Lawmakers from both chambers voiced concern this week that the proposed fiscal year (FY) 2027 NASA budget is insufficient, citing deep cuts to science programs, the omission of dozens of missions, and the elimination of STEM engagement funding.
In President Donald Trump’s FY 2027 budget request, NASA would receive $18.8 billion, or $5.6 billion less than FY 2026 levels. Science funding would drop from $7.25 billion to under $3.9 billion. Space technology funding would fall from $920.5 million to $624.3 million, and space operations – including the International Space Station – would decline from nearly $4.2 billion to just over $3 billion. Funding for NASA’s Office of STEM Engagement would be eliminated.
One of the few increases would be for exploration funding, which would increase from about $7.8 billion to $8.5 billion.
On Monday, during a House Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies hearing, Rep. Madeleine Dean, D-Pa., criticized the scale of the proposed cuts, noting that the “nearly 50% reduction to the Science Mission Directorate raises concerns about the future of U.S. space research.”
Dean was particularly concerned about the omission of more than 40 missions in the budget that were – according to budget documents – deemed “low-priority.” Among the programs slated for elimination is the In-Space Validation of Earth Science Technology initiative.
NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman responded that the missions in question have not been canceled but could be restructured.
“To be clear, we haven’t canceled anything yet,” Isaacman said. “We are proposing that there are a lot of missions in formulation right now that could be done better, faster, and at lower cost for the taxpayers.”
Dean replied that such changes had not been adequately reviewed with Congress, calling that “a mistake.”
Rep. Joe Morelle, D-N.Y., added that if NASA plans to reformulate these missions, it must share those plans with Congress, citing concerns that such changes could lead to delays.
Chairman Hal Rogers, R-Ky., said there is bipartisan support for NASA’s goals, including a return to the moon, but warned that such ambitions require sustained investment.
“For FY 2027, it’s disappointing to see the request NASA has set out,” Rogers said. “This is a critical time for investments. We must build on the investments Congress has already made.”
During the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies hearing lawmakers similarly raised concerns over the cuts proposed by the administration.
Chairman Jerry Moran, R-Kan., applauded the administration’s commitment to fund space exploration, but emphasized that the budget needs a better balance between NASA’s funding priorities.
“A budget that prioritizes exploration at the expense of science, technology, and other core missions risks undermining the very foundation that makes those exploration efforts possible,” Moran said.
Ranking Member Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., called the proposal “short-sighted” and warned it represents “a staggering retreat of U.S. leadership and ambition in space.”
Cuts to STEM engagement
Democratic lawmakers also raised concerns about the elimination of NASA’s Office of STEM Engagement.
Administrator Isaacman defended the move, arguing that educational opportunities are embedded within NASA’s mission directorates through internships and grant programs, and that future lunar missions would inspire the next generation.
However, Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., disagreed with Isaacman’s assertion that existing programs could replace initiatives like the Established Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR), which supports partnerships among government, universities, and industry in states with developing research capacity.
Coons said that programs like EPSCoR provide critical opportunities for institutions that are not traditionally among NASA’s primary research partners, arguing that access to such funding helps broaden participation in space science.
Missing operating plan
In addition to concerns about funding levels and program cuts, lawmakers sharply criticized the administration for failing to deliver NASA’s Integrated Operating Plan, which was due to Congress on March 9.
The plan outlines how NASA intends to allocate its funding for the fiscal year and is considered essential for congressional appropriators to finalize spending decisions.
Rep. Rogers said the absence of the plan has complicated the committee’s work and limited its ability to make informed funding decisions.
Isaacman acknowledged the delay and said the plan is undergoing final administration review, with delivery expected next week. He pledged that future operating plans would be submitted on time.