strengthen our resolve to lead. This proposal marks the beginning of the budget process—not a final decision. President Trump and I share a clear goal: securing America’s position as the world’s preeminent spacefaring nation. As I review the president’s budget proposal, I will work to ensure it reflects that commitment. I remain dedicated to staying the course, honoring our national space priorities, and supporting NASA and the many vital programs it oversees.”– Rep. Brian Babin (R-TX)

The committee’s top Democrat or “Ranking Member” Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) issued a statement calling the entire budget proposal “unserious” and a “disaster for our nation’s science enterprise.”

“This budget spells disaster for our nation’s science enterprise – and with it, our economic and national security future,” said Ranking Member Zoe Lofgren (CA-18). “The president obviously doesn’t understand that without robust American science, America will lose – plain and simple. For decades, we have worked on a bipartisan basis to strengthen our competitiveness and make the research ecosystem here in the United States the envy of the world. We succeeded in that. Now Donald Trump is rapidly destroying that foundation in a matter of months. In the meantime, China is funneling resources at a pace never seen before. Trump is following a how-to guidebook on how to lose to China. With this unserious budget, that’s exactly what he’ll get and exactly what he’ll be known for. It would take decades to recover from the damage he has already done. Now is the time for my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, who have for so long stood alongside Democrats in supporting American innovation, to speak up loudly against this deeply short-sighted proposal. I stand ready to work with them in supporting a winning science budget for our nation.”

Vice Ranking Member George Whitesides (D-CA), a former NASA Chief of Staff and former CEO of Virgin Galactic, posted on X (@gtwhitesides) that the budget proposal is an “unprecedented attack on science” and will “risk our scientific leadership around the globe.”

“Today, the admin proposed a nearly 25% cut to NASA, the biggest attack against the agency in recent history. No spin will change the fact that this would end critical missions, dramatically scale back the workforce, and risk our scientific leadership around the globe. Not only is this the latest in an unprecedented attack on science, it will harm our ability to build the future STEM workforce in the U.S. and monitor potential climate hazards like wildfires. It is completely irresponsible, and I will fight it every way I can.” —  Rep. George Whitesides (D-CA)

Rep. Grace Meng (D-NY), Ranking Member of the House Appropriations Commerce-Justice-Science subcommittee that funds NASA, called the proposal “shocking.”

Massive cuts to @NASA in the President’s proposed budget are shocking – the largest in American history.

They will decimate NASA’s research & education efforts and terminate funding for our nation’s dedicated scientists. Rather than rooting out so-called “government waste”, this…

— Grace Meng (@RepGraceMeng) May 2, 2025

The Planetary Society (TPS), which has been warning of the cuts to NASA’s science programs for several weeks, called it “a historic step backwards” that “would recklessly slash NASA’s science budget by 47%” without input from the incoming NASA Administrator and contravening the Trump Administration’s own goal for America “to lead the way in fueling the pursuit of space discovery and exploration.” TPS and a number of other organizations sent a letter to Members of Congress on April 30 protesting the anticipated cuts.

The American Astronomical Society, the Aerospace Industries Association, and the Coalition for Deep Space Exploration all are expressing concerns about cuts to NASA and other programs.

Former NASA space shuttle program manager Wayne Hale, who chaired the NASA Advisory Council’s Human Exploration and Operations Committee for a decade, told SpacePolicyOnline.com that the proposal appears to completely turn the human spaceflight program over to SpaceX and end the current program of record despite the progress already made, while sending people to Mars “remains a very distant goal.”

“It is hard to digest the implications of this budget proposal due to lack of detail. Clearly robotic missions and science would be gutted if the proposed budget is approved.

“For human spaceflight my immediate reaction is it appears to essentially completely turned [sic] over to SpaceX. Some may see that as a good objective. But it marks the end of the program of record and all the progress that has been made. It would mark the end of the programmatic objective to return to the moon to stay, exploit resources, and build up infrastructure for the future.

“Humans to Mars remains a very distant goal. The money devoted to that project appears inadequate for any near term missions.” — Wayne Hale

George Washington University professor Scott Pace, who served as Executive Secretary of the White House National Space Council in the first Trump term, told SpacePolicyOnline.com he’s not surprised at OMB’s priorities and agrees with a strong focus on exploration, but wishes the top line number was closer to last year’s.

“I’m not surprised at the priorities and some proposed changes were overdue. I applaud the stronger emphasis on exploration but would have preferred a top line closer to last year’s enacted level while reordering what the agency is asked to do.”  — Scott Pace

Pace added that he’s reminded of a letter Casper Weinberger wrote in 1971 when the Nixon Administration was thinking about cancelling the Apollo 16 and 17 missions. Better known for his later role as Ronald Reagan’s Secretary of Defense, Weinberger was Deputy Director of OMB at that time and successfully argued against it on the basis that they were proposing to cut NASA only because it was in the part of the budget that is “cuttable” — discretionary spending — “not because it is doing a bad job or an unnecessary one.” The Apollo missions “give the American people a much needed lift in spirit, (and the people of the world an equally needed look at American superiority,” Weinberger wrote. Cancelling those missions “would be confirming, in some respects, a belief that I fear is gaining credence at home and abroad: that our best years are behind us … and [we are] voluntarily starting to give up our super-power status and our desire to maintain our world superiority.”

Weinberger’s words still ring true 54 years later.  The Trump Administration isn’t proposing to terminate today’s version of Apollo, but its future beyond Artemis III is murky and the magnitude of the proposed cuts to everything else NASA does — ISS, science, technology and aeronautics — may send the same message.

This article has been updated.