NASA has a funny way of framing bad news. On May 2, the White House released its topline budget numbers for fiscal year 2026 and the space agency was quick to respond—with applause.
“President Trump’s FY26 Budget Revitalizes Human Space Exploration,” read a press release. In an included statement, acting NASA administrator Janet Petro said, “This proposal includes investments to simultaneously pursue exploration of the Moon and Mars while still prioritizing critical science and technology research. 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.”
The real impossibility, however, might be in figuring out how NASA will achieve much of anything at all with the draconian cuts the president proposed. Petro is right in touting a relatively modest 10% bump in funding for human space exploration, with $7 billion now proposed for missions to the moon and $1 billion for later travel to Mars. But beyond that, things get awfully bleak.
The Mars Sample Return Mission, which is currently underway, with the Perseverance rover collecting and caching soil and rock samples for return by a later robot craft, will be canceled. Twenty-seven sample tubes that have been sealed and left across the Martian surface like Easter eggs for that future rover to gather will be forever untouched. Those samples could have told us about possible conditions for ancient, or even extant, life on the once-watery world—potential knowledge that will now be lost.
The Space Launch System (SLS) moon rocket and the Orion spacecraft, both in development in one form or another since 2006, and both intended for crewed travel to the moon, will be scrapped too.
Also marked for elimination is the Gateway spacecraft, a small space station planned for lunar orbit—despite the first of its modules having already been built. Gateway was intended to provide rapid service to and from the surface of the moon for future visiting astronauts. Space science missions will be slashed by more than 50%, threatening—among other projects—the Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope, which, like the Gateway module, is already mostly built. Roman is designed to answer deep and thrilling questions, regarding the habitability of exoplanets—or planets orbiting other stars—and the nature of dark energy, which is thought to make up 68% of the universe and holds the key to its accelerating expansion.
Read more: Inside NASA’s Struggle to Launch America Back to the Moon
On top of all this, research into environmentally sustainable aviation technology is one of several “climate scam programs,” as the White House referred to it in a statement, which is also slated for cancellation. Consistent with new government-wide policies, any NASA DEI programs are also to be eliminated. Overall, NASA faces a 24% budget cut, from $24.8 billion in 2025 to $18.8 billion in 2026—its lowest funding level since 2015.
“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,” said Rep. George Whitesides, a California Democrat and Vice Ranking Member of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee, on X. “It is completely irresponsible, and I will fight it every way I can.”
“The proposed cuts are drastic,” says Stephan McCandliss, research professor with the department of physics and astronomy at Johns Hopkins University. “They are devastating and, well, vicious, in terms of [being] unfriendly to science in general.”
The proposed cuts don’t just represent opportunity costs, but the loss of sunk costs too. The SLS has already cost nearly $24 billion, with another $20 billion having gone to Orion—money that will have been spent to no end if the two projects are cancelled. The Roman telescope, currently idling in a clean room at the Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, cost $4 billion. According to the General Accounting Office, $3.5 billion has been spent on Gateway, with the launch of the first module originally set for 2027.
All of this penury is something of a departure for President Trump, who presided over small but steady budget increases for NASA—from just over $18 billion to just over $21 billion—during his first term. Space Agency funding rose further, to its near-$25 billion peak, under President Joe Biden, before the ax fell this week. The impending starvation rations, as always, have NASA veterans looking wistfully back at the space agency’s golden era, during the space race with the former Soviet Union. Historically, NASA’s peak funding year was 1966, when the agency was allotted $5.93 billion—or $58.5 billion in 2025 dollars. That represented 4% of the government’s overall budget. NASA’s slice of the federal pie today—before the Trump cuts? Just 0.4%.
Read more: NASA’s New, $4 Billion Space Telescope Will Unravel a Great Cosmic Mystery
The generous funding of the 1960s yielded impressive results. The U.S. launched 10 crewed flights in just 20 months during NASA’s Gemini program in 1965 and 1966. From 1968 to 1972, eleven Apollo missions were launched—nine of them either to lunar orbit or around the far side of the moon, and six of those proceeding down to the lunar surface. That was all while NASA maintained a robust pure science program, launching more than 20 missions to the moon, Mars, and Venus during the 1960s. It’s the loss of those uncrewed science flights that worries some space experts the most.
“It’s mortgaging the future,” says Henry Hertzfeld, research professor at George Washington University’s Space Policy Institute. “It takes time to develop these programs, to build the instruments and, of course, to analyze the results.”
“I see a role for government in doing the science,” says McCandliss. “That’s what government ought to do—the cutting edge stuff that isn’t going to be commercially viable, but will in the long run, bring some surprising results.”
The matter of commercial viability—with the private sector taking over a growing share of the work now being done by NASA—seems to be driving much of the administration’s budget proposals. The aging International Space Station (ISS) is set to be de-orbited in 2030 and NASA and the White House are looking for industry to bankroll and launch the next generation outpost. “The budget reflects the upcoming transition to a more cost-effective, open commercial approach to human activities in low Earth orbit by … the safe decommissioning of the station and its replacement by commercial space stations,” said NASA in its press release. Currently, NASA spends about $3 billion per year to operate the ISS. Privatization would eliminate that outlay.
Similarly, if SLS and Orion stand down, the move would clear the field for SpaceX’s massive Starship rocket. SLS and Orion have flown just once—an uncrewed mission, known as Artemis I, in 2022. Current plans call for Artemis II to carry a crew of four on a circumlunar journey late next year, and Artemis III to follow with a crewed lunar landing before the end of the decade. Artemis IV and beyond were intended to help establish a long-term human presence at the south lunar pole, but the new proposed budget cancels those plans.
Starship could be a worthy successor. The biggest and most powerful rocket ever built, Starship stands 40 stories tall and puts out 16.7 million pounds of thrust at launch—nearly twice as much as the SLS’s 8.8 million pounds. The single flight SLS has managed in the 20 years it’s been in development is dwarfed by the eight uncrewed launches Starship has had just since April of 2023. None of those launches has been fully successful, but the business model for SpaceX and its boss, Elon Musk, has always been to fly fast, fail fast, and fly again until you get it right. The unalloyed success of the company’s smaller Falcon 9 rocket, which, with 467 successful flights, has become the world’s workhorse booster, stands as proof that that approach to R&D can work.
“It’s pretty amazing stuff that they’ve been doing,” says McCandliss. “When you have a devil-may-care leader who is willing to spend his own personal capital on these sorts of things, it’s a different story [from what the government can do]. Musk has not been shy about trying to pursue his dreams, and he has the capital to do that.”
If NASA has any hope of escaping the Trump Administration’s proposed cuts it’s in the fact that they are just that—proposed. Presidential budgets are wish lists put forth to Congress, with lawmakers calling the final spending shots, and NASA has seen this movie before—most recently and dramatically in 2010. Back then, President Barack Obama cancelled the space agency’s Constellation program—the precursor of Artemis, which was aiming to have bootprints back on the moon as early as 2015. The move pulled the plug on both Orion and the SLS—the latter of which was then known as Ares V. But legislators from space-friendly states that depend on NASA for thousands of local jobs—most notably Texas, Florida, and California—rebelled, and funding was restored for both vehicles.
Today, Sen. Ted Cruz, a Texas Republican, and Sen. Maria Cantwell, a Washington Democrat—the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Technology respectively—are being looked to for leadership to keep the lights on at NASA. Neither lawmaker has made a public statement yet on the proposed cuts and neither responded to a request from TIME for comment. Still, Capitol Hill will get the final word.
“The president proposes and Congress disposes,” says McCandliss. “I know that there’s an awful lot of NASA centers that are in red states.”
NASA is accountable to Congress for its funding and Congress is accountable to the voters in those red states and all of the others for their own jobs. Ultimately, Americans will get the space program they demand.
The post What Trump’s Proposed NASA Budget Cuts Really Mean for the Space Agency appeared first on TIME.
