NASA’s budget fight: Who really decides where space money goes?

Lawmakers from both parties say no to Trump’s plan to cut NASA’s budget by nearly a quarter in 2027. That’s not surprising—Congress already rejected similar cuts last year. Republican Rep. Brian Babin from Texas argued that the proposal won’t help NASA reach goals set by both the president and Congress. Democrat Zoe Lofgren called the plan weak, adding that it ignores how budgets actually work in the U. S. Behind this debate is a deeper question: Who really controls NASA’s funding—the president or Congress? The U. S. Constitution gives lawmakers the power to set the budget, but presidents often try to steer spending with their own requests. Last year, Democrats accused NASA of moving forward with parts of Trump’s 2026 budget even after Congress rejected it. A House report claimed NASA canceled or paused three science programs without clear approval. NASA didn’t comment on the report.Jared Isaacman, NASA’s administrator, faced tough questions. He defended parts of the president’s latest budget, including ending NASA’s giant moon rocket program to use cheaper commercial rockets instead. But he also promised to follow the law—after lawmakers pressed him on whether NASA might ignore Congress again. Some Democrats, like Rep. Deborah Ross, pointed out that a NASA-funded education program helped astronaut Christina Koch get her start. Cutting it now could limit future scientists. Isaacman suggested NASA could rely on private companies to handle Earth science research, like tracking climate data. He argued this could save money, but lawmakers wondered if private firms would prioritize science over profit. Isaacman also dodged questions about whether NASA should stop researching climate change, saying he hasn’t told scientists what to study. The bigger issue? Trust. Democrats want Isaacman to release NASA’s 2027 budget plan quickly to prove transparency. Isaacman agreed, but the fight over who decides NASA’s future isn’t over. With China racing ahead in space, delays and disputes could cost more than money—they could cost time.