Trump job cuts: US space agency Nasa to lose nearly 4,000 employees, 20% of workforce
In an emailed statement, Nasa said around 3,000 employees took part in the second round of its deferred resignation programme, which closed late Friday.
Combined with the 870 who joined the first round and regular staff departures, the agency's civil servant workforce is set to drop from more than 18,000 before Trump took office in January to roughly 14,000 — a more than 20 per cent decrease.
Those leaving the National Aeronautics and Space Administration on the deferred resignation programme will be placed on administrative leave until an agreed departure date. An agency spokesperson said the figures could shift slightly in the coming weeks.
"Safety remains a top priority for our agency as we balance the need to become a more streamlined and more efficient organization and work to ensure we remain fully capable of pursuing a Golden Era of exploration and innovation, including to the Moon and Mars," the agency said.
Earlier this year, the Trump administration's proposed Nasa budget put a return to the Moon and a journey to Mars front and centre, slashing science and climate programs.
The White House says it wants to focus on "beating China back to the Moon and putting the first human on Mars." China is aiming for its first crewed lunar landing by 2030, while the US program, called Artemis, has faced repeated delays.
Nasa is still run by an acting administrator after the administration's initial pick to lead the agency, tech billionaire Jared Isaacman — endorsed by former Trump advisor Elon Musk — was ultimately rejected by the Republican president.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
an hour ago
- The National
Trump ally says Israeli military will 'take Gaza down like we did Tokyo and Berlin'
US Senator Lindsey Graham said on Sunday that Israel is preparing to intensify its military campaign in Gaza, comparing the strategy to Allied operations on Tokyo and Berlin at the end of Second World War. 'What we're talking about today is a change in strategy. I think President (Donald) Trump has come to believe, and I certainly come to believe there's no way you're going to negotiate an end of this war with Hamas,' Mr Graham told NBC in an interview. 'Hamas is a terrorist organisation who is chartered to destroy the State of Israel. They're religious Nazis. They hold Israeli hostages.' Mr Graham, from South Carolina, said that Israel has concluded that dismantling Hamas is the only way to ensure its security. 'If they're going to do in Gaza what we did in Tokyo and Berlin – take the place by force, then start over again, presenting a better future for the Palestinians, hopefully having the Arabs take over the West Bank and Gaza,' he said. 'I think going forward … you're going to see a change in tactics, a full military effort by Israel to take Gaza down,' he said. On Thursday, Mr Trump's special envoy, Steve Witkoff, said Hamas' latest response to ceasefire proposals showed a 'lack of desire' to reach a truce. Mr Witkoff said Washington will look at 'alternative options,' without elaborating. Mr Trump told reporters on Sunday that Israel would have to make a decision on next steps in Gaza, adding that he did not know what would happen after moves by Israel to pull out of ceasefire and hostage-release negotiations with the Hamas militant group. Mr Trump underscored the importance of securing the release of hostages held by Hamas in Gaza, saying they had suddenly 'hardened' up on the issue. 'They don't want to give them back, and so Israel is going to have to make a decision,' he said the start of a meeting with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen at his golf property in Turnberry, Scotland.
The National
4 hours ago
- The National
Why the world is treating the new Syria differently from the new Lebanon, and what Beirut can learn from that
The US, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf countries are pressing ahead to encourage Syria to become a model for much of the Middle East. That involves co-existence with Israel, the containment of extremist movements and engagement with minorities, all within the framework of the state. The issue of the state's monopoly on the possession of arms remains a major hurdle. Some of Syria's minority groups insist on retaining their weapons until it becomes clear how the new government will handle their rights and to what extent it will rein in extremist militants. There is also the issue of federalism and decentralisation, which the state opposes. But despite the massacres and atrocities committed in Sweida and on the coast, those investing in President Ahmed Al Shara's project and the new Syrian model are forging ahead. When it comes to the future of Lebanon, however, western countries – namely the 'European three' (E3, which comprises the UK, France and Germany) and the US – are wavering on several fronts. In dealing with Lebanon itself, the E3 has chosen to take a backseat to US diplomacy, led by Ambassador to Turkey and special envoy for Lebanon and Syria Thomas Barrack. But Iran is a hugely important part of what happens in Lebanon, and the E3 limited recent discussions with representatives from Tehran solely to nuclear issues. Iran's nuclear programme must be addressed, but that should not prevent Europe from raising other concerns, like Tehran's proxy network. Succumbing to Iran's traditional insistence that neither the US nor Europe discuss its regional proxies, including Hezbollah in Lebanon, is a strategic error. It fails to prevent Iran's ongoing erosion of Lebanese sovereignty its use of Lebanon as a bargaining chip in negotiations with the West. Europe is not challenging Tehran's directive to Hezbollah to keep its arms instead of handing them over to the Lebanese state. This is dangerous, especially given how confused and contradictory US positions have become towards both Iran and Lebanon. Europe is not challenging Tehran's directive to Hezbollah to keep its arms Mr Barrack's three visits to Lebanon have drawn criticism because at times he wielded the stick and at others, he expressed understanding of the 'complexity' of disarming Hezbollah. One moment, he described Hezbollah as a political party and the next a terrorist organisation. He appears to have emerged from meetings with Lebanese officials more influenced by their appeasement tactics than persuasive in moving them towards sovereign decision-making. The contradictions in the American position in Lebanon may be intentional, as part of a strategy to alarm Lebanese officials and the public, or unintentional, the result of Mr Barrack's frequent gaffes, only to be followed by retractions. Mr Barrack says he understands the 'difficulties', and that 'everyone is doing their part and trying to settle things in Lebanon, but the situation is complex, both for Lebanese leaders and for all of us'. Such statements devalue American prestige and seriousness. They are not so much the words of a serious emissary carrying US President Donald Trump's demand that Lebanon's leaders enforce a monopoly on arms as they are those of a local-style politician who 'understands' the difficulties but cannot guarantee how Israel might react to Hezbollah's outright refusal to disarm. Nor has Steve Witkoff, Mr Trump's envoy to the Iran negotiations, insisted that Iran cease using its grip over Lebanon through Hezbollah as a negotiation card with Washington. All of this will cost Lebanon dearly when Israel inevitably destroys its infrastructure in response to Hezbollah's rebuilding of its military capabilities, including Iranian missiles on Lebanese soil. The Trump administration does not want Israel to open multiple fronts. But it also cannot restrain Israel in Lebanon if Israel deems Hezbollah's refusal to disarm a security threat. Yet in Syria, Mr Trump wants Israel to act with restraint. Iran has lost its staging ground there, a devastating blow to its regional axis. And while Washington recognises the persistence of extremism and the survival of ISIS, it believes that containment of these factions is possible through co-optation, offering them a slice of the cake instead of a bloody conflict. In return, Israel gains a buffer zone and security guarantees along its border with Syria. The message to Israel is that even if ISIS remains dominant in some areas, security arrangements can contain its threat as long as it remains within isolated pockets that pose no danger to the Syrian state structure. In other words, Syria will not be a threat to Israel. Gulf states have quickly moved to encourage Syria's re-integration into the Arab fold. Despite all the challenges, the Gulf is a key partner in backing Mr Al Shara and rebuilding Syria. This was reflected last week in the Saudi-Syrian Investment Forum, a watershed moment that signalled a long-term strategic partnership between Riyadh and Damascus. Forty-seven agreements and memoranda of understanding were signed, worth about $6.4 billion. They included the construction of a medical city as well as deals in agriculture, industry, transport, gas, water, electricity, infrastructure and real estate development. Syria is being placed on a new track, and should indeed be congratulated for this strategic leap towards realism that embraces investment as the basis of policy. One hopes Lebanon's leaders take a lesson from their new counterparts in Damascus and abandon their arrogance towards eager assistance from fellow Arab states, hiding behind the excuse of being unable to rein in Hezbollah. They ought to demand the US, Europe and the Arab world also pressure Iran and not just offer security guarantees via Israel, because the two issues are inseparable. One hopes they also cease dodging political accountability under the guise of protecting Lebanon's safety. Perhaps Arab states will consider taking a calculated risk in supporting Lebanon, as they did in Syria. Both countries suffer from instability. Just as Hezbollah and Israel are playing havoc with Lebanon, extremist fundamentalism continues to trouble Syria. May the international partnership playing a constructive role in Syria inspire those involved to think outside the box in order to rescue Lebanon from regional war and ruin. Lebanon, too, deserves to be rebuilt and invested in to defy those who want it destroyed.
The National
5 hours ago
- The National
Mediators resume contact with negotiators despite angry US and Israeli reaction to Hamas's response
Mediators have resumed contact with Israeli and Hamas negotiators on a Gaza ceasefire and hostage deal, rekindling hopes for a breakthrough after Israel and the US angrily rejected Hamas's response to the latest proposals, sources told The National on Sunday. They said remote discussions intensified in the past 48 hours between the Egyptian and Qatari mediators on one side and US and Israeli officials on the other. The US offered assurances that full-blown negotiations will resume, they added. Israel's announcement on Sunday of a daily pause in military operations in three parts of Gaza and the opening of new aid corridors was in effect the implementation of the humanitarian segment of the latest proposals to pause the Gaza war, said the sources. The parties involved have also reportedly touched upon the possibility of an enduring settlement of the Gaza war, including the governing of the devastated enclave, reconstruction and the fate of Hamas's arsenal and leaders. Hamas has already given its unconditional agreement to a 60-day truce and signalled it was open to suggestions to lay down its arms and the departure of its leaders from Gaza to live in exile with their families. The sources said those issues will be discussed in more detail during the proposed 60-day truce. The United States has given assurances that the truce would continue as long as negotiations did not break down, they added. Since giving its response last week, the sources said Hamas informed mediators it has dropped the "small amendments" it wanted introduced to the deal and which provoked an angry response from the US and Israel. The changes, said the sources, dealt with Israel's redeployment of its forces in Gaza, plus the number and identity of Palestinians it wants freed from Israeli prisons as part of the agreement. "We believe the Trump administration and Israel, through their hard-line and ominous public response to Hamas's position, wanted to turn up the pressure on the group to accept the deal as is," said one source. "Mostly, the Hamas amendments were secondary. In some cases, they were to do with 100 metres here and 200 metres there when it comes to the redeployment of Israeli troops in Gaza." The sources said the continuing contacts between mediators, Israel and Hamas to finalise a deal were being mostly conducted remotely, with the Palestinian group showing flexibility on all contentious issues. They also pointed out that technical teams from Egypt, Israel, the US and Qatar were staffing an operations centre in Cairo to oversee the delivery of aid to Gaza and iron out relevant security issues. "The only route now open to a deal is for Hamas to accept what it's being presented with," said another source who has directly participated in the months-long negotiations over Gaza. "If Hamas does that, then we will all know whether Israel really wants a deal or not. That said, Hamas's response could have been dealt with through further negotiations. I don't understand why Israel and the US acted in public like they were slamming the door shut on the entire process." Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has ominously said Israel and the US were "considering alternative options" to bring home the remaining 49 hostages and end Hamas's rule of Gaza. The two close allies on Friday withdrew their negotiators from Qatar, where the latest round of Gaza talks began on July 6. The Gaza war began on October 7, 2023, when Hamas-led fighters stormed southern Israel, killing some 1,200 people, mostly civilians, and taking another 250 hostages back to Gaza. Since then, Israel's military response has killed nearly 60,000 Palestinians and wounded more than twice that number, according to Gaza health officials. It has also reduced much of the enclave to ruins and displaced nearly all the 2.3 million population.
