NASA is being pulled in two directions at once in 2025: toward a leaner, commercially driven future and toward some of the deepest budget and workforce cuts in its history. The result is a year of structural change that could lock in a new model for how the United States explores, exploits, and governs space for decades. What happens now will decide whether that model strengthens American leadership or hollows out the very science and public infrastructure that made NASA a global benchmark in the first place.
At the center of this shakeup is a collision between ambitious Moon and Mars plans, a White House push for “space superiority,” and a proposed budget that would slash core science and labor protections. The agency is simultaneously reorganizing its programs, rewriting its relationship with private industry, and fighting to keep long‑running missions alive. I see a permanent shift taking shape, not just in what NASA does, but in who gets to define the future of space.
The political vise closing around NASA
The most immediate pressure on NASA in 2025 is political, and it is coming from both Congress and the White House. On one side, a bipartisan group led by Senator Maria Cantwell is trying to lock in long term support through the NASA Transition Authorization Act of 2025, which is framed as a way to “reinforce US space leadership.” On the other, the administration has floated a fiscal 2026 budget that would cut NASA’s overall funding by 24 percent and science funding by a staggering 47%, levels union leaders say the agency “hasn’t seen since 1961.” Those two moves point in opposite directions: one toward stability and exploration, the other toward retrenchment and a narrower mission set.
Advocates warn that the proposed cuts would drive NASA’s budget to its lowest share of federal spending since the early days of the space program, even as the agency is being asked to do more in cislunar space and beyond. A detailed review of space policy notes that under the FY 2026 White House proposal, NASA’s budget would fall to the lowest levels since FY 1960, even as the number of missions in development shrinks compared with the 1980s. That same analysis stresses that “Never has a White House budget proposed this scale of budget cut, this quickly,” underscoring how unusual the moment is. The political vise is not just about dollars, it is about whether the United States still sees civil space as a broad public good or primarily as a strategic and commercial arena.
A Moon and Mars agenda colliding with austerity
At the same time that budgets are tightening, the United States is doubling down on human exploration goals that would have sounded audacious even in a more generous era. NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman has publicly committed that the United States will return to the lunar surface within President Trump’s current term, and has described a plan to build a “moon base” and then invest in nuclear power and space nuclear propulsion to reach Mars and beyond. That vision aligns with a broader policy shift summarized by one analyst as “Two paths: One clear takeaway from 2025 is: It’s not Moon to Mars; it’s Moon and Mars,” a recognition that the United States is now trying to pursue both destinations in parallel rather than in sequence. The same review argues that this “Moon and Mars” framing has become a rallying point that government and industry could get behind, even as they debate the details.
Inside NASA, that dual focus is being formalized through the Moon to Mars Program Office, which is highlighted in the agency’s FY 2025 mission fact sheets under the heading “EXPLANATION OF MAJOR CHANGES IN FY 2025.” The document describes how the Moon to Mars Program Office is meant to “fully implement” a new approach to managing content and systems for deep space exploration, consolidating programs that were previously scattered across directorates. A separate policy wrap‑up notes that “Two paths: One clear takeaway from 2025 is: It’s not Moon to Mars; it’s Moon and Mars,” reinforcing that this is not just a branding exercise but a structural commitment to pursue both tracks at once through what it calls a Moon and Mars strategy.
From ISS landlord to commercial anchor tenant
Nowhere is NASA’s structural shift clearer than in low Earth orbit. At the end of 2024, the agency pivoted away from treating the International Space Station as a purely government‑run laboratory and toward a model where it uses the outpost to catalyze private platforms. A detailed analysis notes that At the end of 2024, NASA pivoted from a bipartisan investment in maintaining a permanent American presence in orbit to a strategy that emphasizes commercial stations and a broader purpose: “the betterment of humankind.” That shift is not just rhetorical. It changes NASA’s role from landlord and operator to anchor customer, with private companies expected to design, build, and own the next generation of orbital platforms.
Policy experts describe this as a “Shift from Government to Commercial Partnerships” in low Earth orbit, arguing that NASA’s transition to commercial stations is part of a larger move toward commercial partnerships across the agency. The same assessment notes that this shift will reshape international partnerships after the ISS era, since foreign space agencies will increasingly have to work through or alongside American companies rather than directly with NASA. For allies used to government‑to‑government agreements, that is a profound change in how space gets done, and it raises new questions about access, pricing, and long term reliability if commercial stations fail or consolidate.
The executive order that rewrites NASA’s marching orders
Layered on top of budgets and program offices is a new directive from the Oval Office that explicitly reframes space as a competitive domain. In mid December, President Trump signed an order titled ENSURING AMERICAN SPACE SUPERIORITY, which opens with “Section 1. Purpose. Superiority in space is a measure of national vision and will.” The order instructs agencies to prioritize capabilities that secure American advantages in orbit and beyond, and it signals that civil, commercial, and national security space are now being treated as parts of a single strategic ecosystem. For NASA, that means its exploration and science missions are being evaluated not only on scientific merit but also on how they contribute to national power.
A legal analysis of the same directive, titled Trump Administration Refocuses on Space in New Executive Order, explains that “Under the EO, NASA and other agencies are directed to identify programs that could be transitioned to the private sector and those they believe should be eliminated.” A separate commentary on the order notes that The EO’s emphasis on “global market development” for space capabilities is likely to spur new opportunities for contractors, but it also accelerates the pressure on NASA to spin off or shutter programs that do not fit a narrower definition of strategic or commercial value. In practice, that could mean more reliance on private launch and satellite services, and fewer long term, purely scientific missions that lack an obvious market.
Science on the chopping block
The most alarming consequence of the 2025 shakeup is the potential dismantling of NASA’s science portfolio. Earlier this year, the White House Office of Management and Budget announced a plan that would cancel no fewer than 41 missions, prompting one assessment to warn that NASA stands at the brink of wasting billions of dollars and leaving key mysteries of the solar system unsolved. The threatened missions include spacecraft that have been exploring the solar system for decades, as well as observatories that are only partway through their planned lifetimes. Canceling them would not only squander sunk costs, it would also break long data records that scientists rely on to track climate, solar activity, and planetary change.
Independent scientists have been blunt about the stakes. One analysis notes that the agency’s science arm faces a “lethal 57 percent reduction to its $9‑billion budget, with deep cuts to every program except those in direct support of human exploration.” The same report warns that if the cuts go through, “the best and brightest are going to move on,” because early‑career researchers and engineers cannot build stable careers on programs that are constantly at risk. Combined with the proposed 47% cut to science funding across NASA, this would amount to a generational blow to American space science, one that could permanently shift leadership to agencies in Europe and Asia that are not facing similar austerity.
Congress’s attempt to build guardrails
Congress is not simply watching this unfold. The NASA Transition Authorization Act of 2025 would “Support NASA’s human spaceflight and exploration efforts, including the Artemis program, the Moon to Mars Program Office, and the next generation of spacesuits.” Senator Cantwell and her colleagues present the bill as a way to provide continuity for major exploration programs, even as budgets and administrations change. By codifying support for Artemis, the Moon to Mars Program Office, and critical hardware like spacesuits, Congress is trying to ensure that the United States does not lurch from one grand plan to another every few years.
The same legislation also aims to reinforce US space leadership more broadly, including through investments in science, technology development, and workforce. The bill’s summary emphasizes that Support NASA is essential not only for exploration but also for maintaining industrial capacity and inspiring the next generation of scientists and engineers. In effect, Congress is trying to build guardrails around the agency so that even as the White House pushes for privatization and budget cuts, core capabilities and long term goals remain protected in law. Whether that effort succeeds will depend on how the authorization interacts with actual appropriations, and on how aggressively the executive branch uses its new authority to shift programs to the private sector.
Commercial partners move to the center
While lawmakers and budget writers argue, commercial space companies are quietly becoming indispensable to NASA’s plans. A detailed review of 2025 notes that “We read about the significant increase in private sector investment activity oriented toward space. But what is really happening is that NASA is changing how it works with these companies,” highlighting a structural shift in which the agency is less a builder and more a buyer. That same analysis argues that the real story is not just more private money, but a new division of labor in which NASA sets high level goals and standards while industry handles design, manufacturing, and operations. In this model, the agency’s role is to de‑risk markets and certify capabilities rather than to own and operate every major system.
The change is visible in specific procurements. In late December, NASA said in an emailed statement that it expects to complete a task order competition for a new lunar terrain vehicle “in coming weeks,” and that a Colorado company is one of three in consideration for the demonstration mission, advanced development, and long term services that would support a permanent outpost by 2030. That structure, which bundles demonstration with long term services, is designed to give companies a predictable revenue stream while giving NASA flexibility to scale up or down. It is a template that could be applied to everything from cargo delivery to Mars to on‑orbit servicing, and it underscores how central private partners have become to the agency’s exploration architecture.
Workforce and unions in the crosshairs
Behind the headlines about rockets and robots is a quieter but equally consequential battle over NASA’s workforce. Union leaders have warned that the administration’s proposed fiscal 2026 budget would not only cut funding but also “strip workers of union rights,” a move they say “endangers America’s leadership in space and science.” Their statement points out that the proposed 24 percent cut to NASA’s overall funding and the 47% cut to science funding would force layoffs, hiring freezes, and the loss of specialized skills that take years to build. For an agency that relies on deep institutional knowledge to manage complex missions, that kind of disruption is not easily reversed.
Advocates also stress that the workforce at NASA is not just engineers and astronauts, but also technicians, safety inspectors, and support staff who keep facilities running and missions safe. The union’s warning, captured in its description of the White House move to slash NASA budget, argues that undermining labor protections at the same time as budgets are cut will accelerate the loss of talent to private industry. In a year when NASA is being asked to manage more commercial partnerships, more complex lunar operations, and a transition away from the ISS, weakening its internal workforce could leave the agency increasingly dependent on contractors not just for hardware, but for institutional memory and expertise.
A permanent shift in NASA’s identity
Put together, the events of 2025 amount to more than a tough budget cycle or a new set of exploration goals. They are reshaping NASA’s identity from a vertically integrated national laboratory to a leaner, more strategic coordinator of public and private space activity. Analysts who have watched the agency for decades argue that this year may mark a turning point, with one noting that the real story is not just the “significant increase in private sector investment activity oriented toward space,” but the way NASA changed in 2025 in how it defines its own role. Another observer frames the tension as a struggle between the agency’s “revered history and its future,” arguing that the choices made now will determine whether NASA remains a central actor or becomes a niche buyer in a commercial space economy, a point underscored in a separate reflection on its revered history and its future.
As I see it, the permanent change is not that NASA will stop building spacecraft or running missions, but that it will increasingly be judged on how well it steers a broader ecosystem rather than on how many rockets it owns. The combination of the Moon to Mars Program Office, the ENSURING AMERICAN SPACE SUPERIORITY order, the NASA Transition Authorization Act, and the proposed budget cuts is forcing the agency to prioritize, outsource, and justify in ways it has not had to before. Whether that leads to a more agile, resilient space program or to a hollowed‑out shell that depends on private firms for everything from launch to science will depend on how these policies are implemented in the next few years. What is clear is that the way space gets done in the United States is being rewritten in real time, and the script being drafted in 2025 will be hard to revise once it is locked in.
More from MorningOverview