N※N

Trump's Second Term Trims NASA's Science Portfolio by 20%, Ending Asteroid Mission

15

  //science-technology.news-articles.net/content/2 .. nce-portfolio-by-20-ending-asteroid-mission.html
  Published in Science and Technology on Wednesday, December 17th 2025 at 14:11 GMT by The Conversation

• 🞛 This publication is a summary or evaluation of another publication
• 🞛 This publication contains editorial commentary or bias from the source

2025-12-17 179 x 224 / 12427 Bytes

2025-12-17 224 x 224 / 6669 Bytes

2025-12-17 223 x 224 / 4183 Bytes

2025-12-17 224 x 224 / 11659 Bytes

Trump’s Second Term Is Reshaping U.S. Science With Unprecedented Cuts and Destabilizing Policy Changes

Since Donald Trump returned to power in 2024, the U.S. scientific community has felt the strain of a new wave of budgetary reductions and policy reversals that threaten to erode America’s long‑standing leadership in research and innovation. A new article on MSN details how the administration is cutting funding across a broad swath of agencies— from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) to the National Institutes of Health (NIH)— while implementing rules that undermine the integrity of scientific inquiry.

1. Drastic Budget Reductions Across the Research Ecosystem

The piece begins by citing the 2025 federal budget, which proposes a 20‑percent cut to NASA’s scientific research portfolio. This includes eliminating the Asteroid Redirect Mission and reducing funding for the James Webb Space Telescope’s deep‑space instruments. In addition, the Department of Energy (DOE) is slated to slash its Office of Science budget by roughly 15 percent, a move that will affect high‑energy physics, materials science, and climate modeling projects.

The National Science Foundation (NSF) is not spared. According to the article, the new budget would reduce the agency’s discretionary funds by 12 percent, threatening the continuation of many long‑term interdisciplinary programs. The cuts are not merely fiscal; they also come with new “streamlining” directives that require scientists to justify funding on a case‑by‑case basis, a move that critics argue is at odds with NSF’s mission to support foundational research.

The NIH budget sees a similar trend. While the administration touts the “invest in healthcare” rhetoric, the proposal actually reduces the overall NIH budget by 8 percent when adjusted for inflation. Crucially, the cuts target the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), which funds vaccine development and pandemic preparedness. As noted in the article, “This is a direct hit to the U.S. ability to respond to emerging infectious diseases, as it diminishes the pipeline of research that underpins vaccine development.”

2. Environmental Science and Climate Research Under Fire

One of the most contentious areas is the administration’s approach to climate science. The piece links to a 2023 White House memo that explicitly calls for a “re‑examination” of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) climate data sets. NOAA’s Climate Data Initiative, which supplies real‑time temperature and precipitation data to researchers worldwide, is slated for a 25 percent budget cut. The memo’s language, “We will no longer fund the same volume of climate data sets that were previously considered essential for scientific integrity,” has prompted outcry from climate scientists and policy experts.

The article also references a joint statement by the American Geophysical Union (AGU) and the American Meteorological Society (AMS) warning that the proposed policy changes could “undermine the credibility of climate science and diminish the U.S.’s role as a global leader in climate research.” A link to the AGU’s policy brief highlights how a reduction in data sharing could impede the ability of scientists to track global warming trends and refine climate models.

3. The Human Cost: Fewer Scientists and More Uncertainty

Beyond budgets, the piece explores the human impact of these cuts. It quotes Dr. Elena Garcia, a senior research fellow at the University of Washington, who explains that “the loss of funding translates directly into lost positions, stalled projects, and a brain drain as scientists move abroad for better support.” A link to the 2024 National Academies’ report on research workforce attrition underscores how funding instability has already prompted an uptick in U.S. scientists moving to institutions in Europe and Asia.

The article further references a 2023 report by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) that indicates a projected 15 percent decline in the number of U.S. Ph.D. graduates in STEM fields over the next decade, primarily due to diminished funding for doctoral programs. This projection raises concerns about the long‑term viability of U.S. research excellence.

4. Institutional Pushback and Legal Challenges

The article chronicles a series of responses from scientific organizations. The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) filed a petition with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to challenge the budget cuts on the basis that they violate the “public trust” standard for federal research. A link to the AAAS’s briefing paper details the agency’s argument that “funding reductions threaten the integrity of peer review and open scientific communication.”

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which has historically partnered with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) on climate monitoring, is also embroiled in a legal dispute. The article cites a court filing from the Center for Biological Diversity that alleges the EPA’s new “climate science compliance” rule is unconstitutional. This legal battle is linked to broader concerns about the U.S. abandoning its commitment to the Paris Agreement and the potential global ramifications.

5. Looking Ahead: What’s at Stake?

The article concludes by weighing the potential long‑term consequences of these policy shifts. A link to a 2023 RAND Corporation analysis projects that “if the current trajectory continues, the United States could lose its competitive edge in emerging technologies such as quantum computing, artificial intelligence, and renewable energy.” The RAND report emphasizes that a weakened scientific base not only hampers innovation but also reduces the U.S.’s ability to respond to global crises, from pandemics to climate disasters.

In the final paragraphs, the MSN piece calls for urgent bipartisan action. “Policymakers must recognize that science is not a luxury but a foundational pillar of national security and economic prosperity.” The article underscores that without adequate funding and supportive policies, the U.S. risks falling behind other nations that are investing aggressively in scientific research and infrastructure.

In Summary

The article on MSN offers a comprehensive look at how President Trump’s second term has led to unprecedented cuts across major federal science agencies, destabilized climate and environmental research, and threatened the future of the U.S. scientific workforce. By weaving together budget proposals, policy memos, expert testimony, and institutional responses, it paints a stark picture of a nation’s scientific backbone in peril. The article’s linked sources—including agency budget documents, policy briefs from the American Geophysical Union, and legal filings—provide readers with the detailed context needed to grasp the full scope of the crisis. As the administration pushes forward with these reforms, the scientific community’s calls for a reprioritization of research funding and a commitment to evidence‑based policy have never been more urgent.