The Trump administration is moving to decimate America’s top science programs. After the NIH, CDC, EPA, and FDA, NASA and NOAA are now on the chopping block. According to internal documents reviewed by multiple outlets, the White House plans to gut NASA’s science budget by nearly half and deliver a devastating blow to research at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
These drastic cuts, which critics have dubbed “extinction-level,” would cancel flagship space missions, cripple climate forecasting, and undermine US leadership in scientific discovery.
Science is not welcome
NASA’s Science Mission Directorate—home to some of the agency’s most celebrated work—would be slashed from $7.3 billion to just $3.9 billion. Astrophysics funding would be gutted by two-thirds. Earth science, vital to understanding climate change, would be cut in half.
“This is an extinction-level event for NASA science,” said Casey Dreier, chief of space policy at the Planetary Society, to the WP. “It needlessly terminates functional, productive science missions and cancels new missions currently being built, wasting billions of taxpayer dollars in the process.”
The proposed cuts are not entirely surprising, however. They’re part of the broader pattern under the Trump administration, which has systematically targeted science agencies across the federal government. Trump’s war against science and the environment reflects an administration-wide effort to reshape the scientific landscape, often sidelining research that does not align with ideological priorities.
The casualties are striking. The Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope, touted as NASA’s next-generation observatory, is on the chopping block. Despite being fully assembled and on budget for a 2026 launch, the mission may not get any funding by that year. It’s unclear why this mission is being canceled, but it could be linked to Trump’s widespread “DEI purge.” Nancy Grace Roman was an American astronomer who made important contributions to stellar classification and motions and was the first female executive at NASA.
Also slated for cancellation: the Mars Sample Return mission and the DAVINCI probe to Venus. The Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland, a legendary hub for scientific research employing 10,000 staff, is also at risk of closure under the proposed budget.
“If you savage NASA science, you have savaged our entire exploration program,” said former NASA Administrator Bill Nelson to the Washington Post. “That will affect the human exploration program as well.”
The Trump budget doesn’t stop at space. NOAA, the federal agency charged with monitoring the oceans and atmosphere, is also in the crosshairs.
NOAA’s Climate Research Dismantled
Funding for NOAA’s Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR) would plunge from $485 million to $171 million. All climate, weather, and ocean laboratories under OAR would be drained of resources. The internal budget memo reads starkly: “At this funding level, OAR is eliminated as a line office.”
“The elimination of NOAA’s research line office and all of its research capabilities is a crushing blow to the ability of our country to protect our citizens and also to lead the world,” said the former NOAA administrator Rick Spinrad for The Guardian, adding that the document included “an extraordinarily devastating set of recommendations”.
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) would also be gutted, with over $324 million in cuts. Programs for habitat conservation, species recovery, and collaborative fisheries research would be defunded. The NMFS would be folded into the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, drastically changing its scope.
Former NOAA official Craig McLean didn’t mince words: “This proposal will cost lives. When a room full of doctors tell you that it’s cancer, firing the doctors does not cure you.”
The proposed elimination of NOAA’s Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR), coupled with the termination of hundreds of meteorologists, significantly undermines the nation’s capacity to forecast and respond to extreme weather events. This degradation in forecasting capabilities could lead to delayed warnings for hurricanes, tornadoes, and floods, thereby increasing the risk to public safety.
Furthermore, the cessation of critical data collection and monitoring activities undermines the nation’s ability to respond effectively to environmental challenges, leaving ecosystems more susceptible to damage and reducing the capacity for informed conservation strategies.
Congress may stop this
The budget documents are not final. This is still a draft, but the message is clear. The administration’s priorities steer away from science and toward a broader rollback of federal research efforts.
But Congress could still intervene. “This massive cut to NASA Science will not stand,” Rep. George Whitesides (D-CA) told Ars Technica. “I will work alongside my colleagues… to make clear how this would decimate American leadership in space.” Several other Democrat representatives have echoed similar messages. But despite these alarms, the Republican-dominated Congress has so far shown little appetite for confronting Trump’s sweeping science rollbacks.
Since retaking both chambers in the 2024 midterms, the GOP has largely aligned with the administration’s push to dismantle agencies, including science agencies. Several Republican lawmakers have expressed support for redirecting federal dollars toward defense and fossil fuel development, echoing Trump’s calls to “end the climate hoax.”
These cuts could have lasting effects.
NASA’s science programs have been responsible for many of its biggest breakthroughs over the past quarter-century—from discovering water plumes on Saturn’s moon Enceladus to flying a helicopter on Mars. Meanwhile, NOAA’s data informs everything from hurricane forecasting to agricultural planning. In fact, NOAA’s benefits to Americans widely surpass its budget. The National Weather Service (NWS), a part of NOAA, is estimated to generate $73 in value for every $1 invested, including benefits from freely available data.
Cutting money from public science agencies is one of the worst policy measures. As Dreier put it: “This is neither efficient nor smart budgeting.”
For now, scientists, lawmakers, and space advocates are sounding the alarm. But it’s not clear whether tangible opposition will form.
