NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) looks set to lose a big proportion of its budget as a two-decade reorganization plan for the centre is being accelerated. The move, which is set to be complete by March, has left the Goddard campus with empty buildings and disillusioned employees. Some staff even fear that the actions during the 43-day US government shutdown, which ended on 12 November, could see the end of much of the centre’s activities.

Based in Greenbelt, Maryland, the GSFC has almost 10 000 scientists and engineers, about 7000 of whom are directly employed by NASA contractors. Responsible for many of NASA’s most important uncrewed missions, telescopes, and probes, the centre is currently working on the Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope, which is scheduled to launch in 2027, as well as the Dragonfly mission that is due to head for Saturn’s largest moon Titan in 2028.

The ability to meet those schedules has now been put in doubt by the Trump administration’s proposed budget for financial year 2026, which started in September. It calls for NASA to receive almost $19bn – far less than the $25bn it has received for the past two years. If passed, Goddard would lose more than 42% of its staff.

Congress, which passes the final budget, is not planning to cut NASA so deeply as it prepares its 2026 budget proposal. But on 24 September, Goddard managers began what they told employees was “a series of moves…that will reduce our footprint into fewer buildings”. The shift is intended to “bring down overall operating costs while maintaining the critical facilities we need for our core capabilities of the future”.

While this is part of a 20-year “master plan” for the GSFC that NASA’s leadership approved in 2019, the management’s memo stated that “all planned moves will take place over the next several months and be completed by March 2026″. A report in September by Democratic members of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, which is responsible for NASA, asserts that the cuts are “in clear violation of the [US] constitution [without] regard for the impacts on NASA’s science missions and workforce”.

On 3 November, the Goddard Engineers, Scientists and Technicians Association, a union representing NASA workers, reported that the GSFC had already closed over a third of its buildings, including some 100 labs. This had been done, it says, “with extreme haste and with no transparent strategy or benefit to NASA or the nation”. The union adds that the “closures are being justified as cost-saving but no details are being provided and any short-term savings are unlikely to offset a full account of moving costs and the reduced ability to complete NASA missions”.

Accounting for the damage

Zoe Lofgren, the lead Democrat on the House of Representatives Science Committee, has demanded of Sean Duffy, NASA’s acting administrator, that the agency “must now halt” any laboratory, facility and building closure and relocation activities at Goddard. In a  letter to Duffy dated 10 November, she also calls for the “relocation, disposal, excessing, or repurposing of any specialized equipment or mission-related activities, hardware and systems” to also end immediately.

Lofgren now wants NASA to carry out a “full accounting of the damage inflicted on Goddard thus far” by 18 November. Owing to the government shutdown, no GSFC or NASA official was available to respond to Physics World’s requests for a response.

Meanwhile, the Trump administration has renominated billionaire entrepreneur Jared Isaacman as NASA’s administrator. Trump had originally nominated Isaacman, who had flown on a private SpaceX mission and carried out spacewalk, on the recommendation of SpaceX founder Elon Musk. But the administration withdrew the nomination in May following concerns among some Republicans that Isaacman had funded the Democrat party.

The post NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center hit by significant downsizing appeared first on Physics World.

“Drain the swamp!”

In the intense first few months of his second US presidency, Donald Trump has been enacting his old campaign promise with a vengeance. He’s ridding all the muck from the American federal bureaucracy, he claims, and finally bringing it back under control.

Scientific projects and institutions are particular targets of his, with one recent casualty being the High Energy Physics Advisory Panel (HEPAP). Outsiders might shrug their shoulders at a panel of scientists being axed. Panels come and go. Also, any development in Washington these days is accompanied by confusion, uncertainty, and the possibility of reversal.

But HEPAP’s dissolution is different. Set up in 1967, it’s been a valuable and long-standing advisory committee of the Office of Science at the US Department of Energy (DOE). HEPAP has a distinguished track record of developing, supporting and reviewing high-energy physics programmes, setting priorities and balancing different areas. Many scientists are horrified by its axing.

The terminator

Since taking office in January 2025, Trump has issued a flurry of executive orders – presidential decrees that do not need Congressional approval, legislative review or public debate. One order, which he signed in February, was entitled “Commencing the Reduction of the Federal Bureaucracy”.

It sought to reduce parts of the government “that the President has determined are unnecessary”, seeking to eliminate “waste and abuse, reduce inflation, and promote American freedom and innovation”. While supporters see those as laudable goals, opponents believe the order is driving a stake into the heart of US science.

Hugely valuable, long-standing scientific advisory committees have been axed at key federal agencies, including NASA, the National Science Foundation, the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the US Geological Service, the National Institute of Health, the Food and Drug Administration, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

What’s more, the committees were terminated without warning or debate, eliminating load-bearing pillars of the US science infrastructure. It was, as the Columbia University sociologist Gil Eyal put it in a recent talk, the “Trump 2.0 Blitzkrieg”.

Then, on 30 September, Trump’s enablers took aim at advisory committees at the DOE Office of Science. According to the DOE’s website, a new Office of Science Advisory Committee (SCAC) will take over functions of the six former discretionary (non-legislatively mandated) Office of Science advisory committees.

“Any current charged responsibilities of these former committees will be transferred to the SCAC,” the website states matter-of-factly. The committee will provide “independent, consensus advice regarding complex scientific and technical issues” to the entire Office of Science. Its members will be appointed by under secretary for science Dario Gil – a political appointee.

Apart from HEPAP, others axed without warning were the Nuclear Science Advisory Committee, the Basic Energy Sciences Advisory Committee, the Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory Committee, the Advanced Scientific Computing Advisory Committee, and the Biological and Environmental Research Advisory Committee.

Over the years, each committee served a different community and was represented by prominent research scientists who were closely in touch with other researchers. Each committee could therefore assemble the awareness of – and technical knowledge about – emerging promising initiatives and identify the less promising ones.

Many committee members only learned of the changes when they received letters or e-mails out of the blue informing them that their committee had been dissolved, that a new committee had replaced them, and that they were not on it. No explanation was given.

Closing HEPAP and the other Office of Science committees will hamper both the technical support and community input that it has relied on to promote the efficient, effective and robust growth of physics

Physicists whom I have spoken to are appalled for two main reasons. One is that closing HEPAP and the other Office of Science committees will hamper both the technical support and community input that it has relied on to promote the efficient, effective and robust growth of physics.

“Speaking just for high-energy physics, HEPAP gave feedback on the DOE and NSF funding strategies and priorities for the high-energy physics experiments,” says Kay Kinoshita from the University of Cincinnati, a former HEPAP member. “The panel system provided a conduit for information between the agencies and the community, so the community felt heard and the agencies were (mostly) aligned with the community consensus”.

As Kinoshita continued: “There are complex questions that each panel has to deal with. even within the topical area. It’s hard to see how a broader panel is going to make better strategic decisions, ‘better’ meaning in terms of scientific advancement. In terms of community buy-in I expect it will be worse.”

Other physicists cite a second reason for alarm. The elimination of the advisory committees spreads the expertise so thinly as to increase the likelihood of political pressure on decisions. “If you have one committee you are not going to get the right kind of fine detail,” says Michael Lubell, a physicist and science-policy expert at the City College of New York, who has sat in on meetings of most of the Office of Science advisory committees.

“You’ll get opinions from people outside that area and you won’t be able to get information that you need as a policy maker to decide how the resources are to be allocated,” he adds. “A condensed-matter physicist for example, would probably have insufficient knowledge to advise DOE on particle physics. Instead, new committee members would be expected to vet programs based on ideological conformity to what the Administration wants.”

The critical point

At the end of the Second World War, the US began to construct an ambitious long-range plan to promote science that began with the establishment of the National Science Foundation in 1950 and developed and extended ever since. The plan aimed to incorporate both the ability of elected politicians to direct science towards social needs and the independence of scientists to explore what is possible.

US presidents have, of course, had pet scientific projects: the War on Cancer (Nixon), the Moon Shot (Kennedy), promoting renewable energy (Carter), to mention a few. But it is one thing for a president to set science to producing a socially desirable product and another to manipulate the scientific process itself.

“This is another sad day for American science,” says Lubell. “If I were a young person just embarking on a career, I would get the hell out of the country. I would not want to waste the most creative years of my life waiting for things to turn around, if they ever do. What a way to destroy a legacy!”

The end of HEPAP is not draining a swamp but creating one.

The post Is Donald Trump conducting a ‘blitzkrieg’ on science? appeared first on Physics World.

NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) is to lay off some 550 employees as part of a restructuring that began in July. The action affects about 11% of JPL’s employees and represents the lab’s third downsizing in the past 20 months. When the layoffs are complete by the end of the year, the lab will have roughly 4500 employees, down from about 6500 at the start of 2024. A further 4000 employees have already left NASA during the past six months via sacking, retirement or voluntary buyouts.

Managed by the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena, JPL oversees scientific missions such as the Psyche asteroid probe, the Europa Clipper and the Perseverance rover on Mars. The lab also operates the Deep Space Network that keeps Earth in communication with unmanned space missions. JPL bosses already laid off about 530 staff – and 140 contractors – in February last year followed by another 325 people in November 2024.

JPL director Dave Gallagher insists, however, that the new layoffs are not related to the current US government shutdown that began on 1 October. “[They are] essential to securing JPL’s future by creating a leaner infrastructure, focusing on our core technical capabilities, maintaining fiscal discipline, and positioning us to compete in the evolving space ecosystem,” he says in a message to employees.

Judy Chu, Democratic Congresswoman for the constituency that includes JPL, is less optimistic. “Every layoff devastates the highly skilled and uniquely talented workforce that has made these accomplishments possible,” she says. “Together with last year’s layoffs, this will result in an untold loss of scientific knowledge and expertise that threatens the very future of American leadership in space exploration and scientific discovery.”

John Logsdon, professor emeritus at George Washington University and founder of the university’s Space Policy Institute, says that the cuts are a direct result of the Trump administration’s approach to science and technology. “The administration gives low priority to robotic science and exploration, and has made draconic cuts to the science budget; that budget supports JPL’s work,” he told Physics World. “With these cuts, there is not enough money to support a JPL workforce sized for more ambitious activities. Ergo, staff cuts.”

The post NASA’s Jet Propulsion Lab lays off a further 10% of staff appeared first on Physics World.