The largest space organization advocating for a sustained human presence on Mars is among detractors of the White House’s fiscal year 2026 budget request for NASA, which positions the Red Planet as a critical strategic priority.
President Donald Trump’s discretionary or “skinny” budget threatens to cut the space agency’s top-line funding by about 25 percent. Included in the plan is a slight boost in funding for human space exploration—including $1 billion in new investments for “Mars-focused programs”—at the expense of science, mission support, legacy spacecraft, and other key programs.
As proposed, the budget jeopardizes expensive projects such as the Space Launch System (SLS) rocket, Orion capsule, Lunar Gateway space station, and Mars Sample Return mission. It could slow down operations on the International Space Station (ISS) and thin the space agency’s workforce. The White House used a different framing.
“The budget refocuses the NASA funding on beating China back to the moon and on putting the first human on Mars,” it said in a statement. “To achieve these objectives, the budget would streamline the NASA workforce, IT services, NASA Center operations, facility maintenance, and construction and environmental compliance activities. The budget also eliminates ‘green aviation’ and other climate scam programs as well as failing space propulsion projects.”
In essence, the White House pitch is that the overall reduction in spending will redirect resources to programs that could accelerate lunar and Mars exploration. Mars is a clear priority for Trump, who in his inauguration speech vowed to plant the American flag on red soil. But cutting funding for other programs is not the way to get there, advocates contend.
“It’s a $6 billion cut to NASA, of which $3.5 billion is taken from space science, by far the most effective part of NASA,” Robert Zubrin, founder and president of The Mars Society, wrote on Monday. “This is now, practically, a shut-down budget….This is wrong, and this is going to do tremendous damage.”
The Mars Society bills itself as the world’s largest and most influential group advocating for human missions to the Red Planet. Many of its members are scientists and engineers actively studying how to live and work on Mars. And they believe the budget cuts are counterproductive.
“Cutting NASA’s overall Science budget by 50 percent…would result in mass layoffs of the same people we need to get us to Mars,” wrote executive director James Burk. “I join all my colleagues in opposing this draconian proposal.”
One Giant Leap Backward
The Mars Society does not stand alone in its criticism of the proposed budget.
In a statement, the Coalition for Deep Space Exploration (CDSE) called the cuts “deeply concerning” and warned that they make NASA’s human exploration efforts “nearly impossible.” The group comprises several NASA contractors working to return Americans to the moon under the Artemis program, including Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and Aerojet Rocketdyne.
Much of the group’s criticism stems from the budget’s suggestion to move on from SLS and Orion after the Artemis III lunar landing. Many of its members are working on future Artemis hardware such as the Lunar Gateway—also on the chopping block—and other NASA projects.
“This budget’s proposed redirection to unproven technology could derail these efforts, setting back U.S.-led deep space exploration and repeating the mistakes made during the transition from the Shuttle program to Constellation and then to the current moon to Mars campaign,” president and CDSE CEO Allen Cutler said.
The Commercial Space Federation (CSF), which counts SpaceX, Blue Origin, Axiom Space, and other key NASA contractors as members, praised the budget’s focus on commercial partnerships. But it also said it would work with the White House and Congress to “address concerns with some of the proposed cuts.”
“The proposed reductions to space and Earth science, space technology, and activity in low-Earth orbit and the ISS, impacting commercial utilization, will have significant negative consequences for the U.S. global posture and the commercial space economy, particularly as China is quickly expanding their space activity and international outreach,” CSF said in a statement.
Space and Earth science advocates are also sounding the alarm. The Planetary Society, American Astronomical Society, American Physical Society, Association of American Universities, and others have levied various criticisms. These range from workforce impacts to concern that major science cuts will cede U.S. influence to China. The groups argue the proposal undermines Trump’s own commitment to cementing the U.S. as a leader in space.
“We urge Congress to swiftly reject this destructive proposal and instead pursue a path consistent with the president’s vision,” The Planetary Society said. “This is an opportunity for bipartisan agreement to secure an efficient, capable, and balanced national space program worthy of the nation it aims to represent.”
From the Top
Criticisms are not limited to industry, either.
On Monday, Josef Aschbacher, director general of the European Space Agency (ESA), said it is weighing its options regarding certain NASA projects that could be on the chopping block. ESA is the contractor for Orion’s service module and multiple systems for Lunar Gateway, as well as a partner for Mars Sample Return. In June, European Union member states will assess the budget’s impact.
“ESA has strong partnerships with space agencies from around the globe and is committed to not only being a reliable partner, but a strong and desirable partner,” Aschbacher said. “Based on further developments, there will be an assessment with our member states of potential actions and alternative scenarios for impacted ESA programmes and related European industry.”
Perhaps unsurprisingly, a few congressional Democrats have publicly voiced their concerns. Grace Meng (D-N.Y.), ranking member on the House Appropriations Committee’s Commerce, Science, and Justice subcommittee, Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), ranking member of the corresponding Senate subcommittee, and George Whitesides (D-Calif.), who serves on the House Subcommittee on Science, Space, and Technology, are among the most prominent.
“No surprise that Trump’s proposed NASA budget aligns perfectly with [SpaceX CEO Elon] Musk’s interests, not the public good,” wrote Van Hollen. “We would never have gotten to the moon or be talking about Mars without NASA’s science mission—and should not let Trump/Musk jeopardize America’s future leadership.”
Observers have noted that SpaceX stands to win billions of dollars in NASA contracts if the space agency pours more money into human spaceflight. Musk, a frequent SLS detractor, in November said SpaceX’s Starship “can also be used to create a large, permanently crewed Moon Base Alpha research station,” appearing to position it as an SLS alternative.
“I understand what Musk has said publicly, and I love what he’s done at SpaceX, but at this point, the Congress has spent the money,” Mike Haridopolos, chairman of the Science, Space, and Technology subcommittee, told digital news outlet NOTUS.
Congressional Republicans have largely praised the budget. Though some, such as House Commerce, Science, and Transportation chairman Ted Cruz (R-Texas) have voiced concerns about Trump, Musk, and NASA administrator nominee Jared Isaacman’s comments on the moon and Mars.
“We must stay the course,” Cruz told Isaacman during a hearing in March. “An extreme shift in priorities at this stage would almost certainly mean a red moon, ceding ground to China for generations to come.”
In an op-ed for RealClearScience, a trio of prominent Republican operatives even decried a proposed 50 percent cut to NASA science as the “end of America’s leadership in space science.” Others, including Cruz, told NOTUS the move could undo heavily funded projects that are already underway or completed.
Fortunately for detractors, the discretionary or “skinny” proposal represents Trump’s vision for NASA and is far from a final budget. A full version is expected to be released in May or June, after which Congress will be able to mark it up.
Like this story? We think you’ll also like the Future of FLYING newsletter sent every Thursday afternoon. Sign up now.
