Over 2,000 senior staff set to leave NASA under agency push
'NASA remains committed to our mission as we work within a more prioritized budget,' said NASA spokesperson Bethany Stevens. 'We are working closely with the Administration to ensure that America continues to lead the way in space exploration, advancing progress on key goals, including the Moon and Mars.'
Even small losses, meanwhile, have a large impact. NASA's legislative affairs staff, which helps answer questions from Congress on the agency's mission, is seeing five staffers leave. That office typically numbers around 35, meaning a staff reduction of nearly 15 percent, according to a former staffer, granted anonymity to discuss staffing levels.
A second NASA staffer departing the agency, granted anonymity to discuss their decision, said the large percentage of people leaving their office would likely affect operations. 'It's very significant,' he said. 'It's leaving us with a lot of experience drain.'
The departing staffer described their decision to leave as influenced in part by fear of the proposed NASA budget cuts and the lack of a Senate-approved NASA administrator: 'Things just sound like it's going to get worse.'
The 2,694 civil servants who have left are just half of the total cuts the White House wants to see, opening the door for involuntary cuts if more employees don't participate in the deferred resignation program, which runs through July 25.
The White House's proposed cuts to staff and budget are not yet law, of course, and the appropriators in Congress could reject the White House's vision for NASA. The Senate Commerce Committee, which covers NASA, signaled it supported retaining staff in a bill issued in March.
However, even if Congress decides to reject the White House cuts, the agency may have a hard time getting employees back. NASA employees with relevant skills can work for the growing number of space companies with higher salaries or could leave for non-space industries that see their skills as valuable, like companies engaged in robotics.
The NASA employee taking the deferred resignation forecast that those departing would create a lack of leadership in years to come: 'There's going to be a pretty notable gap of that 'next-up' cohort,' he said.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
17 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Astronauts launch to the space station after sidelined by Boeing's troubled Starliner
Zena Cardman, a biologist and polar explorer who should have launched last year, was yanked along with another NASA crewmate to make room for Starliner's star-crossed test pilots. 'I have no emotion but joy right now. That was absolutely transcendent. Ride of a lifetime,' Cardman, the flight commander, said after reaching orbit. The botched Starliner demo forced Butch Wilmore and Suni Williams to switch to SpaceX to get back from the space station more than nine months after departing on what should have been a weeklong trip. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up 'Every astronaut wants to be in space. None of us want to stay on the ground, but it's not about me,' Cardman said before her flight. Advertisement NASA's Mike Fincke — Cardman's co-pilot — was the backup for Wilmore and Williams on Starliner, making those three still the only ones certified to fly it. Fincke and Japan's Kimiya Yui, former military officers with previous spaceflight experience, were training for Starliner's second astronaut mission. With Starliner grounded until 2026, NASA switched the two to the latest SpaceX flight. 'Boy, it's great to be back in orbit again,' Fincke radioed. He last soared on NASA's next-to-last space shuttle flight in 2011. Advertisement Rounding out the crew is Russia's Oleg Platonov. The former fighter pilot was pulled a few years ago from the Russian Soyuz flight lineup because of an undisclosed health issue that he said has since been resolved. On hand for the first launch attempt on Thursday, NASA's new acting administrator, Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy, met with Roscosmos director general Dmitry Bakanov, an invited guest. The two discussed future collaboration, then left town after thick clouds forced a last-minute delay. 'What we learn on these missions is what's going to get us to the moon and then from the moon to Mars, which is I think the direction that NASA has to be,' Duffy said in a NASA interview. 'There's critical real estate on the moon. We want to claim that real estate for ourselves and our partners.' To save money in light of tight budgets, NASA is looking to increase its space station stays from six months to eight months, a move already adopted by Russia's space agency. SpaceX is close to certifying its Dragon capsules for longer flights, which means the newly launched crew could be up there until April. NASA is also considering smaller crews — three astronauts launching on SpaceX instead of the typical four — to cut costs. As for Starliner, NASA is leaning toward launching the next one with cargo before flying another crew. Engineers are still investigating the thruster failures and helium leaks that bedeviled Starliner following liftoff. Time is running out as NASA looks to abandon the aging space station by 2030. An air leak on the Russian side of the station remains unresolved after years of patching. Advertisement Engineering teams already are working on the plan for the space station's last days. NASA's Ken Bowersox said the US and Russia need to cooperate in order to steer the outpost into the Pacific with minimal risk to the public. It will take at least two years to get the space station low enough to where a SpaceX vehicle can provide the final shove. Thrusters on the Russian side of the station will help with control, but that means more fuel will have to be delivered by 2028. The latest timeline calls for SpaceX to launch the last mission for NASA — the deorbit vehicle — to the space station in 2029. Astronauts would remain on board until the last four to six months of the station's life to handle any breakdowns, with the empty outpost plunging into the Pacific by late 2030 or early 2031.
Politico
18 minutes ago
- Politico
Why Trump's newly announced tariffs aren't a done deal
THE LAW ON LIBERATION DAY — On Thursday, Donald Trump announced sweeping new tariffs against U.S. trading partners that will go into effect next week. The announcement came on the same day that an appeals court grappled with the question of whether Trump's tariffs are even legal. Indeed, there is a strong argument that the tariffs are illegal and unconstitutional. The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, which on Thursday held oral argument on two major tariff challenges — one from a group of small businesses and the other from a coalition of twelve states led by Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield — seems like it may ultimately agree. Rayfield was pleased with how it went. 'If you were an outside observer watching the hearing and you had to pick a party to stay in the shoes of, I think you would prefer to be in the state's shoes after Thursday's hearing,' Rayfield said in an interview with POLITICO this afternoon. That seems to be the consensus among close observers. 'Federal appeals court judges on Thursday sharply questioned President Donald Trump's authority,' POLITICO's Kyle Cheney and Doug Palmer wrote. Reuters put it similarly, while the Associated Press reported that the judges 'expressed broad skepticism' toward the government's arguments. The New York Times' account said that Brett Shumate, the lawyer arguing for the government, 'at times faced an icy reception.' This is not that surprising if you have been following this legal saga closely. The Constitution explicitly gives the power to impose tariffs to Congress. Congress has passed several trade laws that provide the president with the power to impose tariffs in certain circumstances, but they do not grant the sweeping and unreviewable power that the Trump administration has claimed — and indeed requires in order to support Trump's tariffs as a legal matter. Meanwhile, the statute that has actually been invoked by the Trump administration — the International Emergency Economic Powers Act — has never been used to impose tariffs over the course of the nearly half-century that it has been on the books, and it makes no mention of tariffs in the text. It was in fact passed to limit the president's emergency economic powers. On top of that, the key case cited by the government in its favor does not actually support their position (usually a bad thing). Thus far, two lower courts have ruled against the administration on this issue — a unanimous three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of International Trade and a federal district court judge in Washington, D.C. Both rulings have been stayed pending appeal. Thursday's argument concerned the first of those rulings and was conducted in the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. If the government loses in the Federal Circuit, it is still possible that the Supreme Court's conservative justices could agree to hear the case and ultimately rule in Trump's favor. On the merits, that outcome would be hard to square with the conservative majority's stated commitment to textualism as a mode of statutory interpretation, as well as the major questions doctrine that was developed in recent years by the conservative justices, who used it in 2023 to strike down much of the Biden administration's student-loan forgiveness effort. In the student-loan forgiveness case, the conservative justices relied crucially on the fact that the program was estimated to cost taxpayers roughly $500 billion, according to a budget model from the University of Pennsylvania. They concluded that this warranted a particularly rigorous and stringent mode of statutory interpretation. The estimated cost to taxpayers in that case pales in comparison to the estimated cost for Americans resulting from Trump's tariffs, according to a model at Yale University. That model currently estimates that Trump's latest tariff framework will result in an average per household income loss of $2,400 this year alone, that it will result in a 0.5 percentage loss in real GDP this year and next year, and that the economy will lose nearly half a million jobs by the end of 2025. None of this has stopped the administration from plowing forward. At this point, the administration may be hoping for a victory at the Supreme Court (assuming they lose at the Federal Circuit) or, perhaps, simply planning to do as much as they can to advance their tariff policy before a day comes when it is definitively thrown out by the courts. They have already been aided in this regard by the Supreme Court, intentionally or otherwise. In mid-June, the two businesses that prevailed in federal district court in Washington asked the Supreme Court to short-circuit the appeals process and take the case up immediately for review. 'In light of the tariffs' massive impact on virtually every business and consumer across the Nation, and the unremitting whiplash caused by the unfettered tariffing power the President claims, challenges to the IEEPA tariffs cannot await the normal appellate process (even on an expedited timeline),' the companies' lawyers wrote. The companies' request was far from crazy, particularly given the fact that the conservative justices have moved quickly in a variety of major court challenges to the Trump administration's actions since Trump's inauguration. Three days later, however, the Supreme Court denied their request, with no explanation. Perhaps not coincidentally, those expedited rulings have favored the Trump administration, while in the case of Trump's tariffs, a critical mass of conservative justices may ultimately be compelled to rule against Trump — if, that is, they actually adhere to the interpretive and constitutional principles that they claim to follow. In the meantime — and as the administration has been struggling in the courts to defend its policy — the Trump administration is evidently moving forward undeterred. Welcome to POLITICO Nightly. Reach out with news, tips and ideas at nightly@ Or contact tonight's author at akhardori@ What'd I Miss? — Trump demands firing of BLS chief after soft jobs report: President Donald Trump called for the ouster of the head of the Labor Department's statistical arm this afternoon after the latest monthly jobs report came in well under expectations. 'I have directed my Team to fire this Biden Political Appointee, IMMEDIATELY,' Trump wrote in a social media post. 'She will be replaced with someone much more competent and qualified.' Trump reprised prior accusations that the Bureau of Labor Statistics under Commissioner Erika McEntarfer surreptitiously put out overly rosy jobs numbers at the tail end of the Biden administration that were subsequently revised in order to influence the election. Economists have roundly dismissed these claims as a misunderstanding of the agency's revision processes. — Huckabee, Witkoff visit US-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation amid global outcry: Senior U.S. officials visited a distribution center for the American-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation today, pledging to report back to President Donald Trump about the foundation's operations and devise a plan to address starvation in the strip amid growing global outcry over the humanitarian crisis. U.S. Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee and special envoy Steve Witkoff made a rare trip to Gaza today amid heightened pressure — including from within MAGA circles — to reconsider the administration's support for Israel's war on Hamas and intervene in Gaza's hunger crisis. — Corporation for Public Broadcasting shutting down: The Corporation for Public Broadcasting announced today it was shutting down its operations after President Donald Trump rescinded funding for the nonprofit, which it used to support public radio and TV stations around the country. The CPB — which was established by Congress decades ago as an independent nonprofit — said it will begin 'an orderly wind-down' after Trump signed a measure last month to claw back $1.1 billion in grants appropriated to CPB over the next two fiscal years. — Ghislaine Maxwell transferred to less restrictive prison after DOJ meeting: Days after sitting down with one of the highest-ranking members of the Justice Department, Ghislaine Maxwell has been transferred to a less restrictive minimum security federal prison camp in Texas, her attorney said. Maxwell's attorney David Oscar Markus said today she had been moved to Federal Prison Camp Bryan, a facility for female inmates in Southeast Texas. He declined further comment. Until this week, Maxwell, the onetime girlfriend of disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein, had been serving a 20-year sentence for her 2021 conviction for sex trafficking crimes in Florida, at FCI Tallahassee, a low-security prison. — Trump, escalating war of words with Russia's Medvedev, mobilizes two nuclear submarines: President Donald Trump said today he mobilized two nuclear submarines 'to be positioned in the appropriate regions' in response to threatening comments by Russia's former president Dmitry Medvedev. In a post on Truth Social, Trump said he was taking that action 'just in case these foolish and inflammatory statements are more than just that. Words are very important, and can often lead to unintended consequences, I hope this will not be one of those instances.' Medvedev on Thursday referenced Russia's nuclear capabilities amid an escalating battle on social media sparked by Trump's latest efforts to increase economic pressure on the Kremlin in hopes of reviving diplomatic efforts to end the war in Ukraine. AROUND THE WORLD RAISING THE BAR — Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni reacted with fury today as the EU's top court raised the threshold for member countries to reject asylum-seekers. The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) said EU nations may only create national lists of safe countries outside the bloc if they fully justify their assessments with public sources. According to the court, a country can only be considered 'safe' for repatriation if 'the entire population' is protected across all regions. Meloni called the court's decision 'surprising' and a power grab by EU judges. 'Once again, the judiciary, this time at the European level, claims spaces that do not belong to it, in the face of responsibilities that are political,' she said. SLOVENIA STEPS OUT— Slovenia became the first EU country to ban all weapons trade with Israel, citing the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Gaza. The government also prohibited the transit of weapons to or from Israel through Slovenia, the administration in Ljubljana said in a statement Thursday. Slovenia said that it decided to act independently from the EU, as 'due to internal disagreements and disunity,' the bloc is unable to take action against Israel. Though the European Commission proposed partially suspending Israel's association agreement with the EU this week, member countries have yet to agree on it. Nightly Number RADAR SWEEP WEEKEND WARRIORS — Under the threat of Chinese invasion, more and more Taiwanese civilians are signing up for civil defense classes. US intelligence predicts that China will be ready to invade Taiwan by 2027 as China builds up its aircrafts and warships. Armed with airsoft guns that fire plastic pellets, men and women train on the weekends in converted garages and empty warehouses to prepare a civil resilience. Beyond armed defense, officials and private organizations have amped up drills for attacks on critical infrastructure and cyberattacks. Yian Lee reports on the 'soft militarization' of Taiwanese civilians for Bloomberg. Parting Image Jacqueline Munis contributed to this newsletter. Did someone forward this email to you? Sign up here.
The Hill
43 minutes ago
- The Hill
Senate Battles Divide Traditional Allies
As a steamy July ended in DC, Capitol Hill saw clashes heat up both within and between parties in the upper chamber of Congress. Disputes ranged from whether Democrats should use legislation to oppose actions by the Trump administration to whether lawmakers should be allowed to buy and sell stocks.
