Republican space officials criticize “mindless” NASA science cuts
“Heliophysics is the most unknown—and underrated—part of NASA’s science program.”
In the nearly two weeks since Ars reported on the Trump administration’s proposed budget cuts for NASA’s science programs, scientists and Democratic lawmakers have both expressed deep concerns about the future of the space agency.
However, in a pattern consistent across a host of issues in which GOP lawmakers do not want to be seen to be publicly criticizing the Trump administration, the response to these sweeping cuts from Republican officials has been much more muted.
But this week, three prominent Republican space policy officials broke their silence. In an op-ed published Tuesday on Real Clear Science, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, former House Chair Robert Walker, and the head of the landing team for NASA for the Trump-Vance transition team, Charles Miller, said they were “deeply disturbed” by the proposed cuts. All three men have played an important role in setting Republican space policy over the last decade.
Slashing the Sun
The cuts were part of a “passback” proposal sent to NASA leadership by the White House Office of Management and Budget two weeks ago. Overall, the White House sought a 20 percent cut for NASA, but by far the deepest cuts were earmarked for the agency’s science division: a two-thirds cut to astrophysics, down to $487 million; a nearly 50 percent cut to heliophysics, down to $455 million; a greater than 50 percent cut to Earth science, down to $1.033 billion; and a 30 percent cut to planetary science, down to $1.929 billion.
“Certainly, the space agency needs to modernize and reform practices and personnel management—but not at the expense of world-class science programs,” the Republican officials wrote this week. “Deep cuts to NASA’s science programs would be the end of America’s leadership in space science. It would clearly signal to the world (and to America’s children) that America is a declining power.”
The authors note that cuts to heliophysics are especially surprising. This is the study of the Sun and the effects of solar activity, including cosmic rays and space weather, on Earth and other planets.
“Heliophysics is the most unknown—and underrated—part of NASA’s science program,” they wrote. “As humanity becomes more dependent on satellite technology, and as we expand into space, we must get much better at predicting space weather. Solar storms and other events dramatically impact Earth’s magnetic fields and atmosphere.”
Gingrich, Walker, and Miller argue that the space agency needs “rational” reform rather than “reckless” cuts. They say the cost of space missions has been steadily rising and that, as marvelous as the results of the James Webb Space Telescope have been, its cost growth was unsustainable. They add that future large telescopes should be assembled in orbit, and they question the value of a Mars Sample Return mission if NASA is serious about sending humans to the red planet.
Seeking to punish science
Their arguments lie well within the regular sphere of debate about the future of NASA. This stands in contrast to the proposed cuts by the Trump administration, which appear to be punitive toward science and intended to close one or more of NASA’s science field centers. A 50 percent cut would eviscerate the agency’s future science programs and, according to some scientists, would represent an “extinction level” event for the agency’s exploration of the Solar System and the Universe beyond.
The cuts originated within the White House Office of Management and Budget, which is led by Russ Vought. His office has sought deep and devastating cuts across a number of federal agencies that conduct scientific research, including the National Science Foundation and National Institutes of Health. All of these proposed cuts are not yet final Trump policy and won’t be until the President’s Budget Request for fiscal year 2026 comes out next month.
Following this, the White House will work with Congress to actually set the budget. The US House and Senate each have separate appropriations committees that consider the White House priorities in establishing a final budget that the president must then sign into law. There will be fierce opposition to some of these NASA cuts in Congress.
However, one source said the Republican-led US House is likely to go along with many of the Trump administration’s cuts. The chair of the House Appropriations Committee, Tom Cole, comes from a deeply red district in south-central Oklahoma. He has indicated that he is likely to support the Trump budget cuts because a majority of his district wants him to carry out the Trump administration’s agenda.
It is less clear what will happen in the US Senate, which is chaired by Maine Republican Susan Collins, who is more moderate and more likely to listen to her Democratic colleagues. Regardless, it seems clear that President Trump’s proposed cuts to NASA are actual rather than performative, and the threat to science is very, very real. For this reason, vocal opposition from influential Republican voices on space policy comes at a helpful time.
Eric Berger is the senior space editor at Ars Technica, covering everything from astronomy to private space to NASA policy, and author of two books: Liftoff, about the rise of SpaceX; and Reentry, on the development of the Falcon 9 rocket and Dragon. A certified meteorologist, Eric lives in Houston.
