
NASA scientists describe ‘absolute sh*tshow' at agency as Trump budget seeks to dismantle top US climate lab
Space programs
Climate changeFacebookTweetLink
Follow
NASA scientists are in a state of anxious limbo after the Trump administration proposed a budget that would eliminate one of the United States' top climate labs – the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, or GISS – as a standalone entity.
In its place, it would move some of the lab's functions into a broader environmental modeling effort across the agency.
Career specialists are now working remotely, awaiting details and even more unsure about their future at the lab after they were kicked out of their longtime home in New York City last week. Closing the lab for good could jeopardize its value and the country's leadership role in global climate science, sources say.
'It's an absolute sh*tshow,' one GISS scientist said under condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the media. 'Morale at GISS has never been lower, and it feels for all of us that we are being abandoned by NASA leadership.'
'We are supposedly going to be integrated into this new virtual NASA modeling institute, but (we have) no idea what that will actually look like,' they said.
NASA is defending its budget proposal, with a nod toward the lab's future.
'NASA's GISS has a significant place in the history of space science and its work is critical for the Earth Science Division, particularly as the division looks to the future of its modeling work and capabilities,' NASA spokesperson Cheryl Warner said in a statement.
'Fundamental contributions in research and applications from GISS directly impact daily life by showing the Earth system connections that impact the air we breathe, our health, the food we grow, and the cities we live in,' Warner said.
GISS has a storied history in climate science on the global scale.
James Hansen, a former director, first called national attention to human-caused global warming at a Senate hearing during the hot summer of 1988. The lab, founded in 1961, is still known worldwide for its computer modeling of the planet that enable scientists to make projections for how climate change may affect global temperatures, precipitation, extreme weather events and other variables.
The about 125 scientists who work there are also known for tracking global temperatures, with GISS' records serving as one of the independent checks on other labs around the world monitoring global warming.
The lab stands out, the scientist said, for its 'fundamental work contributing to our understanding of global warming, volcanic and aerosol forcing of climate, and advances in detection and attribution' of climate change impacts.
'All work that was curiosity-driven and enabled by the autonomy we had at GISS to pursue these questions,' they said, adding: 'Everyone is stressed because we have no clarity from leadership on even what the long-term plan is. (It) Really feels like we are just being left to die on the vine.'
Another GISS scientist, who also spoke under the condition of anonymity, said the lab's independence has been key to its success, which can be seen in the abundance of published studies from researchers at the facility.
The autonomy afforded to GISS over the years, given its distance from NASA headquarters in Washington, and its academic-like freedom helped its researchers take on important studies that might not be pursued in other circumstances, they said.
And unlike high-level managers at NASA, GISS' leadership received high marks for their communications and advocacy of the center's work, according to three researchers.
'It is important for climate modeling to continue,' one of the GISS researchers said. 'They're the best tools that we have for the planet.'
A technical NASA budget supplement released late last week committed to 'strengthening America's leadership in space exploration while exercising fiscal responsibility. NASA is adapting the way we work and invest to accomplish our mission,' Warner, the spokesperson, said.
That Republicans' proposed NASA budget includes funding for climate modeling at all is notable, considering its cuts for space exploration and overall Earth science. Numerous space exploration missions and satellites would be abandoned under the budget, including some satellites already in space that are actively sending climate-related data back to Earth.
The budget supplement makes GISS' fate both clear and hazy. It states Earth system modeling activities at four different NASA centers will be merged into one 'virtual institute.' This would incorporate 'core capabilities' of GISS 'as needed,' it adds.
'GISS as an independent entity will not continue,' the document says.
This fate may be considerably better for NASA's climate scientists than the worst-case scenario seen at agencies like the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, where the budget for nearly its entire weather and climate research portfolio would be zeroed out and most of its research labs shuttered.
Overall, the NASA budget would be a 24% cut compared to last year, with a 47% cut to agency science activities, according to The Planetary Society, a group that advances space science and innovation.
Its analysis found the NASA funding level would be the smallest since 1961 when adjusted for inflation.
The ultimate decisions on the future of climate modeling at NASA, as well as its space exploration activities, will fall to Congress as members consider the budget proposal, adding even more uncertainty to an already fraught period for GISS's staff.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Medscape
31 minutes ago
- Medscape
Unnecessary Blood Culture Testing Persists in Pediatrics
Rates of routine blood culture (BC) testing for uncomplicated infections in children had no significant effect on length of stay, costs, return emergency department visits, or hospital readmissions, according to data from nearly 95,000 hospitalizations presented at the Pediatric Hospital Medicine (PHM) 2025. Routine BC testing has shown minimal value in the clinical management of uncomplicated community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), skin and soft tissue infections (SSTI), and urinary tract infections (UTI), according to Smit K. Shah, MD, a clinical assistant professor of pediatrics at the University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Medicine, who presented the findings at the meeting. While such BC testing in an otherwise healthy pediatric population has low clinical benefit, said Shah in an interview, 'downstream harms of such testing may be leading to not just healthcare waste but patient harm.' To review the effect of BC testing patterns on outcomes, Shah and colleagues identified hospitalizations for patients aged 3 months to 18 years admitted with CAP, SSTI, or UTI from 2016 to 2023. The data on 94,524 hospitalizations across 31 hospitals came from the Pediatric Health Information System database. The researchers excluded patients with complicated infections, ICU admission, or hospital stays longer than 1 week. Hospitals were characterized as low-, moderate-, or high-BC testers (13, 10, and 8 hospitals, respectively). The primary outcomes were rates of blood culture testing by infection and hospital, annual rates of testing over 8 years, and clinical outcomes including length of hospital stay, costs, emergency department return visits, and hospital readmissions. The researchers reviewed data for 41% of CAP, 45% of SSTI, and 55% of UTI cases. BC testing rates varied widely; the widest range was from 16% to 77% for low-testing and high-testing hospitals for CAP, respectively. BC testing ranged from approximately 38% to 77% for SSTI and from approximately 22% to 77% for UTI for the low-testing and high-testing hospitals. Over the study period, seven hospitals showed significant increases, 17 showed no changes, and seven showed decreases in annual BC testing. Overall, no significant differences appeared between the high- and low-testing groups in outcome measures of adjusted length of stay, costs, emergency department return visits, hospital readmissions at 7 days, or bacteremia. The findings were limited by several factors including the use of administrative data and potential lack of generalizability to nonacademic hospitals, Shah noted. Many hospitals showed no reduction in BC testing over time, despite growing evidence of no change in outcomes, Shah said in his presentation. The results of the current study suggest that the reassessment of BC use and reduction of unnecessary testing is needed to optimize resources and improve healthcare value, Shah concluded. What Drives Disregard for Guidelines Despite guidelines from the American Academy of Pediatrics on the futility of BC testing in uncomplicated SSTIs, the proportion of hospitalized children with this infection undergoing testing is alarming and continues to remain high over time, Shah told Medscape Medical News . 'We need to understand drivers of unnecessary testing,' said Shah. Identifying whether unnecessary testing stems from institutional factors or lack of education about futility and downstream effects of unnecessary testing would help direct national stewardship efforts to reduce testing overuse, he said. 'The recent blood culture vial shortage could act as a natural experiment in reducing testing,' Shah noted 'Diagnostic stewardship in regard to blood cultures is important as overuse of blood cultures when not clinically indicated has the potential to lead to false-positive results, antibiotic overuse, antibiotic resistance, and can potentially increase healthcare costs,' said Shirin Mazumder, MD, an infectious diseases specialist in Memphis, Tennessee, in an interview. 'Evaluating scenarios where blood cultures may not be clinically indicated can help to address these issues,' said Mazumder, who was not involved in the study. The fear of missing an invasive infection and changing long-standing practice habits are some barriers to reducing unnecessary BC culture testing, but they can be overcome in part by sharing available study data, said Mazumder. In addition, the development of guidelines to determine which candidates would or would not benefit from BCs would help guide clinicians in best practices, she said. This study was supported in part by grants from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality to two of the coauthors. Shah reported no financial conflicts of interest.


Forbes
32 minutes ago
- Forbes
A Big, Beautiful Fiction - Does The EU/US Trade Deal Make Sense?
James Thurber's famous book 'The Secret Life of Walter Mitty' is yet another book I would recommend to readers, to continue a recurring theme of recent weeks. It is especially apt in the context of the US-EU trade deal. Walter Mitty appeared at the end of the 1930's, a decade that was shaped by Herbert Hoover's tariff policy, and that was marked by profound economic and geopolitical tensions. Mitty's fantasies were provoked by the reality of his pedestrian, harangued life – which will appeal to European leaders who care to dream of better days. Equally, the giddiness of Mitty's fantasies has its equivalent in the promises that Donald Trump has elicited from the EU – namely, to buy and invest hundreds of billions of dollars in energy. One week on, reaction to the US-EU trade deal is still mixed, and it is not quite clear who has 'won'. This may be because it is not a trade deal in the classical sense – at least in the sense of the laborious trade deals that the EU is used to striking, partly because a large facet of the 'deal' is based on a promise and also because the optics of the deal are quite depressing for Europe. At the headline level, EU exports into the US will be met with a 15% tariff to be paid by the US consumer, not unlike the Japanese 'deal'. Auto companies will not be displeased with a 15% tariff. Wines and spirits, steel and notably pharmaceuticals have yet to have tariff levels finalised and there will be some relief on the confirmation of 15% tariffs on pharmaceuticals, though the investigation into pharmaceutical exports back to the US is a tail risk. Interestingly, the EU has resisted attempts to water down its digital regulations. Politically the spin that the EU is putting on the agreement is that it was the best possible outcome in a difficult geopolitical climate (recall that the recent EU-China summit was a damp-squib). While there were some public expressions of dismay, notably from the French prime minister Francois Bayrou – these can be seen to be largely aimed at the public, rather than Brussels. Though Ursula von der Leyen is unpopular with EU governments for the singular way she runs her office – it is populated with officials who are close to national government (i.e. Alexandre Adam one of von der Leyen's key deputies is an arch Macronist) – there is no sense that the large countries were left out of the negotiation process, and any effort to isolate von der Leyen for blame, is ignoble. However, amongst the professional trade staff, there is still some despair at the humiliating optics of the deal, the fact that it is in many ways not binding, and the risk that there is no undertaking that it is final in the sense that another round of tariffs is imposed later. On the positive side for Europe, and flipping to the 'Mitty-esque' part of the deal, two of the key undertakings in the deal – that European companies invest USD 600 bn in the US, in addition to a commitment to purchase microchips, as well as a commitment from the EU to buy USD 750bn in energy from the US over the course of the Trump presidency – are not at all clear in their implementation, and very much open to a fudge, with the right accounting treatment. In particular the energy purchase commitment is unrealistic because it exceeds what the EU spends on energy in a given year and US energy firms do not have the capacity to service a commitment of USD 250bn in demand from Europe, whilst also serving other markets. In my view there are several aftershocks to watch for. The first is that the deal further damages trans-Atlantic relations, and the level of trust between the EU and the US is likely the lowest it has ever been, and this has strategic implications as far afield as Russia/Ukraine and the Middle East. One other implication may be a drift, by government and consumers, away from US brands – as this may well be an effect that is seen in other regions. Two financial market implications are that the dampening of growth in Europe will maintain downward pressure on rates in Europe. More importantly, in the context of a very oversold dollar, there is now an incentive for EU policy makers to try hard to talk down the euro, and we may see a short-term rebound in the currency pair. On the whole, if this is a 'final' deal and the topic of tariffs does not re-emerge in the next three years, it is not a bad deal for the semi's, autos and aerospace sectors in Europe, though the public optics are not good for the EU. The best parts of the deal for Europe are the fantastical claims of incoming European investment and energy purchases in the US. This is a Mitty style fairy tale that the Europeans hope Mr Trump believes in. The telling factor is that this deal has now emptied all goodwill from the trans-Atlantic relationship, and effectively completes another diplomatic rupture by President Trump. From a European point of view, this is yet another 'wake up call' and the best that can be hoped for is that it accelerates projects like the savings and investment union and 'strategic autonomy'. European leaders and the European policy elite keep talking about this, but until we see hard evidence (for example, German real GDP over the last five years is close to zero), they are the fantasists. Have a great week ahead Mike


Fox News
32 minutes ago
- Fox News
Kamala Harris: I refused to 'pile on' Joe Biden
Kamala Harris bristled at Stephen Colbert's question about navigating a campaign to replace her own boss.