On Wednesday, April 1, millions of Americans, including myself, tuned in to witness Artemis II commence its mission to send humans around the moon—a feat not accomplished in over 50 years. Born in the 2000s, this was my first opportunity to see such a monumental event unfold, something I had eagerly anticipated for years.
In a reflection of today’s digital age, as soon as the thrusters ceased and the mission appeared successful, I turned to social media to gauge public reaction. While many peers shared my excitement, there was also widespread questioning of the mission’s cost and the allocation of tax dollars. Having some familiarity with the federal budget, I found the skepticism amusing. NASA’s budget for fiscal year 2026 was $24.4 billion—an almost negligible fraction of the federal government’s nearly $2 trillion budget.
On Friday, April 3, President Trump unveiled his budget proposal for fiscal year 2027. This proposal starkly highlighted the misguided belief that NASA funding is a waste: it included $1.5 trillion for defense, an increase of over $400 billion from the previous year, while cutting NASA’s budget by 23%, reducing it by $5.6 billion. The contrast between the hopeful Artemis launch and the budget proposal was striking.
The costs of a much bigger military
Previously, I examined how a $1.5 trillion defense budget could prove wasteful and detrimental to the United States. With the new budget finalized, the $1.5 trillion defense spending Trump advocated for on Truth Social in January became a reality. Unexpectedly, the president paired this substantial defense budget with cuts to crucial environmental, healthcare, education, and science budgets. A 10% cut across non-defense discretionary spending is planned—not enough to offset the defense spending surge, but sufficient to severely impact essential programs.
The administration’s budget choices illustrate the trade-offs in federal spending more clearly than ever. The new budget funds ambitious projects like the “Golden Dome” anti-missile system and the “Golden Fleet” shipbuilding initiative, which are both considered impractical. Yet, it slashes funding for critical agencies: more than half of the Environmental Protection Agency’s budget, nearly 20% of the Department of Agriculture’s budget, and 12.5% of the health department’s budget. Notably, the National Science Foundation’s funding would be more than halved. This administration appears to favor military expansion over investing in society’s foundational needs.
The Artemis II launch demonstrates that the United States can still achieve significant scientific and technological milestones, even as science agencies face funding challenges. Government investment in science is justified because it saves lives, fuels economic growth, and enhances quality of life. The Apollo missions—precursors to the Artemis missions—led to breakthroughs in flight control, food safety, and materials science, which continue to benefit us today.
The Trump administration often claims that budget cuts are meant to curb waste, fraud, and abuse. However, the latest budget request makes it clear that domestic cuts, particularly in science, are aimed at funding increased military spending, despite these cuts not compensating for the immense defense expenditures. With recent military actions taken by the Trump administration, the risks associated with a vastly expanded military budget and benefits to defense contractors are more apparent than ever.
A moment of hope in challenging times
The Artemis launch was a beacon of hope for many in my generation. We were in elementary school during the Great Recession, finished high school amid the COVID pandemic’s impact on education, and graduated college during a tumultuous period for the federal workforce. This context makes it easy to succumb to a sense of pessimism in an era where regression seems commonplace.
Artemis II serves as a reminder that the United States can still accomplish extraordinary feats in science when we dedicate resources and effort to the cause. Unfortunately, the president’s priorities appear to lie elsewhere.
