NASA Faces Major Budget Cuts in FY2026 Proposal, Drawing Widespread Concern

The proposed cut marks a stark reversal for an agency that had been advocating for a budget increase to recover momentum across multiple stalled programs. Instead, the space and Earth science divisions would face deep reductions—$2.3 billion and $1.2 billion respectively—while human spaceflight would retain strong support, with over $7 billion allocated for lunar exploration and $1 billion in new funding directed toward Mars-focused initiatives.

“This proposal includes investments to simultaneously pursue exploration of the Moon and Mars while still prioritizing critical science and technology research,” said acting NASA Administrator Janet Petro. “I appreciate the President’s continued support for NASA’s mission and look forward to working closely with the administration and Congress to ensure we continue making progress toward achieving the impossible.”

Cuts Spark Alarm Across Scientific Community

Among the most controversial elements of the budget is the proposed termination of the Mars Sample Return (MSR) mission. Once a flagship interplanetary science goal, the MSR is now characterized by the administration as “grossly over budget” and deemed redundant in light of future human missions to Mars.

The proposal also eliminates funding for what it describes as “low-priority climate monitoring satellites”—a move that comes mere months after NASA confirmed that 2024 was the hottest year on record. That decision has been sharply criticized by climate scientists and policy advocates alike.

Back in January, former NASA Administrator Bill Nelson warned, “Between record breaking temperatures and wildfires currently threatening our centers and workforce in California, it has never been more important to understand our changing planet.”

The reaction from the scientific community has been swift and forceful. In an April 30 letter to congressional budget leaders, organizations including the American Astronomical Society and The Planetary Society expressed “profound alarm” at the anticipated cuts, warning that the consequences would be devastating.

“These cuts would eviscerate space science research and analysis programs, crippling university departments, research institutions, and NASA centers,” the letter stated. “It would decimate the nation’s STEM talent pipeline... and likely lead to widespread layoffs within this highly skilled workforce.”

Artemis and Gateway in the Crosshairs

The Artemis program, once NASA’s centerpiece for returning humans to the Moon, also faces a dramatic restructuring. The administration proposes ending the Space Launch System (SLS) rocket and Orion spacecraft after just three missions, citing unsustainable costs. The SLS alone is estimated to cost $4 billion per launch and has exceeded its original budget by 140%.

Instead, the White House aims to pivot toward more cost-effective commercial launch systems, which it says will support a broader, more sustainable lunar presence. This shift would also cancel the Gateway, NASA’s planned lunar orbiting space station, which had international backing from partners in Canada, Europe, Japan, and the UAE.

“The budget would transition NASA to a more sustainable, cost-effective approach... retiring the SLS, Orion spacecraft, and supporting ground systems after Artemis III,” explained NASA Press Secretary Bethany Stevens. “We have informed our international partners impacted by this proposal.”

The proposed changes raise questions about infrastructure already under development, such as the towering Mobile Launcher 2 at Kennedy Space Center, built to support the larger SLS Block 1B rocket.

Lisa Watson-Morgan, manager of the Human Landing System (HLS) program, acknowledged the uncertainty during a staff meeting. “Change like this can be very, very hard... What I do know is we still gotta fly out Artemis 3,” she said, urging teams to remain focused.

Space Station Research Also Scaled Back

Another major casualty in the proposed budget is the International Space Station (ISS), which would see its funding slashed by over $500 million. The White House envisions transitioning to commercially operated space stations by 2030, reducing the station’s crew size and limiting research to Moon- and Mars-relevant investigations.

This shift would mean fewer cargo and crew flights, though what that would entail remains unclear. At present, only SpaceX’s Dragon is certified for astronaut transport, while Boeing’s Starliner is still undergoing final certification.

Political Pushback and Uncertain Future

Though sweeping, the President’s proposal is far from final. Congress will ultimately decide what version, if any, becomes law.

Rep. George Whitesides (CA-27), a former NASA Chief of Staff, called the proposal “the biggest attack against the agency in recent history.” He warned it would “end critical missions, dramatically scale back the workforce, and risk our scientific leadership around the globe.”

Other lawmakers, including Rep. Grace Meng (NY-06) and Rep. Judy Chu (CA-28), have also condemned the proposed reductions. “They will decimate NASA’s research and education efforts and terminate funding for our nation’s dedicated scientists,” Meng said.

In a bipartisan statement, Chu and Rep. Don Bacon (NE-02) added, “If enacted, these proposed cuts would demolish our space economy and workforce... and ultimately surrender the United States’ leadership in space, science, and technological innovation to our adversaries.”

As lawmakers prepare to debate the budget, the future of America’s space ambitions hangs in the balance—a future now caught between ambitious exploration goals and the political and financial realities on the ground.

By Azhar