One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind.

July 20, 1969. The day that mankind quite literally flew to the Moon, establishing NASA as the forefront of space exploration. 

Home to revolutionary technology such as the Hubble Space Telescope and the James Webb Space Telescope, NASA has detected some of the most distant galaxies and even captured the first black hole. Finding evidence of early “dark stars” powered by dark matter, discovering carbon dioxide in far distant worlds unlike our own, and capturing some of the most breathtaking images of our solar system.

Some of the greatest mysteries of the universe, such as life on planets other than our own or where the Golden Disk finds itself, may never be answered—because of Trump’s proposed “extinction-level cuts” to NASA spending, as scientists warn.

The Trump administration revealed in July its plan to slash the space agency’s overall budget by 24 percent to $18.8 billion, the lowest figure since 2015. Space and Earth science missions would get bear the brunt of these changes, losing nearly more than 53% than what was allocated last year. President Donald Trump’s request for FY2026 (i.e. the fiscal year 2026) includes no money for the Orbiting Carbon Observatories—which can precisely show where carbon dioxide is being emitted—that assist farmers, student researchers, and scientists for policy-making.

Restoring NASA’s Science Mission Directorate to $9 billion would account for the needs of high-priority projects and cost increases in materials from recent inflation, where NASA has been directed to pursue a series of new missions that would support the United States’ educational industry, for Earth sciences, solar physics, planetary science, and astronomy.

The Trump Administration’s Agenda

NASA said in an emailed statement that the missions were “beyond their prime mission” and being terminated “to align with the President’s agenda and budget priorities”. Advocates, in addition, are highlighting the future discoveries that will not be made, as they fund campaigns to persuade Washington lawmakers to “defy the President” and preserve or even expand NASA’s funding. 

“An extinction-level event is when…life that has been otherwise perfectly well-functioning, healthy ecosystems…are wiped out in large numbers. That’s functionally what this budget is,” said Casey Dreier, the chief of space policy at the Planetary Society—rallying Congress members to oppose the budget—and preserve funding for future missions.

Furthermore, they [advocates] say an immense loss to “un-crewed” science would be the $3.9 billion Nancy Grace Roman space telescope—created as a successor to the James Webb and Hubble telescopes—which produces stunning images and unexpected insights into the origins of the universe as well as the Big Bang. David, a retired NASA scientist who led the development of the Orbiting Carbon Observatories, said that they are much more accurate than any other systems globally [operating or planned] and a “national asset that should be saved”.

However, there may be a hidden incentive for FY2026—rooted in politics.

Crisp hopes that Congress will vote to preserve funding for current and future missions—funded through the fiscal year that ends on the 30th of September. A bill in the House would align with the President’s request and eliminate the missions, while a Senate version preserves them. For instance, Congressional Democrats warned NASA Administrator Sean Duffy last month that it’d be “illegal to terminate missions or impound funds already appropriated by Congress”. 

The Brain Drain

This poses a moral and legal dilemma for employees at NASA; science is not as important as it once was, as the [Trump] administration prioritises privately funded foundations and private schooling and redirects taxpayer money [to them]. “...and they’ve made a living of being innovative on a budget that was always limited,” says Ehud Behar, a high-energy astrophysicist at Technion, and a former NASA researcher.

Dreier said that there had been “productive” conversations with congressional Republicans and Democrats—pushing for an increase to NASA’s science budget—though Trump aims to grant extra funding for human missions to Mars. 

This poses a whole new set of hindrances for the States’ scientific research and community. Missions can turn off mid-light, extended missions that are led in coalition with other countries, such as Japan and Russia, can be left to “tumble in space”—posing threats to international affairs.

The most worrying? Thousands of “scientists and engineers, and others laid off due to loss of research money and technology investments”, says Behar. 

Is science dead?

What does that entail for the future of STEM education?

Crisp is attempting to put together a coalition of outside partners—including Japan and Europe—which could fund and operate instruments attached to the space station. NASA itself has said that outside proposals will be accepted through August 29th. 

NASA missions—and science as a whole—are critical to discovering the secrets of the universe, Earth, and improving the quality of various livelihoods. It encourages educational attainment and has a “direct bearing” on its leadership in technological innovation and the country’s “national security”. Cutting down on research funding isn’t economically shortsighted, but dangerous.

It’s in the essence of policymakers to protect and safeguard the brain-economy of the States, especially since science is the building block of opportunities for educational institutions, multi-faceted social economies, and schooling the youth.