WASHINGTON — A significant reduction in NASA’s budget proposed for fiscal year 2026 has prompted strong criticism from a leading Democratic member of the House Science Committee. Rep. George Whitesides (D-Calif.), vice ranking member of the committee, expressed concerns that the administration’s budget proposal does not value the importance of science, both to NASA and the nation.
Speaking at a SpaceNews webinar on June 10, Whitesides criticized the proposed cuts, which were detailed in a budget released on May 30. The proposal suggests a nearly 25% reduction in NASA’s overall budget, marking the largest single-year cut, alongside a nearly 50% cut to NASA’s science programs. Such reductions could lead to the termination of numerous missions.
Whitesides described the proposed cuts as “catastrophic” and linked them to broader reductions in science funding at other agencies, such as the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation. He argued that the cuts represent a “full-scale assault on the scientific establishment,” reflecting a lack of understanding of science and technology’s role in the economy and global leadership.
Impact on Scientific Competitiveness
Whitesides emphasized the importance of scientific research for maintaining the country’s competitiveness. He noted that the administration appears to misunderstand the utility of scientific pursuits across the American economy. He highlighted the strategic use of multispectral imagery in Earth science as an example, pointing out that China is advancing rapidly in this area.
“The Chinese are launching literally dozens of these types of instruments into space, and for us to give up our leadership in multispectral imagery is not just an atmospheric science issue, but it handicaps our ability to find key minerals crucial for the future economy,” Whitesides said.
The detailed budget proposal, while not as severe as feared from an earlier leaked document, still raises concerns. The Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope, for instance, was not canceled but faced reduced funding. Whitesides noted some movement but argued it was insufficient.
Future of NASA’s Artemis Program
The budget proposal also suggests ending the Space Launch System (SLS) and Orion programs after the Artemis 3 mission, shifting towards commercial capabilities. This has drawn opposition from industry groups and lawmakers. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) announced plans to seek additional funding for SLS and Orion through Artemis 5.
Whitesides argued it is premature to end these programs, noting ongoing work on long-lead items for future missions. He called for more clarity on the administration’s plan to transition to commercial replacements and emphasized the need for a sustainable, long-term human space exploration program.
“I think the opportunity of this moment is to have bipartisan agreement around a long-term exploration plan. Cutting NASA’s budget by a quarter is inconsistent with maintaining American leadership in space,” he said.
Leadership and Workforce Concerns
The sudden withdrawal of Jared Isaacman’s nomination as NASA administrator has left the agency without permanent leadership. Whitesides criticized the White House for the decision, stressing the need for quick nomination and confirmation of a new leader to guide NASA effectively.
He also highlighted the importance of appointing someone with experience managing large organizations. The proposed budget cuts could lead to significant workforce reductions, jeopardizing NASA’s capabilities.
“The first people to take these retirement offers are often some of the best because they know they can get a job elsewhere,” Whitesides noted, referring to NASA’s new voluntary retirement program.
Whitesides called on Congress to support NASA through appropriations and authorization bills, emphasizing the need for a positive future for the agency. He urged lawmakers to act as a “backstop” against the administration’s apparent undervaluation of NASA’s future.
As the debate over NASA’s budget continues, the implications for the agency’s scientific and exploratory missions remain uncertain. The outcome will likely shape the United States’ position in global space leadership and scientific innovation for years to come.
