Administrator Jared Isaacman took the witness stand for the second time this week, this time facing inquiries from the Senate Commerce-Justice-Science (CJS) Appropriations Subcommittee. As in yesterday's hearing with their House counterparts, the Senators on the panel were vocally frustrated with the Office of Management & Budget's FY 2027 funding proposal for NASA, noting its many inconsistencies, lack of transparency, and overall misalignment with public and congressional intent. "A budget that prioritizes exploration at the expense of science, technology and other core missions risks undermining the very foundation that makes that exploration effort possible," remarked panel Chairman Jerry Moran (R-KS).

Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), the top Democrat on the CJS subcommittee, reiterated that the funding proposal amounted to a "staggering retreat" for the U.S. in the fields of Earth and space science, warning that "NASA cannot be first in space and second in science." Though Administrator Isaacman assured the committee members that the funding proposal was sufficient to accomplish the agency's long-term goals in science, technology, and exploration, the Senators were unconvinced and noted their incredulity at this claim.

The Senate will soon release their proposal for the CJS budget, likely including a full rejection of the proposed cuts to NASA.

The House Science Committee held a hearing on the 2027 NASA budget proposal today. It was not well-received. Chairman Brian Babin (R-TX), in his opening remarks, set the tone: "Many of the proposed budget cuts were rejected by Congress previously, and I am confident they will be rejected again.

Both the President and Congress have provided explicit direction for NASA to undertake a range of activities, from exploration and science to aeronautics research. We must ensure that NASA is funded at a level that allows it to pursue those missions."

To say this is a positive sign is quite the understatement. Similar remarks were made by Democrats and other Republicans on the committee.

Fresh off our Day of Action, The Planetary Society's government relations team, as well as members of our board of directors, were in attendance today. We also submitted our list of canceled missions and our perspective on the budget proposal in our input to the committee staff last week.

We are very pleased to see this clear sign by the House Science Committee that the OMB's proposal for NASA is out of step with congressional and national priorities in space exploration.

Next week we will see the first details of the House's proposed budget for NASA, when the body's CJS subcommittee marks up its appropriations legislation.

More than 130 Planetary Society members from 35 states and the District of Columbia visited their elected officials in Congress today to advocate for NASA science.

The timing couldn't have been better. Congress is moving quickly on appropriations this year, and has hearings scheduled on the 2027 budget request that once again proposed draconian cuts to NASA.

A group of 22 U.S. Senators, led by former NASA astronaut and Senator Mark Kelly (D-Arizona), submitted an appropriations request letter to the Senate subcommittee in charge of NASA funding urging them to fully fund the space agency and its Science Mission Directorate.

The letter, complementing a House letter signed by a bipartisan group of 103 Representatives, requests that appropriators fund NASA Science at $9 billion in FY 2027. The request comes as the Office of Management & Budget's proposal to slash NASA and cut Science by 46% was verbally rejected by top appropriator, Senator Jerry Moran (R-Kansas).

Senator Jerry Moran (R-KS), the Chair of the Commerce, Justice, Science (CJS) subcommittee of appropriations that funds NASA, appeared to reject the draconian cuts proposed in FY 2027 to NASA science during a public event at the annual Space Symposium on April 12th:

“I'll work to make sure our subcommittee and our full committee in the Senate supports a robust and balanced NASA appropriations bill that is balanced between exploration, science, aeronautics and workforce...I think it would be a mistake to put money only in the missions related to exploration and not into science and the others."

Read the full story on SpaceNews.

In the first bipartisan rebuke of the proposed FY 2027 budget cuts to NASA, the Co-Chairs of the Congressional Planetary Science Caucus - Rep. Judy Chu (D-California) and Rep. Don Bacon (R-Nebraska) - released the following statement:

“We are deeply alarmed that the Administration is once again proposing significant budget cuts to NASA and its science programs. NASA Science supports thousands of jobs and is essential to U.S. national security and leadership in space exploration, scientific discovery, and technological innovation. These drastic cuts would create enormous chaos and uncertainty for critical missions, the scientific workforce, and long-term research planning. At the same time, current funding for NASA Science has not kept pace with inflation, underscoring the need for more investment, not less. That is why, just weeks ago, we led over 100 bipartisan House Members in a letter to appropriators urging increased funding for NASA Science, and we will continue working on a bipartisan basis to ensure NASA receives the full, sustained funding it needs to lead the world in discovery and exploration.”

The Planetary Science Caucus and its Co-Chairs are a leading voice in Congress for advancing space science, research, and exploration in federal legislation and budgets. The Caucus represents Democrats and Republicans from across the United States, underlining the significance of this statement. Encourage your representatives to join the Caucus.

The White House’s FY 2027 budget request for NASA would eliminate nearly half of NASA’s science fleet. The Planetary Society has identified 53 missions* across all major science divisions that would be terminated. You can view the list of missions here.

The budget request itself attempts to conceal these terminations. Instead of explicitly zeroing out a mission's funding line, the FY 2027 budget subtly omits any mention of terminated missions. 

The only way to identify which science missions are proposed for termination is to compare programs line by line against prior-year budget documents and note which missions are missing from FY 2027.

The Planetary Society compiled this list based on our review of the budget documents in FY 2027, FY 2026, and FY 2025.

* This number was revised down, as we had incorrectly counted the TROPICS mission, which re-entered Earth's atmosphere in November of 2025. 

In a letter to House and Senate Appropriations Committee leadership, a group of 13 former NASA astronauts urged Congress reject proposed cuts to NASA, warning that "cuts of this magnitude would surrender the future of space exploration to other nations willing to embrace the challenge and reap the rewards of global leadership." The signatories includes former NASA Administrator Charlie Bolden, former NASA Associate Administrator for Science Dr. John Grunsfeld. The collective spaceflight experience of the signatories is more than 647 days in space. The letter text can be found here.

The impactful letter comes as the White House Office of Management & Budget released a budget proposal that would slash the NASA budget by more than 23%, halve agency science funding, completely eliminate STEM engagement programs, and shut down more than 40 missions. 

Former NASA Chief of Staff and Congressman George Whitesides (California's 27th District) issued a statement in response to the release of the FY 2027 budget request.

In the statement, Congressman Whitesides indicated that the OMB-drafted request is "dead on arrival" in Congress, citing the overwhelming bipartisan support for NASA's mission of exploration and discovery in the FY 2026 budget. 

NASA's full budget request document, known as the congressional justification, was released just hours after the OMB posted their "skinny" budget. Typically, this document comes out days or even weeks. 

Initial analysis shows the document lacking in significant details, including spending information for fiscal years 2025 and 2026 which is often provided to the public by these documents. There are few mentions of Administrator Isaacman's Ignition plans like the Moon Base, Space Reactor-1, and an accelerated Artemis Program. And the document makes the assumption that Congress had enacted last year's budget proposal, which did not happen. This inadequate document underscores how out of touch OMB is from the reality of space policy in 2026.

Stay tuned for updates about specific mission cancellations and other insights.

The Office of Management & Budget has officially released the FY 2027 "skinny" budget request, known as such because it only provides top-level details. More details are expected later in April, but the proposal looks shockingly familiar so far: 46% cut to NASA Science, elimination of the Office of STEM Engagement, cancellation of 40 or more space missions, and a retreat from deep space exploration ambitions.

Meanwhile, NASA is flying astronauts to the Moon for the first time in 50 years, major space projects are being constructed, and Administrator Isaacman has laid out an ambitious path forward for space science and exploration.

Take action now by writing your representatives and urge them to reject the cuts, just as they did in January.

The White House will share details of its fiscal year 2027 spending proposal for the U.S. government. We expect to see top-line NASA numbers, and possibly directorate-level values shared today. The Office of Management and Budget has already posted some highlights.

The release of the budget request kicks off the appropriations process in the U.S. Congress, which ultimately decides on spending allocations to NASA programs.

Late in the afternoon on Friday, January 23, President Trump signed H.R. 6938, providing $24.4 billion for NASA and $8.75 billion for NSF through September 30, 2026. Next, the agencies will submit plans to Congress to detail how they plan to spend their budgets. But for now, advocates can breathe a sigh of relief knowing that their hard-won victory on federal space science spending is now law.