Cuts to NASA's budget could derail America's Mars ambitions
In his recent Joint Address to Congress, President Trump reiterated his commitment to space exploration, stating, 'We are going to conquer the vast frontiers of science, and we are going to lead humanity into space and plant the American flag on the planet Mars and even far beyond.'
This statement is consistent with the continuous and unbroken presidential support for Mars exploration since the presidency of George W. Bush. Even in the current polarized state of politics in our country, space exploration and science missions have consistently maintained strong bipartisan support — one of the few government policies or programs that has such broad backing.
However, if recent reports are true, the president's upcoming 2026 federal budget proposal will make deep cuts to NASA's budget, including a potential 25 percent cut to its overall budget and a 50 percent cut to its science budget.
Cuts of this magnitude would not only devastate our nation's space program but also hinder any prospects of sending humans into deep space, including to the Moon and Mars, anytime soon.
Former NASA chief scientist Dr. Jim Green, the advisory board chair for our company, Explore Mars, Inc., said this cut would be a 'devastating misstep for the country.'
'NASA science drives innovation, inspires future generations, and strengthens national security,' he added.
Green noted that by gutting these programs, we'd be 'ceding leadership in space to other nations and stifling scientific advancements that fuel economic growth. Investing in NASA science is investing in the future of a strong America. We should never give up its soft power capability, ever!'
This move would be the antithesis of government efficiency. NASA's science missions have been among the most cost-effective and successful NASA programs since the end of the Apollo Program.
Indeed, virtually everything that NASA has discovered about Mars and the rest of the universe (except the Moon and low Earth orbit) has been a result of science missions and programs. These programs include the Hubble Space Telescope, the James Webb Space Telescope, the Voyager probes, all our orbiters and rovers at Mars and dozens of other missions.
Continued robotic missions are essential to enable human missions to Mars. This includes understanding resources on the surface of Mars, improving our communication system with Mars (the Deep Space Network) and maintaining our current fleet of orbiters and rovers.
Efficiencies undoubtedly can be found at NASA (and every other federal agency). For example, better integration among NASA mission directorates (human exploration, operations, science, etc.) as well as centers is critical. The days when mission architecture, science, human health, and technology development are pursued in isolation at NASA must come to an end.
NASA's recently established Moon to Mars Program Office should be given greater authority to integrate NASA mission directorates, NASA centers and partners to create focus and efficiency, streamlining internal bureaucracy within NASA to achieve our Moon and Mars goals as quickly and cost-effectively as possible.
The NASA budget represents less than half of one percent (a mere 0.3 percent) of the overall federal budget and NASA's Science Mission Directorate accounts for less than one-third of that amount. At such a small portion of the federal budget, such major and arbitrary cuts to NASA's budget would do very little to save money, but they will undercut and decimate one of the most cost-effective programs within the federal government.
Chris Carberry is the CEO of Explore Mars, Inc. and the author of 'The Music of Space' and 'Alcohol in Space.' Rick Zucker is the vice president, policy for Explore Mars, Inc.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
25 minutes ago
- Newsweek
LAPD Chief Pushes Back on Trump National Guard Claim
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) Chief Jim McDonnell said the protests and riots in portions of downtown Los Angeles on Wednesday are "nowhere near" the level of needing the National Guard, denouncing President Donald Trump's assertion that without the troops, the city would be "burning to the ground." Newsweek reached out to the White House via email for comment on Wednesday. Why It Matters Since his January 20 inauguration, Trump has implemented sweeping change, mainly through executive orders, and has prioritized immigration control as a key pillar within his second administration. Trump last month utilized the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, a wartime law granting the commander in chief authority to detain or deport non-citizens. The implementation was originally blocked in federal court and sparked a contentious legal back-and-forth. The president also campaigned on the promise of mass deportations and appointed Tom Homan as his administration's border czar to execute his agenda. What To Know Protests broke out on Friday in reaction to numerous U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids throughout Los Angeles. Amid the ongoing tumult, city officials including Mayor Karen Bass implemented a curfew for portions of downtown, from 8 p.m. Tuesday to 6 a.m. Wednesday, and it was extended into Wednesday night as well. The LAPD warned that people who break the curfew and who are not exempt—like first responders, credentialed media and those who live in the affected area—will be subject to arrest. While speaking to CNN's Kaitlan Collins, McDonnell said that Wednesday was a "better day," adding that it is "calmer." "No, we were not in a position to request the National Guard," McDonnell said. "We have a protocol that we work up through; first we bring in all internal resources to bear on the issue, whatever it is. Then we mobilize the department or part of the department to be able to get everybody out there dealing with the issue. If we don't have the capacity at that point to be able to do that, then through the sheriff we request mutual aid and we get our law enforcement partners from police departments and sheriff's departments throughout the Southern California region to assist us in doing what it is we need to do." "We're at that level now," McDonnell added. "And we're nowhere near a level where we would be reaching out to the governor for National Guard at this stage. And my hope is that things are going in the right direction now and that we wouldn't have had to have done that, or we won't either." Trump said in part on Wednesday while speaking to reporters that if he didn't bring in the National Guard and the Marines, the city of Los Angeles would be "burning to the ground, just like it was a number of months ago." The president's reference was to the deadly wildfires that inundated Los Angeles County, torching thousands of buildings and displacing thousands of Angelenos. Democratic California Governor Gavin Newsom in a formal address to the Golden State on Tuesday ripped Trump and his administration for inflaming an already combustible situation. Newsom also denounced any violence or harm to law enforcement, vowing to prosecute any lawlessness. Protesters confront California National Guard soldiers and police outside a federal building on June 9 as protests continue in Los Angeles following three days of clashes with police after a series of immigration raids. (Photo... Protesters confront California National Guard soldiers and police outside a federal building on June 9 as protests continue in Los Angeles following three days of clashes with police after a series of immigration raids. (Photo by) More What People Are Saying Newsom posted to X, formerly Twitter, on Wednesday: "Trump is politicizing our military and pulling them off critical missions to further his own agenda." Trump said on Truth Social Wednesday: "If our troops didn't go into Los Angeles, it would be burning to the ground right now, just like so much of their housing burned to the ground. The great people of Los Angeles are very lucky that I made the decision to go in and help!!!" California Attorney General Rob Bonta posted to X on Wednesday: "18 Attorneys General from across the nation speaking out against the President's abuse of power. The Trump Administration's unlawful efforts to force federalized national guard forces and the U.S. military to patrol our streets is deeply alarming and cannot go unchecked." Bass said on X Wednesday: "Curfew remains in effect tonight 8 PM - 6 AM for Downtown Los Angeles to stop bad actors who are taking advantage of the President's chaotic escalation. If you do not live or work in Downtown L.A., avoid the area and follow guidance from law enforcement. Vandalism and violence will not be tolerated." What Happens Next There is a hearing scheduled for 1:30 p.m. Thursday to discuss the legality of the National Guard activation in Los Angeles.
Hamilton Spectator
27 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
NDP leader says Carney needs to keep Parliament in the loop on trade talks
OTTAWA - Interim NDP Leader Don Davies is accusing Prime Minister Mark Carney of not being transparent about negotiations with the U.S. on getting President Donald Trump's tariffs lifted. Davies said Wednesday that Parliament has not been kept in the loop on what Carney and Trump are talking about behind closed doors, or whether Ottawa has involved stakeholders in negotiations with the U.S. 'Previous Liberal governments have made quite a deal out of appointing different stakeholders from society to be present in advising them. Yet we don't know anything about that in these negotiations,' Davies told reporters outside the House of Commons just ahead of question period. 'It's time that Carney government became more transparent with Canadians, let us know who's negotiating, and definitely explain to Canadians why he's pursuing deeper military and economic integration with the United States when he promised Canadians that he would do exactly the opposite.' Carney declared during the recent federal election that Canada's old relationship with the United States, based on deepening economic integration and military cooperation, had come to an end and he vowed to stand up to Trump in the face of steep U.S. tariffs. CBC/Radio-Canada reported earlier Wednesday that the U.S. and Canada are hashing out a 'working document' that outlines details of a potential trade deal and states that Canada will participate in Trump's Golden Dome missile defence project. The prime minister's office is neither confirming nor denying that report. Asked by reporters about talks on the U.S. tariffs, Finance Minister François-Philippe Champagne said the government's 'endgame' is to have all of Trump's tariffs removed, but he referred journalists to Carney and Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Dominic LeBlanc for the most up-to-date information. 'It's a very dynamic situation,' Champagne said. 'We've been engaging with our friends in the United States. You know, we talk to different people in the administration.' But Carney and Foreign Affairs Minister Anita Anand breezed past reporters who shouted questions at them on Wednesday, while LeBlanc was not seen in Parliament. Ontario Premier Doug Ford publicly confirmed the secret, top-level discussions last week, saying that Carney and Trump are in 'deep discussions' on trade and working 'around the clock to get a deal.' 'They're right at the brink,' Ford said in Toronto on June 5. Pete Hoekstra, Trump's ambassador to Canada, said in an armchair talk at the Canadian Club of Ottawa on Wednesday that he thinks there's a 'possibility to have a great deal.' He said that 'all indications' are that the two countries could reach a 'very positive agreement,' but couched that 'there's also the possibility you could end up with something like no deal or whatever.' 'Until a deal is announced, you really won't know what's it in it,' Hoekstra said. Trump has insisted that Canada could join his unbuilt Golden Dome continental missile defence program at a cost of $61 billion. Carney confirmed last month that he is in talks with Trump about the project. 'It's something that we are looking at and something that has been discussed at a high level,' Carney said at a press conference in Ottawa on May 21. This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 11, 2025.
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
How the $1,000 ‘Trump accounts' for American babies compare to 529s and custodial Roth IRAs
President Donald Trump and American business leaders this week celebrated a provision in his tax bill that would create and fund investment accounts for babies born in the next few years. The accounts would be allowed to compound and grow tax-deferred, similar to the way some retirement accounts work. 'In addition to the substantial financial benefits of investing early in life, extensive research shows that children with savings accounts are more likely to graduate high school and college, buy a home, start a business and are less likely to be incarcerated,' Trump said. 'Trump accounts will contribute to the lifelong success of millions of newborn babies.' Here's what you should know about these 'baby 401(k)s' and how they compare to other savings plans for children. The so-called Trump accounts are part of Trump's 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act' that passed through the House of Representatives last month. Republicans are aiming to get the bill through the Senate and signed by Trump by July 4th. Here's how the accounts would work: The federal government would contribute $1,000 to an investment account for every American baby born between Jan. 1, 2025, and Dec. 31, 2028. An additional $5,000 in after-tax contributions could be made annually to the accounts by parents, employers or other private entities. The money would be invested in index funds that track the overall U.S. stock market. Accounts would be controlled by a child's legal guardians until age 18. Earnings would grow tax-deferred and qualified withdrawals would be taxed at the long-term capital gains rate. 'The compounded growth of an initial $1,000 investment at the time of birth, at an average annual return of 8 percent, would amount to nearly $4,000 by age 18, more than $10,000 by age 30, and over $148,000 by age 65,' according to Bankrate Chief Financial Analyst Greg McBride. 'The key to achieving this type of growth is leaving the money untouched. As Warren Buffett espouses, 'Never interrupt compounding.'' Several business leaders praised the accounts and said they'd make contributions to their employee's kids' accounts. 'We see … the establishment of these Trump Accounts as a simple yet powerful way to transform lives,' Dell Technologies CEO Michael Dell said. 'Decades of research has shown that giving children a financial head start profoundly impacts their long-term success.' Get started: Match with an advisor who can help you achieve your financial goals Trump Accounts have some similarities with 529 savings plans, but there are some notable differences. Funding: Trump accounts would be initially funded by the federal government, while 529 plans are typically funded by parents, grandparents or other relatives. Withdrawals: Withdrawals from 529 plans are tax-free as long as they're used for qualified educational expenses. Withdrawals from Trump accounts would have fewer restrictions on their uses, but are taxed at long-term capital gains rates. Contribution limits: Annual contributions for Trump accounts would be limited to $5,000, while 529 plans allow for much higher limits, from about $235,000 to more than $600,000, depending on the state that sponsors the plan (these are lifetime limits; there's no annual limit for 529s). Many people assume that the maximum 529 plan contribution is $19,000 per child in 2025 — or $38,000 if you file jointly — but that's the maximum amount you can contribute without exceeding the annual gift tax limit. (If you give someone more than that limit in any given year, then you're required to file a gift tax return, though you likely still won't owe taxes on the gift.) Here's what else you should know about using a 529 plan to save for your kids' education. Compare advisors: Bankrate's list of the best financial advisors Custodial Roth IRAs also allow kids to set aside money and have it be invested so it grows over time. Here's how they compare to the proposed Trump accounts. Earned income requirement: Trump accounts would be funded at birth and allow for additional contributions each year, while custodial Roth IRAs require a child to have earned income during the year in order to contribute. Contribution limits: Custodial Roth IRA contributions are limited to $7,000 in 2025, or the total amount of earned income a child has during the year, whichever is less. Trump accounts would allow for annual contributions of $5,000. Taxes on withdrawals: Withdrawals from Roth IRAs during retirement are tax-free, while withdrawals from the proposed Trump accounts would be taxed at the long-term capital gains rate. Here's more on custodial Roth IRAs. The proposed Trump Accounts would create new investment accounts for every American baby born in the next few years, funded with $1,000 from the federal government. The accounts would be invested in index funds that track the U.S. stock market and could receive additional contributions each year of $5,000 from private entities. The plan is subject to change as the bill makes its way through the legislative process. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
