This color image of Earth was obtained by NASA’s Galileo spacecraft on Dec. 11, 1990, when the spacecraft was about 1.5 million miles away. Credit NASA/JPL-Caltech
- Acting NASA Administrator Sean Duffy’s statements indicated a potential shift in NASA’s focus away from Earth science and climate research, prioritizing human space exploration instead, aligning with proposed budget cuts significantly reducing Earth science funding.
- This proposed shift contrasts with NASA’s historical mandate, enshrined in the 1958 National Aeronautics and Space Act, which includes the expansion of human knowledge of atmospheric and space phenomena, and with the agency’s established collaboration with other agencies like NOAA.
- Critics argue that NASA’s Earth observation capabilities are crucial for national security, disaster preparedness, economic benefit, and informing planetary science research, and that a complete transfer of these functions to the private sector is neither feasible nor desirable.
- The debate over NASA’s future direction involves not only budgetary considerations but also questions about the agency’s fundamental mission, the role of government in scientific research, and the potential consequences of prioritizing human space exploration at the expense of Earth science.
During an Aug. 14 appearance on Fox Business, Acting NASA Administrator Sean Duffy declared that the agency’s mission is “to explore, not to do all of these earth sciences,” signaling a potential shift away from NASA’s decades-long role in Earth observation and climate research.
Duffy later softened his stance during an Aug. 18 visit to Johnson Space Center, saying that NASA would still adhere to its congressional directives. But he still suggested that other agencies could take the lead on climate science.
“Listen, you can go other places for your climate change science. This is the only civil agency in government that does human space exploration. No one else does it, just us, and so that is, that’s the focus, and that’s what I meant by that,” Duffy said, according to a transcript of the comments provided to Astronomy by the NASA press office.
This vision for NASA largely aligns with the White House’s 2026 budget proposal, which cuts NASA’s overall budget by 24 percent; while human exploration receives an increase, the agency’s science funding is slashed by nearly half, including earth science by 53 percent.
The comments from Duffy are some of the most explicit yet from NASA leadership about the Trump administration’s downsized view of NASA’s role — and many scientists have pushed back vigorously against it. They argue that earth science is essential to NASA’s mission, not a distraction from it, pointing to the agency’s legal charter and historical relationships, and contending that its unique capabilities cannot be simply offloaded to other government agencies or the private sector.
And, they point out, an agency that seeks to lead the world in planetary science but ignores Earth would be missing out on studying the most unique planet yet known in the universe — our own.
“Earth is a planet,” Camille Bergin, an aerospace engineer and science communicator, tells Astronomy. “And I think that’s what people forget.”
Defining the mission
At the heart of the matter is the interpretation of NASA’s core function. Duffy’s comment that NASA is “meant to explore” frames the agency’s purpose as looking outward. The subsequent suggestion that “other agencies” could handle earth science points to a vision of a more streamlined NASA, free to focus on the unique challenge of sending humans to the Moon, Mars, and beyond.
However, critics argue that it overlooks the agency’s foundational charter. “It’s the National Aeronautics and Space Administration,” Bergin says. “So much of what NASA does is within our atmosphere.” This perspective is rooted in the 1958 National Aeronautics and Space Act, which explicitly lists as a primary objective “The expansion of human knowledge of phenomena in the atmosphere and space.”
Duffy may be unaware of this history, suggests Robert Kopp, a climate scientist at Rutgers University. “To my knowledge, Sean Duffy is the first person to serve as administrator or acting administrator of NASA without any relevant experience,” Kopp says. “He might be unaware that [this] has been part of NASA’s statutory mission since its establishment.”
According to a historical overview from the agency’s science division, this dual mandate has historically created a division of labor between NASA and other agencies, particularly the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The early model established in the 1960s saw NASA’s role as pioneering new technology — developing and launching novel satellites and instruments. In this partnership, NOAA and the U.S. Geological Survey would then analyze the data for their operational missions, such as daily weather forecasting.
Proponents of this model argue that it is why a simple handover of the mission is not a straightforward solution. Bergin is direct in her assessment: “I don’t think that any other agency can do what NASA does.” She explains that NASA’s “holistic view” of the solar system, which includes Earth, allows the agency “to do this research in ways that I don’t think other agencies can.”
The commercial question
If NASA’s role in earth science is reduced, some private sector companies are eager to fill the void. In an article for EMSNow, which covers the global electronics manufacturing services industry, European commercial space executives framed a potential NASA pullback as a significant opportunity. “The potential rollback of NASA’s Earth-observation programmes should not be seen as a loss, but as a turning point,” said Anthony Baker, CEO of SatVu.
Thomas Grübler, co-founder of OroraTech, echoed this, saying, “Private Earth-observation firms already offer a broad range of data and intelligence to governments and taxpayers, often at a much lower cost and with greater flexibility.”
However, the enthusiasm from the private sector is tempered by a more balanced perspective among scientists. In a recent article for Nature, Danielle Wood, director of the Space Enabled Research Group at MIT, argues that while commercial data is innovative and useful, a balance is essential. “Private companies alone cannot provide all the Earth-observation data that the world needs. Nor should they,” she writes. Wood points out that public missions are set up to answer scientific questions and maintain public services, providing a trusted benchmark for data quality. Commercial missions, in contrast, are more likely to collect data based on customer requests or market opportunities.
This aligns with the perspective of the NASA employees who signed a statement called the Voyager Declaration, arguing that “Basic research … and the stewardship of the Earth are inherently governmental functions that cannot and will not be taken up by the private sector.”
Planetary scientist Michael Battalio of Yale University says that the most important question isn’t whether private companies can take over, but whether they would. He argues that a private company has a “fiduciary responsibility to only spend on infrastructure that provides a return on investment,” which may not align with the long-term research and maintenance required. “Separately,” he adds, “companies may be financially incentivized to not observe our planet,” citing fossil fuel companies as an example.
Even if a transition to commercial earth science were to take place, says Bergin, when NASA steps back, there is a risk of a gap opening up before the private sector steps in. “We cannot afford to have that gap in the current political climate that we’re in,” she says.
The view from the high ground
In addition to its scientific and commercial value, Earth-observing capabilities are also deeply entwined with national security, says Bergin. “It protects people and it protects power,” Bergin explains, framing Earth observation as a dual-use technology, with “power” referring to military and geopolitical advantage. Bergin warns that in a transition to commercial imagery, any gap in access could present a direct security risk to the U.S.
As polar ice melts, new shipping and military routes are opening in the Arctic. “If Russia and China have a clearer picture of the Arctic, for example, than we do, that’s not just a science gap, it’s a security risk,” Bergin warns.
A NASA brief on its Earth Science at Work initiative supports this view, stating its missions support national security by “enhancing situational awareness of ice cover and other conditions around Arctic seas.” Losing this capability, Bergin argues, means losing the upper hand. “We’re completely blind to not only what they’re doing, but we lose our decision advantage.”
But protecting people isn’t just about military advantage; it’s also about safeguarding against infrastructure failure and natural disasters. Battalio says that government agencies from the USDA to the departments of Energy and Commerce depend on NASA’s observations. “NASA observations help farmers plan for droughts and floods so that we can feed ourselves, even with increasingly devastating natural disasters from our warming climate,” he says. “FEMA organizes aid based on NASA satellite imagery. The EPA uses NASA observations to monitor pollution and keep American citizens healthy.”
Bergin likens this to essential infrastructure, like the power grid or a bridge. “You don’t think about your power grid until you can’t turn your lights on,” she says. “Space is infrastructure. It’s critical infrastructure. It just happens to be above our planet.” This unseen infrastructure underpins modern life in countless ways. The ability to predict solar storms, a key function of Earth and space science, is crucial for protecting the GPS satellites that enable navigation and credit card transactions.
This support for the U.S. economy also extends to resource management. According to NASA, its data provides a “competitive advantage to American businesses” by aiding in tasks like “mapping rare Earth minerals” for the energy and technology sectors and helping farmers with “continuous measurements of water resources, crop health, and global production.”
And the data from Earth-observing satellites is essential for logistics. As Bergin notes, “Earth observation is critical to you getting your Amazon package.”
Look to what you know
The argument for shifting NASA’s focus to exploration rests on the premise that studying Earth and exploring space are two separate, competing missions. However, many scientists contend that the two are fundamentally intertwined. “We have no hope of understanding other planets if we do not understand the planet that we inhabit,” says Battalio.
He explains that our knowledge of Earth provides the essential baseline for all planetary science. “When Mars rovers discover minerals that point to the presence of liquid water in the past, we know that is the case because we study Earth,” he says. “Everything we know about every planet and exoplanet is informed or interpreted against our knowledge of Earth.”
He cites his own work on martian dust storms, which was directly inspired by research on Earth’s climate patterns made possible by NASA observations. “Without NASA observing Earth, climatologists would not have discovered this variability, and I would not have known to look for it on Mars.”
This synergy is at the heart of the scientific pushback against Duffy’s comments. Bergin points out the irony of searching for other worlds while deemphasizing our own. “People always ask me what’s your favorite planet? Earth obviously, right? It’s like so unique, like seriously we haven’t found anything like it,” she says. The scientific value of such a unique planet is immeasurable. “Why are we exploring if not to benefit life on Earth?” she asks. “It’s all to improve humanity, and humanity is never going to leave Earth. And so it all funnels back to Earth.”
More than budget cuts
Ultimately, the conversation sparked by Duffy’s comments reveals a fundamental choice about NASA’s identity. The path forward pits a vision of a streamlined agency, singularly focused on the outward push of exploration, against the view that NASA’s mission begins at home — that studying Earth is a foundational part of its mandate, a national security imperative, and a scientific necessity for the very exploration it seeks to champion. While the administration has proposed deep cuts, Congress has signaled resistance, leaving the final budget — and thus, the agency’s direction — in a state of negotiation.
For some scientists, this debate extends beyond NASA’s budget, reflecting a broader pattern. Kopp sees a parallel between the proposed shift at NASA and what he calls “’science’ being manufactured to serve a political end,” arguing that “shutting down research to slow the growth of scientific understanding would be in line with that.” This perspective frames the choice facing NASA not just as a strategic decision, but as a political one with implications for the role of independent science in public policy.
For observers like Bergin, the outcome is not predetermined. She argues that public awareness and engagement are crucial. “Even though you are one person, one voice, your voice does matter,” she says, encouraging people to stay informed and talk to others in their community. The resolution of this debate, which will be decided in the halls of Congress but influenced by public sentiment, will define not just NASA’s priorities, but its very purpose for a generation to come.
