NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman has been avoiding questions about severe cuts proposed to the agency’s budget by President Donald Trump since it was revealed just as NASA was focusing its attention the historic Artemis II mission earlier this month.

But on Wednesday, during a U.S. House Science, Space and Technology Committee, Isaacman had to take some hits from Congress members who criticized what they deemed a rehash of the first Trump budget proposal that Congress ultimately ignored a year ago.

For the current fiscal year 2026, Trump had sought to slash NASA’s budget from about $25 billion to less than $19 billion. The new fiscal 2027 budget seeks to do the same, including cutting science funding by nearly half.

Congress ultimately saved nearly all of NASA’s programs with this year’s budget. Committee Chair Rep. Brian Babin, R-Texas, said he expects Congress to do the same for 2027.

“I am confident that they’re going to be rejected again,” he said. “To be clear, I’m a conservative Republican. I am a budget hawk. Our nation is nearly $39 trillion in debt. We must address this alarming situation and soon, but we must be smart in how we do so. Shortchanging NASA is simply not smart.”

He noted the disconnect in NASA and President Trump’s own stated goals to undertake things like moon and Mars missions.

“We must ensure that NASA is funded at a level that allows it to pursue those missions. I simply do not believe that this budget proposal is capable of supporting what President Trump himself has directed the agency to accomplish over the course of his two terms, nor what Congress has directed by law,” he said.

Ranking member Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-California, concurred and reminded Isaacman that there is an across-the-aisle agreement here. She also noted the administration did not pick the best moment to reveal its budget request, announcing it on the third day of Artemis II just as its astronauts were about to begin their historic observations of the moon.

“(The Office of Management and Budget) once again tries to argue that NASA and the United States will continue to lead in space and Earth science, human exploration, aeronautics and space technology, while all but exploration would see Draconian cuts,” she said, noting it looks to chop $5.6 billion, or 23%, from what was enacted for fiscal year 2026. “These reductions do not exactly send a welcome home message to the Artemis II crew or to the NASA workforce.”

She said it should come as no surprise the House Science Committee is concerned.

“Exploration would see disproportionate increases under this proposal, the rest of NASA would not,” she said. “Slashing space and Earth science, aeronautics and space technology, while our society increasingly depends on space assets and services to function, that’s just not a winning strategy.”

Isaacman, in his first congressional budget hearing since taking over the reins of NASA last December, fielded questions from both Democrats and Republicans that questioned the cuts.

“I take seriously every single dollar that Congress affords,” he said. “NASA and I want to maximize the scientific exploration and discovery value of every cent of it. So we’ve taken very close look at every dollar that leaves the agency.”

Isaacman had just one day earlier been at a rollout announcement tied to NASA’s flagship science mission of the Nancy Grace Roman Telescope, which is now slated to fly in early September on a SpaceX Falcon Heavy from Kennedy Space Center. He highlighted the launch coming eight months ahead of schedule and under budget.

“Roman’s accelerated development is a true success story of what we can achieve when public investment, institutional expertise and private enterprise come together to take on the near impossible missions that change the world, unlocking the secrets the universe and attempting to answer the question, ‘Are we alone?’, is inherent in just about all we do here at NASA,” he said.

He also noted that big science missions are not off the board at NASA, such as the Dragonfly spacecraft headed for Saturn’s moon Titan in 2028 and the newly announced nuclear-powered spacecraft that will do a flyby of Mars, dropping off more helicopters similar to the groundbreaking Ingenuity helicopter that hitched a ride with the Perseverance rover.

“I wholeheartedly believe we need more flagship science missions,” Isaacman said, noting he loves the subject. “In fact, as much as I would say it’s good to be balanced, the reality is now, as commercial industry evolves … we actually probably can undertake a lot more affordable, of-the-lower-end-of-the-spectrum science missions, freeing up resources to do more flagship.”

And while he supports the scientific community’s once-a-decade survey process to drive NASA’s big science missions, he’d like to speed that up to something tackled not just every 10 years.

“I would love to recalibrate the time frames down, because I actually think taking advantage of a very mature launch market right now, (and) AI tools, we can actually gather the data and formulate positions and what should be subsequent missions a lot faster than the current process,” he said.

He said a lot of Trump’s budget cuts on the science side have targeted missions that were still in the costly formulation phase. He noted that $200 million was spent in 2025 on an effort to restructure the Mars Sample Return mission, which had actually been canceled by the Biden administration.

“So I don’t always think those are the best use of dollars,” he said. “We could free up resources to undertake more decadal recommend flagship missions, and that is something I would like to be driving in that direction as much as possible.”

Earlier in the week, nonprofit group the Planetary Society, organized more than 170 people including Bill Nye, the organization’s former CEO and now chief ambassador, to lobby members of Congress on Capitol Hill decrying the budget with what they have deemed for now two years in a row, “extinction-level” budget cuts.

They state NASA’s Science Mission Directorate would be chopped by 46% and terminate more than 50 active science missions and projects, which would eliminate thousands of science and engineering jobs and waste $13 billion in taxpayer investments that have already been spent. Reducing science funding from $7.25 billion to $3.9 billion would make it the lowest level since 1984 when adjusted for inflation, the groups stated.

Once again, the budget seeks to end missions like New Horizons, which flew by Pluto last decade and continues to venture into deep space, the Chandra X-ray Great Observatory, the Fermi Gamma Ray space telescope and others.

“Last year, The Planetary Society went to Washington and organized the largest movement for space science in history and successfully prevented Draconian cuts to NASA,” said Nye. “We will do it again. If the recent Artemis II mission showed us anything, it’s that the public, across the political spectrum, strongly supports space exploration, scientific discovery and a deeper understanding of the universe and our place within it.”

Isaacman did his best to color the proposed cuts as good for the country.

“I do think we have a very balanced portfolio plan,” Isaacman said. “These are missions that no one else in the world is capable of undertaking. I’d also say NASA’s proposed budget is still greater than every other space agency’s science budget in the world combined as well. I don’t think we’re talking about doing less. What we’re trying to do is concentrate resources on the needle-moving scientific objectives that no other agency is capable of doing and doing with greater frequency as well.”

Rep. Gabe Amo, D-R.I., took issue with the budget once again trying to zero out funding to the Office of STEM Engagement.

“This isn’t the first time that President Trump has tried to cut off NASA’s nose to spite its face,” he said. He’s tried to run in this bad play every year that he has been in office, and every time, I’m grateful that Congress has rejected it.”

------------

©2026 Orlando Sentinel. Visit at orlandosentinel.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.