Updated 6:55 p.m. Eastern with Canadian response.
WASHINGTON — The White House’s proposal to cut NASA’s budget by nearly 25% and cancel several major programs has drawn criticism from industry and members of Congress, while raising concerns among international partners.
The top-level or “skinny” budget released by the White House’s Office of Management and Budget May 2 proposed $18.8 billion for NASA in fiscal year 2026, a $6 billion cut from the $24.9 billion the agency received in 2025. The budget called for the cancellation of the lunar Gateway, ending the Space Launch System and Orion programs after Artemis 3 and termination of science missions like Mars Sample Return. It also proposed curtailing use of the International Space Station and sharp cuts in space technology funding.
The proposal met with a strong negative reaction both on Capitol Hill and among space industry organizations. “Massive cuts to NASA in the President’s proposed budget are shocking – the largest in American history,” stated Rep. Grace Meng (D-N.Y.), ranking member of the House Appropriations Committee’s commerce, justice and science (CJS) subcommittee, whose jurisdiction includes NASA.
“They will decimate NASA’s research & education efforts and terminate funding for our nation’s dedicated scientists. Rather than rooting out so-called ‘government waste’, this budget puts American leadership in science, technology, & innovation at risk,” she said in a May 2 social media post.
Her Senate counterpart, Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), ranking member of the Senate Appropriations Committee’s CJS subcommittee, argued that the budget favored Elon Musk’s SpaceX. “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,” he stated May 4.
Rep. George Whitesides (D-Calif.), vice ranking member of the House Science Committee, offered similar sentiments. “No spin will change the fact that this would end critical missions, dramatically scale back the workforce, and risk our scientific leadership around the globe,” he said on social media May 2. “It is completely irresponsible, and I will fight it every way I can.”
Industry groups representing both established and more entrepreneurial companies have criticized the budget proposal. The former is represented by the Coalition for Deep Space Exploration, whose members include Boeing, Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman, who have major contracts supporting SLS, Orion and Gateway that the budget proposal puts in jeopardy. The group also includes many smaller companies that are suppliers to those prime contractors.
In a May 2 statement, the group called the budget proposal “deeply concerning” to its members. “It threatens our scientific capabilities and jeopardizes a sustained human presence on the Moon, undermining U.S. leadership in space and making NASA’s exploration goals nearly impossible.”
“Diverting the attention, time, and resources away from existing capabilities opens the door to China, which is poised to take the lead on the lunar frontier with plans for crewed Moon landings by the end of the decade. It will endanger our current global leadership position in space,” the organization added.
The Commercial Space Federation (CSF), whose members include SpaceX, took a more nuanced view of the budget. “A thoughtful transition to more competitive commercial partnerships, as proposed by the ‘skinny budget’, will allow the U.S. to conduct human exploration programs with fewer resources,” it said in a May 5 statement.
However, the CSF criticized other elements of the budget proposal. “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,” it stated.
Also joining the criticism was The Planetary Society, which earlier spoke out about proposed deep cuts in NASA science. “Slashing NASA’s budget by this much, this quickly, without the input of a confirmed NASA Administrator or in response to a considered policy goal, won’t make the agency more efficient — it will cause chaos, waste the taxpayers’ investment, and undermine American leadership in space,” it said in a May 2 release.
European and Canadian concerns
Concerns about the NASA budget proposal extend beyond the United States. The European Space Agency would be significantly affected if the proposed budget was enacted, given its cooperation with NASA on Mars Sample Return, development of modules for the lunar Gateway and supplying the service module for Orion, all programs that would be cancelled or truncated by the budget.
In a May 5 statement, ESA Director General Josef Aschbacher said NASA has briefed ESA about the budget proposal. “ESA remains open to cooperation with NASA on the programs earmarked for a reduction or termination but is nevertheless assessing the impact with our Member States in preparation for ESA’s June Council,” he said.
That June meeting of the ESA Council, he said, will include assessment of “potential actions and alternative scenarios for impacted ESA programs and related European industry.” He did not elaborate on what actions and scenarios are under consideration.
While Aschbacher noted the long history of cooperation between ESA and NASA, he noted ESA works with other agencies as well. “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.”
The Canadian Space Agency, which, like ESA, is an ISS partner and which is also developing a robotic arm for the Gateway, told SpaceNews it is reviewing the implications of the NASA budget proposal.
“We are currently reviewing and engaging with NASA and other international partners on potential implications of this proposal,” an agency spokesperson told SpaceNews. “Our objective is to maintain forward momentum for Canada’s space program.”
