President Trump’s 2027 budget proposal calls for a 23 percent cut to NASA’s overall funding and a 46 percent reduction to its science programs, a move that would slash the agency’s science budget from $7.25 billion to $3.9 billion and cancel 53 science missions, according to analyses by the Planetary Society cited across multiple outlets.
The proposal, released this month, follows a similar 18 percent cut attempt in 2026 that was rejected by both chambers of Congress. Bill Nye, speaking to NBC News, condemned the renewed effort as “a huge mistake,” arguing that “you cannot be a leader in space without being a leader in science” and criticizing the budget document’s quality, noting it contains typographical errors such as referencing 2026 instead of 2027 and appearing to be “cut and paste without paying attention.”
Nye was present on Capitol Hill during the previous pushback and questioned why the administration is reviving a proposal already dismissed by lawmakers. “Members of Congress and their staff said the President’s Budget Request is dead on arrival, and they pushed back and overwhelmed that request. Why it’s happened again is not clear,” he said.
The cuts would disproportionately affect the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, a Caltech-managed facility responsible for Mars rovers, Venus orbiters, and deep-space analytics. Reports from the Los Angeles Times and Pasadena Now indicate that JPL has already undergone layoffs and internal restructuring, with former staffers expressing concern about funding stability and the lab’s long-term direction.
Specific projects at risk include the Mars rover exploring ancient river deltas and a planned Venus orbiter, both of which involve JPL. Representative Judy Chu, whose district includes JPL, warned the proposal would create “enormous chaos and uncertainty” for critical missions, the scientific workforce, and long-term research planning.
Despite the administration’s emphasis on the Artemis program — which recently sent astronauts around the moon for the first time in 50 years — critics argue that prioritizing exploration while gutting science undermines NASA’s core mission. Senator Jerry Moran, a Republican who chairs the Senate appropriations subcommittee overseeing NASA, called it “a mistake” to fund exploration while cutting science and said he plans to hold a hearing with NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman before the end of April to review the budget request.
For more on this story, see Trump’s Proposed 2027 Budget Slashes Funding for US Science Agencies.
The Planetary Science analysis, cited by both the Los Angeles Times and Pasadena Now, states that the cuts are not driven by performance issues. “This isn’t [because] they’re not producing good science anymore. There’s no rhyme or reason to it,” said Casey Dreier, chief of space policy at the Planetary Society, which led opposition to the similar 2026 effort.
Until Congress passes its own budget, NASA is expected to use the administration’s proposal as a planning framework, a process that could delay grants and contracts and create uncertainty for research institutions like JPL. Any changes to NASA’s funding require congressional approval, and while past similar proposals have been rejected or modified, the current plan has drawn bipartisan criticism.
NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman has defended the request, stating it is a “critical period” for the agency to execute on ambitious plans in science, exploration, and innovation, and arguing that the OMB proposal adds “needless uncertainty and disruption” to the workforce. However, the Planetary Society and multiple members of Congress maintain that the cuts threaten decades of scientific progress and destabilize vital research institutions.
Why is the administration proposing these cuts again after Congress rejected similar ones last year?
The administration has not publicly explained its reasoning for reviving the proposal, and Bill Nye noted that neither he nor congressional staff understand why the effort is being renewed after being overwhelmingly rejected.
Which specific NASA missions are most at risk under this proposal?
The Planetary Society analysis cited in the Los Angeles Times and Pasadena Now indicates that 53 science missions would be canceled, including Mars exploration efforts and a Venus orbiter, both of which involve the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena.
How would these cuts affect the Jet Propulsion Laboratory and its workforce?
JPL has already experienced layoffs and restructuring, and officials warn that the proposed funding reductions would create uncertainty, delay grants and contracts, and threaten long-term research planning for the lab’s scientific workforce and missions.
What role does Congress play in determining whether these cuts take effect?
Congress holds the authority to approve federal spending, and until it passes a final budget, NASA will use the administration’s proposal as a planning framework; past similar proposals have been rejected or modified by lawmakers, and the current plan has drawn bipartisan criticism.
