As proposed, President Donald Trump’s 2026 budget will slash NASA funding by 25%, from $24.9 billion to $18.8 billion. NASA’s Science Mission Directorate will take a disproportionate cut of 47%, canceling 19 in-flight science missions representing $12 billion of taxpayer investment. This is not a matter of trimming excess; it is a shortsighted abdication of America’s leadership in space exploration, scientific discovery and our support for an innovation ecosystem.
Science is not achieved by scientists alone. Every space mission employs a skilled team of technicians, engineers and administrators across the country who turn ideas into reality. Washington state’s well-known aerospace industry is supported heavily by NASA grants and contracts: We rank second in NASA funding among states without a NASA center, having received $844 million in 2023 alone. (Disclosure: We work at a Washington company that has received NASA funds.)
This funding flows to a range of organizations across our state, from universities to aerospace giants to innovative startups and small businesses. A team at Western Washington University analyzes Mars imagery. Blue Origin is building a lander to send humans to the moon. Goodwinds Composites in Mount Vernon fabricated the legs for the Mars Ingenuity helicopter. While NASA only constitutes 0.4% of the federal budget, the economic returns are significant. NASA funding generates over 4,000 jobs and more than $1 billion in economic growth annually in Washington.
NASA contracted with Redmond-based Aerojet Rocketdyne to build the Advanced Electric Propulsion System thrusters, planned to propel the NASA Gateway space station to the Moon and enable exploration, lunar science and technology advancement for 15 years. Gabriella worked on this program for six years, culminating in a lifelong dream of becoming chief engineer of an exceptional team of 35 technical staff. With Gateway now facing cancellation, these nearly complete thrusters may never fly and her former colleagues’ jobs are at risk.
The private sector is often portrayed as an efficient alternative to government programs. This doesn’t work for space science: There is no business case for returning samples from Mars, probing Venus’ atmosphere, or imaging black holes. Missions like these — all facing cancellation — generate knowledge and inspiration but not revenue. Without government funding, they simply won’t happen.
Elizabeth knows this firsthand as a planetary scientist. During her time on NASA’s MESSENGER mission to Mercury, she was the first person to see data transmitted from an instrument on the spacecraft as it orbited that distant world. She can never visit Mercury, yet she was able to untangle its geologic history from afar. This data is invaluable — but it could never be sold for profit unless the government is a customer.
For those who think we should focus on problems here on Earth, know that NASA helps with those, too. The University of Washington averaged $102 million annually in NASA funding in recent years, much of it supporting cutting-edge atmospheric, climate and oceanographic research as well as space science in the College of the Environment. Yet the agency’s Earth Science Division now faces a 52% cut, undermining our ability to respond to environmental crises such as wildfires, drought and sea-level rise that currently affect Washingtonians.
We know firsthand that NASA’s bureaucracy is frustrating and inefficient. Reform is necessary, but it must be considered and surgical. The current approach is a blunt-force instrument that will kill the patient and cripple the space sector for a generation. Cuts like these imperil not only science missions and the workers who build them, but the leadership role that NASA has in the peaceful exploration of our universe.
American excellence in space science is not a given. It is a public good that requires vigilance and support. We have dedicated our careers to this work. We now call upon our fellow Washingtonians: Urge your elected representatives to advocate for space science and for your neighbors who make it possible.
If you would like to share your thoughts, please submit a Letter to the Editor of no more than 200 words to be considered for publication in our Opinion section. Send to: letters@seattletimes.com
