Experts alarmed as White House proposes 'largest single-year cut to NASA in American history'

The White House released its 2026 "skinny budget" on Friday (May 2), a blueprint that outlines how the administration anticipates allocating government funds for the upcoming fiscal year. According to this proposal, NASA will see a 24% cut to its top-line funding, which experts say could be devastating for the agency.

"The White House has proposed the largest single-year cut to NASA in American history," The Planetary Society, an independent nonprofit organization widely supported by scientists and space enthusiasts, said in a statement. "It would recklessly slash NASA's science budget by 47%, forcing widespread terminations of functional missions worth billions of dollars."

For instance, NASA says the skinny budget, which suggests removing about $6 billion in funding for the agency compared to enacted 2025 levels, would end efforts dedicated to Mars Sample Return. This program aims to bring samples of the Red Planet back to Earth — samples the Perseverance rover has been collecting over the last few years that experts say require lab-based analysis to reach their true scientific potential.

The budget would also eliminate climate-focused "green aviation" spending, directed at producing aircraft that are better for the environment. The latter also reflects the skinny budget's major reductions to Earth science.

Furthermore, the skinny budget calls for the cancellation of Lunar Gateway, a space station meant to be built around the moon that has already notched some important construction milestones here on Earth. And on the topic of the moon, if this budget actually goes through (meaning it's approved by Congress), it would retire NASA's Space Launch System (SLS) rocket and Orion capsule after their third flight to the lunar neighborhood via the Artemis program. SLS and Orion have flown once together so far, in 2022, meaning there'd be two more opportunities left for this duo.

"If enacted, the 56% cut to the National Science Foundation, the 47% cut to NASA's Science Mission Directorate, and the 14% cut to the Department of Energy’s Office of Science would result in an historic decline of American investment in basic scientific research," the American Astronomical Society said about the proposed cuts in a statement released Friday.

"This budget, as overseen by OMB Director Russ Vought, is not supportive of President Trump's own stated goal that America must 'lead the way in fueling the pursuit of space discovery and exploration,'" the Planetary Society statement reads, in reference to the White House Office of Management and Budget, which drafted the skinny budget. "The OMB's budget proposal is fundamentally at odds with the President’s vision for American space leadership."

In an April 30 statement from the Planetary Society — written amid earlier hints of the now-published budget — the organization also speculates what an approximately 47% cut to NASA's spending may look like down the line. It could affect the in-development and highly anticipated Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope, pose setbacks for planetary defense, impact space weather forecasting and possibly threaten national security, that statement said.

"We urge Congress to swiftly reject this destructive proposal and instead pursue a path consistent with the President's vision," the latest Planetary Society statement says. "This is an opportunity for bipartisan agreement to secure an efficient, capable, and balanced national space program worthy of the nation it aims to represent."

Of note, a statement released on April 14 by the bipartisan U.S. Planetary Science Caucus co-chairs Rep. Judy Chu (D-California) and Rep. Don Bacon (R-Nebraska) echo these sentiments, particularly pointing out worries related to the effects these cuts could have on national security and Mars Sample Return efforts.

It was released on April 14 as a response to reports about the contents of "passback documents," which can be thought of as an important step before the release of the skinny budget. The passback documents outlined what possible funding reductions at NASA could look like, and indeed were very similar to the official skinny budget. They hinted that Mars Sample Return could be terminated, for instance, and that Earth science would see a 50% reduction. They also suggested that NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland could be shut down and that "no funding is provided for other telescopes" beyond the Hubble Space Telescope and the James Webb Space Telescope.

In response, the U.S. Planetary Science Caucus chairs jointly stated that "We are extremely alarmed by reports of a preliminary White House budget that proposes cutting NASA Science funding by almost half and terminating dozens of programs already well underway, like the Mars Sample Return mission and the Roman Space Telescope."

"Together, we must maintain America's preeminence in space," they added.

Other items of note in the White House's skinny budget include a $650 million increase in budget for human space exploration — the only branch that saw an increase in funding — and an emphasis on the intention of returning to the moon "before China" and putting a "man on Mars."

It also states goals like eliminating funding for "low-priority climate monitoring satellites," scaling back or eliminating projects "better suited to private sector research and development" and says "NASA will inspire the next generation of explorers through exciting, ambitious space missions, not through subsidizing woke STEM programming and research that prioritizes some groups of students over others and have had minimal impact on the aerospace workforce."

"These cuts would damage a broad range of research areas that will not be supported by the private sector. The negative consequences would be exacerbated because many research efforts can require years to decades to mature and reach fruition," the AAS statement says.

"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 recent Planetary Society statement says.

As of now, Janet Petro is NASA's acting administrator; Trump's pick to follow Petro is billionaire and private astronaut Jared Isaacman.

Originally posted on Space.com.