NASA new acting chief Sean Duffy, has unveiled a sweeping change in the agency direction, announcing that Earth-focused climate programs will take a backseat as resources are redirected toward deep space exploration.
In an interview Duffy said NASA’s mission is first and foremost about exploring beyond Earth, not leading climate research. The move signals a winding down of several long-running Earth science studies, a change that has sparked immediate pushback from the scientific community.
Climate Programs on the Chopping Block
For decades, NASA has been a global leader in monitoring the planet’s climate, using satellites and atmospheric research to track warming trends, greenhouse gas emissions, and extreme weather patterns. That body of data has been central to understanding global warming. But under Duffy’s leadership, these programs are set to be scaled back or discontinued.
“NASA should focus on space, not serve as the primary climate research body,” Duffy noted. Critics, however, warn that halting these efforts could erase decades of work and leave the U.S. less prepared to face environmental challenges.
Spotlight on Moon, Mars, and Beyond
The new priority list is ambitious: building permanent lunar bases, developing nuclear-powered infrastructure in space, and fast-tracking crewed missions to Mars. Duffy argued that American leadership in deep space is vital, especially amid competition from China and other nations. The strategy promises big advances in technology and exploration, but also represents a stark reallocation of funds away from Earth monitoring.
Scientists and Lawmakers Push Back
The announcement has drawn criticism from environmental groups, researchers, and some U.S. lawmakers. They argue that NASA is legally mandated to study both Earth and space, and worry that sidelining climate science could weaken disaster preparedness and environmental policymaking.
Public opinion may also pose a challenge. Surveys consistently show that Americans value NASA’s climate monitoring role, making this shift a politically sensitive gamble. Experts caution that the decision could have long-term consequences for both science and policy, at a time when global warming remains one of the planet’s most pressing crises.