Longs Peak, seen from Rocky Mountain National Park, exemplifies the natural heritage at risk under the Trump FY2026 budget proposal, which would slash funding for the National Park Service and other environmental programs.
Photo by Bobak Ha'Eri, licensed under CC BY 3.0. Source: Wikimedia Commons.
Trump’s FY2026 budget would slash the National Park Service, NASA, NIH, CDC, and EPA, hollowing out the nation’s scientific and environmental capacity at a moment of rising global urgency
The Trump administration’s proposed FY2026 budget seeks to reduce core operations funding for the National Park Service by nearly one billion dollars, a staggering cut that would eliminate visitor education programs, reduce wildfire readiness, curtail historical site preservation, and leave already understaffed parks more vulnerable to damage and neglect. These cuts come as visitation soars, fire seasons lengthen, and a $22 billion maintenance backlog remains largely unresolved.
Every American should be offended by this proposal. The national parks are the repository of many of “our country’s greatest treasures,” as the National Park Foundation reminds us, and they include, as Rhodes College associate professor Thomas S. Bremer recently reminded the nation, “stupendous scenery, opportunities for encounters with wildlife, outdoor recreation and commemoration of important places and events.”
But President Donald Trump’s attack on a sacred feature of the country is not an isolated decision and, indeed, is one example among many of an administration’s determination to demolish the features of our society that assure our health, community prosperity, cultural vitality, and scientific and technological progress. The same budget seeks to dismantle the institutional framework of American science, public health, and environmental protection. If enacted, these cuts would collectively roll back decades of bipartisan investments in climate research, biomedical innovation, and conservation.
Released on May 2, the FY2026 budget proposal calls for a 23 percent reduction in non-defense discretionary spending, bringing it to the lowest level since 2017. Meanwhile, it increases military funding by 13 percent and more than doubles appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security compared to FY2025. As White House Budget Director Russell Vought explained, these domestic cuts are designed to make way for “historic increases” in border security and defense, while eliminating programs his office characterizes as “radical” or “woke.”
Among the most severe reductions, according to reporting by The New York Times, is the proposed $6 billion cut to NASA, which would reduce the agency’s budget from $24.8 billion to $18.8 billion. This would halt the Artemis lunar program after Artemis III, cancel the lunar Gateway space station, and eliminate key Earth science missions, including climate-monitoring satellites. A billion dollars would be redirected to a vaguely defined Mars initiative, aligning closely with Elon Musk’s goal to send a crewed mission by 2030. The proposal reflects Trump’s pledge in his March 2025 address to Congress to “plant a flag” on Mars. “This is a budget that says America is done leading the world in space, that we are a nation turning inward,” said Casey Dreier of the Planetary Society in comments published by The New York Times.
NASA’s educational programs, including grants to minority-serving institutions and STEM outreach for K-12 students, would be eliminated in full.
The National Institutes of Health would see a cut of nearly $18 billion, with entire institutes eliminated or restructured, including the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities, the Fogarty International Center, and the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health. The budget consolidates numerous other programs under five redefined categories and halts NIH-funded research on climate change, social determinants of health, and gender-related medicine.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention would lose $3.6 billion—nearly half its current discretionary funding. The National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, the National Center for Environmental Health, the Global Health Center, and Public Health Preparedness and Response would all be eliminated. The budget proposes that states take on the duties of infectious disease preparedness, even as new flu strains and antibiotic-resistant pathogens circulate globally.
At the Environmental Protection Agency, the Office of Research and Development would lose $235 million, with additional cuts to the Atmospheric Protection Program, the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act grants, and all environmental justice efforts. The budget explicitly ends funding for climate science, calling it part of a “radical Green New Scam.” The Clean and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds would be slashed by $2.46 billion. While the EPA’s core drinking water program would receive a modest $9 million increase, the agency’s ability to monitor air quality, track emissions, or enforce environmental compliance would be gravely diminished.
The National Science Foundation would lose nearly $3.5 billion, with cuts targeting climate-related research, behavioral and social science programs, and international collaborations. NOAA‘s climate and satellite programs would lose over $1.5 billion, including cancellation of polar-orbiting weather satellites and coastal resilience initiatives.
Taken together, these reductions would not only diminish the United States’ ability to confront climate change, public health threats, and natural disasters. They would also destabilize a scientific enterprise that is central to the nation’s economic competitiveness. Since the end of World War II, federal investment in science has fueled growth across sectors, from agriculture and aerospace to computing and biomedicine. Much of that research, especially in energy, health, and climate, relies on infrastructure that would be dismantled under the catastrophic Trump proposal.
Importantly, these cuts will not meaningfully reduce the federal deficit. Non-defense discretionary spending makes up roughly 15 percent of the total budget. The long-term drivers of national debt include entitlements, tax expenditures, and interest payments and they all remain essentially untouched in this budget roadmap. Indeed, the Trump administration’s FY2026 plan leaves the 2017 tax cuts intact, continuing revenue losses that the Congressional Budget Office has projected will add trillions to the national debt over the next decade.
While the administration frames these proposals as a return to fiscal discipline, the effect is to exchange long-term investment in health, knowledge, and climate stability for short-term political messaging and increased spending on weapons systems and border walls.
This represents a stark departure from historical precedent. Presidents from both parties during the post-World War II era have embraced federal support for science and the environment as foundational to American prosperity. The EPA was established under President Richard M. Nixon. President Ronald Reagan protected core NIH and NSF funding even during the austerity of the 1980s. President Barack Obama used the 2009 stimulus to boost clean energy research, and even during Trump’s first term, bipartisan congressional majorities often rejected White House attempts to defund NIH, NSF, and NASA science programs.
The current proposal is broader, more ideological, and more dismissive of science than anything seen in decades.
It also comes at a time of heightened economic uncertainty. A new round of tariffs is scheduled to take effect this summer, expected by most independent economists to raise consumer prices and reduce GDP growth. Cutting thousands of federal jobs in science, education, and environmental enforcement would likely deepen regional disparities, considering that many are located in rural communities and at state universities.
Public opinion does not support these changes. One March 2025 survey found that 76% of Americans support increased federal funding for renewable energy, while an April 2025 Gallup poll showed that nearly 60% think the government is not doing enough to protect the environment and so likely favor stronger environmental protections.
A proposed budget is not the fine print of a spending bill. It is instead a declaration of national priorities. President Trump’s first budget proposal of his second term is one that rejects the country’s best tools for navigating a perilous future.
Congress still holds the power of the purse. Lawmakers of conscience, from both parties, must resist these cuts. And Americans who care about clean air, working science, healthy communities, or protected public lands should speak up. They should do so loudly, persistently, and now.
About Author
COMMENTARY: Trump Budget Would Place the Things That Make America Great Under Devastating Siege
Trump’s FY2026 budget would slash the National Park Service, NASA, NIH, CDC, and EPA, hollowing out the nation’s scientific and environmental capacity at a moment of rising global urgency
The Trump administration’s proposed FY2026 budget seeks to reduce core operations funding for the National Park Service by nearly one billion dollars, a staggering cut that would eliminate visitor education programs, reduce wildfire readiness, curtail historical site preservation, and leave already understaffed parks more vulnerable to damage and neglect. These cuts come as visitation soars, fire seasons lengthen, and a $22 billion maintenance backlog remains largely unresolved.
Every American should be offended by this proposal. The national parks are the repository of many of “our country’s greatest treasures,” as the National Park Foundation reminds us, and they include, as Rhodes College associate professor Thomas S. Bremer recently reminded the nation, “stupendous scenery, opportunities for encounters with wildlife, outdoor recreation and commemoration of important places and events.”
But President Donald Trump’s attack on a sacred feature of the country is not an isolated decision and, indeed, is one example among many of an administration’s determination to demolish the features of our society that assure our health, community prosperity, cultural vitality, and scientific and technological progress. The same budget seeks to dismantle the institutional framework of American science, public health, and environmental protection. If enacted, these cuts would collectively roll back decades of bipartisan investments in climate research, biomedical innovation, and conservation.
Released on May 2, the FY2026 budget proposal calls for a 23 percent reduction in non-defense discretionary spending, bringing it to the lowest level since 2017. Meanwhile, it increases military funding by 13 percent and more than doubles appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security compared to FY2025. As White House Budget Director Russell Vought explained, these domestic cuts are designed to make way for “historic increases” in border security and defense, while eliminating programs his office characterizes as “radical” or “woke.”
Among the most severe reductions, according to reporting by The New York Times, is the proposed $6 billion cut to NASA, which would reduce the agency’s budget from $24.8 billion to $18.8 billion. This would halt the Artemis lunar program after Artemis III, cancel the lunar Gateway space station, and eliminate key Earth science missions, including climate-monitoring satellites. A billion dollars would be redirected to a vaguely defined Mars initiative, aligning closely with Elon Musk’s goal to send a crewed mission by 2030. The proposal reflects Trump’s pledge in his March 2025 address to Congress to “plant a flag” on Mars. “This is a budget that says America is done leading the world in space, that we are a nation turning inward,” said Casey Dreier of the Planetary Society in comments published by The New York Times.
NASA’s educational programs, including grants to minority-serving institutions and STEM outreach for K-12 students, would be eliminated in full.
The National Institutes of Health would see a cut of nearly $18 billion, with entire institutes eliminated or restructured, including the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities, the Fogarty International Center, and the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health. The budget consolidates numerous other programs under five redefined categories and halts NIH-funded research on climate change, social determinants of health, and gender-related medicine.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention would lose $3.6 billion—nearly half its current discretionary funding. The National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, the National Center for Environmental Health, the Global Health Center, and Public Health Preparedness and Response would all be eliminated. The budget proposes that states take on the duties of infectious disease preparedness, even as new flu strains and antibiotic-resistant pathogens circulate globally.
At the Environmental Protection Agency, the Office of Research and Development would lose $235 million, with additional cuts to the Atmospheric Protection Program, the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act grants, and all environmental justice efforts. The budget explicitly ends funding for climate science, calling it part of a “radical Green New Scam.” The Clean and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds would be slashed by $2.46 billion. While the EPA’s core drinking water program would receive a modest $9 million increase, the agency’s ability to monitor air quality, track emissions, or enforce environmental compliance would be gravely diminished.
The National Science Foundation would lose nearly $3.5 billion, with cuts targeting climate-related research, behavioral and social science programs, and international collaborations. NOAA‘s climate and satellite programs would lose over $1.5 billion, including cancellation of polar-orbiting weather satellites and coastal resilience initiatives.
Taken together, these reductions would not only diminish the United States’ ability to confront climate change, public health threats, and natural disasters. They would also destabilize a scientific enterprise that is central to the nation’s economic competitiveness. Since the end of World War II, federal investment in science has fueled growth across sectors, from agriculture and aerospace to computing and biomedicine. Much of that research, especially in energy, health, and climate, relies on infrastructure that would be dismantled under the catastrophic Trump proposal.
Importantly, these cuts will not meaningfully reduce the federal deficit. Non-defense discretionary spending makes up roughly 15 percent of the total budget. The long-term drivers of national debt include entitlements, tax expenditures, and interest payments and they all remain essentially untouched in this budget roadmap. Indeed, the Trump administration’s FY2026 plan leaves the 2017 tax cuts intact, continuing revenue losses that the Congressional Budget Office has projected will add trillions to the national debt over the next decade.
While the administration frames these proposals as a return to fiscal discipline, the effect is to exchange long-term investment in health, knowledge, and climate stability for short-term political messaging and increased spending on weapons systems and border walls.
This represents a stark departure from historical precedent. Presidents from both parties during the post-World War II era have embraced federal support for science and the environment as foundational to American prosperity. The EPA was established under President Richard M. Nixon. President Ronald Reagan protected core NIH and NSF funding even during the austerity of the 1980s. President Barack Obama used the 2009 stimulus to boost clean energy research, and even during Trump’s first term, bipartisan congressional majorities often rejected White House attempts to defund NIH, NSF, and NASA science programs.
The current proposal is broader, more ideological, and more dismissive of science than anything seen in decades.
It also comes at a time of heightened economic uncertainty. A new round of tariffs is scheduled to take effect this summer, expected by most independent economists to raise consumer prices and reduce GDP growth. Cutting thousands of federal jobs in science, education, and environmental enforcement would likely deepen regional disparities, considering that many are located in rural communities and at state universities.
Public opinion does not support these changes. One March 2025 survey found that 76% of Americans support increased federal funding for renewable energy, while an April 2025 Gallup poll showed that nearly 60% think the government is not doing enough to protect the environment and so likely favor stronger environmental protections.
A proposed budget is not the fine print of a spending bill. It is instead a declaration of national priorities. President Trump’s first budget proposal of his second term is one that rejects the country’s best tools for navigating a perilous future.
Congress still holds the power of the purse. Lawmakers of conscience, from both parties, must resist these cuts. And Americans who care about clean air, working science, healthy communities, or protected public lands should speak up. They should do so loudly, persistently, and now.
About Author
Hank Lacey
See author's posts
Published in Commentary
More posts from Hank Lacey