Trump's NASA cuts would destroy decades of science and wipe out its future

Anti-science, authoritarianism, and “America First”

• Many see the cuts as part of a broader, historic-scale anti‑science and anti‑expertise project: dismantling institutions (NASA, universities, USAID, etc.) that can contradict ideological narratives.
• Several comments link this to authoritarian patterns: leaders conflating “the nation” with their own ego, viewing scientists and journalists as rival power centers rather than truth‑seekers.
• Others argue this isn’t classical conservatism but populist reactionary politics or “wannabe authoritarianism,” using culture-war framing (e.g., attacking “woke” science).

Economic and talent consequences

• Multiple comments highlight that research, innovation, and NASA spinoffs have historically driven economic growth; gutting them is seen as looting the future for short‑term gains.
• Concern that young scientists and engineers will increasingly leave for Europe, Canada, or Asia, where science funding is growing. Some push back that the US still pays more, but others note immigration fears, cost of living, and political instability erode that advantage.

Public vs private funding of research

• One camp says every cut is framed as “apocalyptic,” and basic research could be funded privately; government spending in general should shrink.
• Others counter that:
  • Basic research is inherently high‑risk, long‑term, and unprofitable; private capital systematically underfunds it.
  • Agencies like NASA, NIH, NSF, NOAA, EPA, USAID together are a tiny slice of the budget and net wealth generators.
  • Eliminating them wouldn’t fix deficits, so “fiscal responsibility” is seen as a pretext for ideological cuts.

Scope, targets, and irreversibility

• The proposed NASA cut is described as ~25% in one year, back to early‑1960s levels, with scientific research more than halved.
• Commenters stress that long‑running missions (e.g., New Horizons, telescopes) and grant ecosystems can’t simply be “paused and restarted”; once teams dissolve and probes are shut down, the capability is lost.
• Others reply that every constituency calls its funding “vital,” making rational prioritization hard; opportunity costs in the private sector are underappreciated.

NASA vs private space industry

• Some argue NASA should drop SLS/Artemis hardware and buy launches from private providers, focusing on unique science rather than rockets.
• Others worry the US is becoming dangerously dependent on a tiny duopoly (SpaceX and Boeing), with risks from technical shortcuts, corporate governance, or mercurial leadership.
• Strong defense of NASA’s science side: recent missions (e.g., James Webb, planetary probes) are cited as extraordinarily productive relative to cost; cuts there are seen as “game over” for US astrophysics and planetary science.

Broader politics and polarization

• Extended subthreads debate whether current trends in the US match early‑stage authoritarianism seen abroad, versus being partisan hyperbole.
• Immigration and “border crisis” arguments are invoked by some to justify exceptional powers, which others see as classic authoritarian rationales.
• Several note that voters, including those who “just wanted cheaper groceries,” must bear responsibility: in a democracy, these outcomes reflect electoral choices.

Meta: framing and messaging

• One line of discussion suggests that leading with “Trump” in headlines entrenches tribal reflexes; focusing on concrete program impacts might persuade more people.
• Others respond that omitting the decision‑maker is itself evasive; understanding the motives and ideology behind the cuts is part of grappling with the problem.