
‘Catastrophic impacts': NASA workers sign declaration to protest changes they say threaten safety and progress
The document — titled 'The Voyager Declaration' and dedicated to astronauts who lost their lives in tragic spaceflight incidents of the past — is addressed to acting NASA Administrator Sean Duffy, a staunch Trump loyalist who abruptly replaced Janet Petro, a longtime NASA employee, in the agency's top role on July 9. The letter has 156 anonymous signatories and 131 public signatures — including at least 55 current employees.
'Major programmatic shifts at NASA must be implemented strategically so that risks are managed carefully,' states the letter to Duffy, a former reality TV personality who also currently serves as Transportation secretary. 'Instead, the last six months have seen rapid and wasteful changes which have undermined our mission and caused catastrophic impacts on NASA's workforce.'
The letter raises concerns about suggested changes to NASA's Technical Authority, a system of safety checks and balances at the agency.
Established in the wake of the 2003 Columbia shuttle disaster that killed seven astronauts, the Technical Authority aims to ensure mission safety by allowing NASA employees at all levels of the agency to voice safety concerns to leaders outside their direct chain of command.
'If you have a significant disagreement with a technical decision that's being made, (the system) gives someone an alternate avenue that's not their project manager or program manager' to express that concern, a source at Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland who asked to remain anonymous for fear of retribution, told CNN.
Changes to that system 'should be made only in the interests of improving safety, not in anticipation of future budget cuts,' the declaration reads.
The source said that they considered looming changes 'a really scary prospect, especially for my colleagues who work directly on the human spaceflight side of things.'
The letter comes as the agency is grappling with the impending loss of thousands of employees and broader restructuring.
A spokesperson for NASA leadership did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The signed letter is the most recent in a string of declarations rebuking proposed cuts and changes at other federal agencies.
Some National Institutes of Health employees led the way in June, publishing a declaration opposing what they called the politicization of research.
Another letter, signed by federal workers at the Environmental Protection Agency earlier this month, resulted in about 140 people being placed on administrative leave. At least some of those workers will remain on leave until at least August 1, 'pending the Agency's inquiry,' according to internal email correspondence obtained by CNN.
One signatory of the NASA letter who spoke to CNN said they felt that expressing dissent against the Trump administration may pose a risk to their livelihoods, but they believed the stakes were too high to remain silent.
Ella Kaplan, a contractor employed by Global Science and Technology Inc. and the website administrator for the NASA Scientific Visualization Studio, said she decided to publicly attach her name to the Voyager Declaration because 'the overall culture at NASA has very much shifted — and it feels a lot less safe for me.'
'That's been felt kind of universally by most minority employees at NASA,' Kaplan said.
While Kaplan said her job has not yet been directly threatened, in her view, 'I'm a member of the LGBT community … and I'm probably going to be fired for this at some point, so I might as well do as much community organizing as possible before that point.'
The letter and its signatories implore Duffy to evaluate recent policies they say 'have or threaten to waste public resources, compromise human safety, weaken national security, and undermine the core NASA mission.'
The declaration's criticism of changes to NASA's Technical Authority stem from statements made at an agency town hall in June. During that meeting, NASA executives said they planned to attempt to make the Technical Authority more 'efficient.'
'We're looking at: 'How do we do programs and projects more efficiently? And how much should we be spending on oversight?'' said Vanessa Wyche, NASA's acting associate administrator.
Garrett Reisman — a former NASA astronaut and engineer who later served as a SpaceX advisor — told CNN that he believes implementing some changes to the Technical Authority may be welcome. He noted that NASA may have become too risk averse in the wake of the Columbia tragedy, and the current structure may be hampering innovation.
But, Reisman said, any changes to the space agency's safety backstops need to be made with extreme care. And currently, he said, he does not trust that will happen.
'I have very little confidence that it will be done the right way,' Reisman, who signed the declaration, said. 'So far, this administration has used a very heavy hand with their attempts to remove bureaucracy — and what they've ended up doing is not making things more efficient, but just eliminating things.'
The signatories who spoke to CNN each expressed opposition to President Donald Trump's directives to shutter Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Accessibility — or DEIA — initiatives.
At NASA, leadership complied with Trump's executive order by shuttering a DEIA-focused branch, scrubbing pronouns from email signatures, and removing references to a pledge made during the president's previous term to land a woman and person of color on the moon for the first time. The space agency also shuttered employee groups that lent support to minority workers.
The source who spoke with CNN anonymously said that DEIA policies not only ensure a welcoming work environment — they're also essential to practicing sound science.
'The concept of inclusivity being a pathway to better science is something that has become really entrenched in the overall academic and scientific community in the last decade or so,' the source said, adding that the changes 'set an immediate tone for the destruction that was going to come.'
Among the other policies that the letter decries is the Trump administration's call for NASA to shutter some projects that have Congressional backing — a move the signatories say is wasteful and 'represents a permanent loss of capability to the United States both in space and on Earth.'
The NASA employee told CNN that leadership has already begun shutting down some facilities that the Trump administration put on the chopping block in its budget proposal, despite the fact that Congress appears poised to continue funding some of them.
'We've also been hearing repeatedly passed down from every level of management: No one is coming to save you; Congress is not coming to save you,' the source said. 'But it seems like Congress is moving towards an appropriations that's going to continue to fund our projects at approximately the same level.'
The source noted that they have first-hand knowledge of leadership beginning to decommission a clean room — a facility free of dust and debris where sensitive hardware and science instruments must be prepared for spaceflight — despite the fact that there are ongoing tests happening at the facility.
The Voyager Declaration also criticizes what it refers to as 'indiscriminate cuts' planned for the agency.
The White House's proposal to slash NASA's science budget by as much as half has been met with widespread condemnation from stakeholders who say such cuts threaten to cripple US leadership in the field.
Recent agency communication to staff has also noted that at least 3,000 staff members are taking deferred resignation offers, according to an internal memo, the authenticity of which was confirmed to CNN by two sources who had seen the communication.
Broader workforce cuts could also be on the horizon. NASA leadership under Petro also worked on an agency restructuring plan, though the details of that initiative have not yet been made public.
Other Trump-era changes denounced in the Voyager Declaration include directives to cancel contracts and grants that affect private-sector workers across the country and plans to pull the space agency out of some projects with international partners. The White House budget proposal calls for defunding dozens of projects, including the Lunar Gateway space station that the US would have worked on with space agencies in Canada, Europe, Japan and the United Arab Emirates.
The letter and its signatories argue these policies are wasteful, squandering investments that have been years or decades in the making.
'American taxpayers have invested a lot of money in my education and training directly,' the Goddard source said. 'I'm in it for the public service — and I want to return that investment to them.'
Hashtags

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


Fast Company
a few seconds ago
- Fast Company
3 things the pronatalist movement gets wrong about birth rates
Pronatalism—the belief that low birth rates are a problem that must be reversed— is having a moment in the U.S. As birth rates decline in the U.S. and throughout the world, voices from Silicon Valley to the White House are raising concerns about what they say could be the calamitous effects of steep population decline on the economy. The Trump administration has said it is seeking ideas on how to encourage Americans to have more children as the U.S. experiences its lowest total fertility rate in history, down about 25% since 2007. As demographers who study fertility, family behaviors, and childbearing intentions, we can say with certainty that population decline is not imminent, inevitable or necessarily catastrophic. The population collapse narrative hinges on three key misunderstandings. First, it misrepresents what standard fertility measures tell us about childbearing and makes unrealistic assumptions that fertility rates will follow predictable patterns far into the future. Second, it overstates the impact of low birth rates on future population growth and size. Third, it ignores the role of economic policies and labor market shifts in assessing the impacts of low birth rates. Fertility fluctuations Demographers generally gauge births in a population with a measure called the total fertility rate. The total fertility rate for a given year is an estimate of the average number of children that women would have in their lifetime if they experienced current birth rates throughout their childbearing years. Fertility rates are not fixed—in fact, they have changed considerably over the past century. In the U.S., the total fertility rate rose from about 2 births per woman in the 1930s to a high of 3.7 births per woman around 1960. The rate then dipped below 2 births per woman in the late 1970s and 1980s before returning to 2 births in the 1990s and early 2000s. Since the Great Recession that lasted from late 2007 until mid-2009, the U.S. total fertility rate has declined almost every year, with the exception of very small post-COVID-19 pandemic increases in 2021 and 2022. In 2024, it hit a record low, falling to 1.6. This drop is primarily driven by declines in births to people in their teens and early 20s —births that are often unintended. But while the total fertility rate offers a snapshot of the fertility landscape, it is not a perfect indicator of how many children a woman will eventually have if fertility patterns are in flux—for example, if people are delaying having children. Picture a 20-year-old woman today, in 2025. The total fertility rate assumes she will have the same birth rate as today's 40-year-olds when she reaches 40. That's not likely to be the case, because birth rates 20 years from now for 40-year-olds will almost certainly be higher than they are today, as more births occur at older ages and more people are able to overcome infertility through medically assisted reproduction. A more nuanced picture of childbearing These problems with the total fertility rate are why demographers also measure how many total births women have had by the end of their reproductive years. In contrast to the total fertility rate, the average number of children ever born to women ages 40 to 44 has remained fairly stable over time, hovering around two. Americans continue to express favorable views toward childbearing. Ideal family size remains at two or more children, and 9 in 10 adults either have, or would like to have, children. However, many Americans are unable to reach their childbearing goals. This seems to be related to the high cost of raising children and growing uncertainty about the future. In other words, it doesn't seem to be the case that birth rates are low because people are uninterested in having children; rather, it's because they don't feel it's feasible for them to become parents or to have as many children as they would like. The challenge of predicting future population size Standard demographic projections do not support the idea that population size is set to shrink dramatically. One billion people lived on Earth 250 years ago. Today there are over 8 billion, and by 2100 the United Nations predicts there will be over 10 billion. That's 2 billion more, not fewer, people in the foreseeable future. Admittedly, that projection is plus or minus 4 billion. But this range highlights another key point: Population projections get more uncertain the further into the future they extend. Predicting the population level five years from now is far more reliable than 50 years from now—and beyond 100 years, forget about it. Most population scientists avoid making such long-term projections, for the simple reason that they are usually wrong. That's because fertility and mortality rates change over time in unpredictable ways. The U.S. population size is also not declining. Currently, despite fertility below the replacement level of 2.1 children per woman, there are still more births than deaths. The U.S. population is expected to grow by 22.6 million by 2050 and by 27.5 million by 2100, with immigration playing an important role. Will low fertility cause an economic crisis? A common rationale for concern about low fertility is that it leads to a host of economic and labor market problems. Specifically, pronatalists argue that there will be too few workers to sustain the economy and too many older people for those workers to support. However, that is not necessarily true—and even if it were, increasing birth rates wouldn't fix the problem. As fertility rates fall, the age structure of the population shifts. But a higher proportion of older adults does not necessarily mean the proportion of workers to nonworkers falls. For one thing, the proportion of children under age 18 in the population also declines, so the number of working-age adults—usually defined as ages 18 to 64—often changes relatively little. And as older adults stay healthier and more active, a growing number of them are contributing to the economy. Labor force participation among Americans ages 65 to 74 increased from 21.4% in 2003 to 26.9% in 2023 — and is expected to increase to 30.4% by 2033. Modest changes in the average age of retirement or in how Social Security is funded would further reduce strains on support programs for older adults. What's more, pronatalists' core argument that a higher birth rate would increase the size of the labor force overlooks some short-term consequences. More babies means more dependents, at least until those children become old enough to enter the labor force. Children not only require expensive services such as education, but also reduce labor force participation, particularly for women. As fertility rates have fallen, women's labor force participation rates have risen dramatically —from 34% in 1950 to 58% in 2024. Pronatalist policies that discourage women's employment are at odds with concerns about a diminishing number of workers. Research shows that economic policies and labor market conditions, not demographic age structures, play the most important role in determining economic growth in advanced economies. And with rapidly changing technologies like automation and artificial intelligence, it is unclear what demand there will be for workers in the future. Moreover, immigration is a powerful—and immediate—tool for addressing labor market needs and concerns over the proportion of workers. Overall, there's no evidence for Elon Musk's assertion that 'humanity is dying.' While the changes in population structure that accompany low birth rates are real, in our view the impact of these changes has been dramatically overstated. Strong investments in education and sensible economic policies can help countries successfully adapt to a new demographic reality.


The Hill
a few seconds ago
- The Hill
Most support Trump immigration goal, but say approach goes too far: Survey
Most Americans support President Trump's immigration goals, but they argued that the administration's approach is overreaching, according to a new survey. The Wall Street Journal poll, released Monday, found that 62 percent of U.S. adults said they are supportive of the administration's deportation of migrants who are in the country illegally. Despite the support, many respondents are against two approaches that administration has taken to facilitate Trump's robust crackdown on illegal immigration: Mass deportation without due process and deporting immigrants to jails in countries other than where they are from. Both approaches received 58 percent opposition, the survey shows. Close to 60 percent of independents said the White House has gone too far in deporting migrants without granting them a hearing or sending them back without evidence that they are in the U.S. illegally. GOP voters are strongly supportive of Trump's immigration policies, with 90 percent of them being fully on board. Just 11 percent of Republicans said the administration has gone too far, according to the poll. Around 75 percent of GOP voters also signaled support for deporting migrants without giving them a chance to appear before a judge or sit for a court hearing. Amongst all Americans, the support is at around 39 percent, the poll revealed. Nearly two-thirds of Americans, 62 percent, said the administration is deporting as many people as possible, regardless of whether they have a criminal background. Around a third of U.S. adults said U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is mainly deporting migrants who are in the country illegally and have a criminal record, according to the poll. Earlier this month, a Harvard CAPS/Harris poll found that 60 percent of voters support Trump's push to close the border. The survey showed that 75 percent of Americans are supportive of the administration's push to deport migrants who are in the country without authorization. The Wall Street Journal survey was conducted from July 16-20 among 1,500 registered voters. The margin of error was 2.5 percentage points.

Los Angeles Times
a few seconds ago
- Los Angeles Times
Letters to the Editor: ‘Alligator Alcatraz' is ‘Trump's monument to misery and inhumanity'
To the editor: I am revolted by the photo of the grinning visitors flashing a thumbs up in front of President Trump's monument to misery and inhumanity, the so-called 'Alligator Alcatraz' detention center ('Deportation flights from Florida's 'Alligator Alcatraz' detention center have begun, DeSantis says,' July 25). How did so many people become dismissive and uncaring about rights, both human and those enshrined in the Constitution of this formerly great country? Shame on us. This is happening on our watch. Elizabeth Alexander, Ojai .. To the editor: In regard to the photo of a couple happily posing in front of the 'Alligator Alcatraz' sign — I know the comparison is not completely fair, but I could not help but imagine what it would be like to see the same scene in the 1940s, with a happy couple in front of one of Germany's concentration camps. It is well documented that most people swept up in the immigration raids have no criminal convictions and that raids target businesses and churches; it is not about catching hardened criminals. It is also well documented that the Florida facility has insufficient, even inhumane (and I would suggest un-American) conditions, with a name and location purposefully chosen for harshness. That people can go out of their way to proudly support a facility that isn't up to the standards of a prison, designed as a holding pen for noncriminals picked up at Home Depot and your neighborhood church — this will be another shameful part of American history. David Lynn, Simi Valley