The Biden administration’s request for NASA’s fiscal year 2026 budget signals a significant departure from the agency’s previous focus, proposing drastic cuts to space science and a controversial shift in human spaceflight strategy toward Mars. While the future of these budget reductions remains uncertain, the viability of the proposed Mars initiative appears bleak.
This assessment is not merely focused on the technical or financial hurdles associated with a successful manned mission to Mars; rather, it highlights political dynamics. Launching a transformative space program without building a supportive consensus is a recipe for failure. The current budget undermines the necessary foundation for bipartisan support to carry the initiative through future presidential terms.
Successful space policy demands a collaborative approach, a lesson illustrated by the Artemis program. During the early Trump administration, NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine cultivated bipartisan support to reinvigorate lunar exploration efforts. This collaboration resulted in the first human lunar exploration program to survive a presidential transition since the Apollo missions.
However, it appears those lessons have been overlooked. The administration presented a budget proposal one Friday afternoon with little public dialogue or meaningful congressional engagement, marking a historically unprecedented move for NASA.
The budget outlines a rapid shift from Artemis to Mars, proposing the retirement of significant programs such as the Space Launch System (SLS), Orion, and the Gateway project, with details regarding lunar activities post-Artemis 3 becoming sparse. While the proposal earmarks nearly $1 billion for Mars-related projects—expected to grow substantially after Artemis 3—the benefits of this focus are overshadowed by severe cuts across the agency.
With a near 25% reduction, this marks the largest single-year budget cut NASA has ever faced. Nearly 47% of the science budget is slashed, resulting in the cancellation of numerous flight projects and reduced research funding for both students and scientists nationwide. Critical technology and programs, including nuclear propulsion and Plutonium-238 production, will be terminated, and NASA’s workforce will be cut to numbers not seen since the 1960s, jeopardizing international partnerships and future endeavors.
Given the extensive changes proposed, it would be expected for the administration to actively seek collaboration to ensure success, reassure commercial and international partners, and engage the scientific community. Yet, the aftermath of the budget announcement saw minimal outreach efforts. Compounding the disarray, the president shortly after withdrew his nominee for NASA Administrator, leaving the agency without clear leadership at a crucial juncture.
The reaction to the proposed budget has been swift and substantial. Within a week, Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) initiated efforts to restore funding for key programs like the Artemis 4 and 5 missions, Gateway, and the International Space Station. A bipartisan group in the House, spearheaded by the Planetary Science Caucus, rallied over 80 co-sponsors to advocate for the reinstatement of NASA science funding. Public response has also been overwhelmingly negative, with The Planetary Society mobilizing nearly 45,000 opposition messages directed at Congress from constituents in all 50 states and 108 countries.
Notably absent are organized efforts to defend or support this budget.
There are only two launch windows remaining for Mars during this administration, and for the proposed Mars project to gain momentum, future administrations and Congress must continue this initiative. The administration must actively foster a coalition to ensure a smooth transition; otherwise, a project initiated amidst such discord faces substantial political hurdles ahead.
Should a Democratic administration follow, the lack of engagement and cuts to programs in Democrat-leaning states could reduce support for the effort. Conversely, if a Republican takes office, they may question the merit of a divisive project. In all scenarios, this Mars initiative, as it currently stands, faces significant political obstacles as a new Congress is seated in under two years.
At The Planetary Society, we are eager to see humanity explore Mars. Our concern arises because we want this goal achieved, and associating Mars exploration with detrimental cuts to American space science puts its success at risk. Mars deserves so much more than a tarnished and contentious path forward.
The reality is this: if pursuing a human Mars program means compromising NASA’s global leadership in space science, it will inevitably fail. If Mars becomes synonymous with dismantling bipartisan support for Artemis and NASA, it too will falter.
Rather than unify the nation under a shared long-term objective, this misguided budget sows division. Tragically, in doing so, the administration undermines its own stated goals and neglects the lessons from establishing Artemis in its first term.
Sending humans to Mars should encapsulate our highest ideals, a testament to cooperation and scientific endeavors. Unfortunately, this budget falls short, amounting to an act of self-sabotage and potential disappointment. Its legacy will likely not be human footprints on Martian soil, but rather a societal regret over squandered opportunities, all for minimal achievements.