Acting Administrator Sean Duffy of NASA, among other members of the organization’s leadership, has instructed all employees to start planning the shutdown of multiple satellite missions and programs ahead of the budget approval for FY26.

In other words, the plan needs to include adjustments to the workforce and mission termination plans without a budget approved by Congress. Lawmakers have opined that these actions fall under the illegal impoundment of federal funds since current FY25 appropriations still apply. The issue was brought to light by a July 18 letter signed by 64 members of Congress.

The missions that have been selected for defunding include Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO)-2 and OCO-3 satellites, both of which are crucial for global carbon monitoring. OCO-2 is a satellite that orbits freely; on the other hand, OCO-3 is positioned on the International Space Station. While both satellites are crucial to tracking greenhouse gas emissions and making contributions to the global carbon budget, they’ve been chosen for budget cuts under President Trump’s FY26 Budget Request.

According to reports by NPR, disregarding warnings shared by Congress, NASA officials have gone ahead and directed employees to commence working on plans to terminate missions associated with the OCO satellites. The rationale behind this step is to prepare for defunding, though the budget is yet to be finalized. What’s particularly concerning is the clandestine nature of these plans in spite of the fact that public funds remain allocated for the current financial year (2025).

The primary investigator of the original OCO mission and a retired NASA atmospheric physicist, David Crisp, has shared with NPR that staff from NASA reached out to him with probing questions surrounding the satellites in question. It was evident that the planning for mission termination was ongoing, although NASA officials refrained from divulging specific details. A fellow of the American Geophysical Union, Crisp stated, “The only thing that would have motivated those questions was somebody told them to come up with a termination plan.’’

On conditions of anonymity, two NASA employees have stated that the leadership was seriously thinking about private funding options aimed at the continuity of OCO-2 and OCO-3 missions should federal funding no longer be an option. This option is indicative of the privatization of NASA satellites, thereby restricting climate change data access to the public while removing public ownership of critical Earth Science missions.

Climate change aside, OCO satellites possess an array of scientific and practical applications. For instance, they are able to trace plant growth and photosynthesis globally. This is used to create maps that prove helpful to farmers and the US Department of Agriculture. Limited or no access to this data, whether due to privatization or decommissioning, is likely to be detrimental to agricultural planning and economic decision-making.

The rationale behind the decisions to shut down the OCO missions involves environmental and economic issues. According to David Crisp, putting an end to these missions while returning priceless pieces of information is illogical, economically. Apart from economics, pulling the plug on these missions is also likely to undermine the US’s prowess in carbon monitoring, adversely affecting climate change research worldwide.

In terms of the federal budget matter, the House and the Senate Appropriations Committee have introduced FY26 bills; however, no information is forthcoming as far as the OCO missions are concerned. The House bill has recommended small cuts to NASA but hasn’t shared specific information on funding for individual Earth Science missions.

At the same time, the Senate bill is more comprehensive, suggesting that NASA’s scientific data be owned by the public while rejecting the shutdown of Earth Science missions altogether. Essentially, Senate budget bills demonstrate minor reductions for NASA’s Science Mission Directorate; for instance, $7.3 million down from $7.5 million, and for Earth Science, the figure is at $2.17 billion down from $2.2 billion.

In the end, decisions concerning funding are still on hold, with both chambers required to reach an agreement and pass their bills on September 30 before FY 25 comes to an end.

Follow more news and views via our ESG Tech and Featured Articles sections, and stay updated on the top ESG events to attend in 2025 for industry insights and networking.

Source: EOS