The International Space Station is an orbital science laboratory where astronauts conduct experiments. The Trump administration has proposed to cut its budget by about $500 million and reduce research on outposts. AP/Roscosmos Space Agency Press Service Closed subtitles
Casey Dreier couldn't believe the numbers when he saw President Trump's proposed budget for NASA.
“This is the worst NASA budget I’ve ever seen in my life,” said Dreier, head of planetary social space policy, a nonprofit that advocates space exploration.
The budget suggests in-depth cuts to NASA's Science Mission Bureau, which oversees everything from telescopes staring deep into space to robotic probes that explore planets like Mars. Dreer said the projects cost billions of dollars to build, but the budget cuts were very deep.
Not only is this a spacecraft, but Trump’s proposed federal government budget will shut down large budgets for U.S. science businesses. The National Science Foundation (NSF) will be cut in half. The National Institutes of Health will lose $17 billion in funding. Other agencies such as the Department of Energy, the U.S. Geological Survey and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration will see a reduction of billions of dollars in total.
Sudip Parikh, CEO of the American Association for Scientific Development, said the proposals “will be disastrous if implemented.” If the Republican-controlled Congress follows Trump’s budget outline, Parikh warns that it will cut science in every university and lab in the United States.
“It not only integrates science around the country where I know the government sometimes likes to pick out, but it also integrates science around the country,” he said.
Australian aurora near the Antarctic Atmospheric Research Observatory in Antarctica is glowing. The laboratory is operated by staff from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration along with the National Science Foundation. Both institutions are facing in-depth research. Patrick Cullis/AP/NOAA Closed subtitles
So far, most of Trump's economic policy has focused on tariffs. The president said they could raise the price of certain items, causing short-term pain.
But some economists warn that his research budget unveiled last week as part of a larger plan also poses long-term risks.
Andrew Fieldhouse, an economist at Texas A&M University, said this is because basic science supports economic growth in the U.S. economy, and he studied the impact of R&D on the economy.
“From the dollar, the economic returns are really high,” he said. Since World War II, “government R&D investment has continued to drive about 20% to 25% of the U.S. private sector productivity growth.”
Consider NSF Grant 8107494. It was a scientist named John J. Hopfield in 1981 to conduct theoretical research on biomolecules and processes. The grant at the time was worth less than $300,000 (a million dollars in hair today), and it funded Hopfield’s work on an obscure topic: artificial neural networks. Now, the science provides a revolution in supporting the technology economy for the multi-billion dollar AI revolution. Last year, it also won the Nobel Prize in Physics.
Some economists believe that the private sector could have done the same. Richard Stern, who directs the economic policy of the Conservative Heritage Foundation, believes that the industry should fund most basic research in the United States.
"I think getting federal funds from it - making these labs sing for their dinner and getting money from private entities that want to study what is practical for people - I think it's a better way to stimulate growth so far," he said.
But even Stern said the cuts to scientific research were not a priority for him.
“If I were to rule out government spending to get rid of it, it wouldn’t be at the top,” he said.
Many other economists say the industry can never replace governments as funders of basic research.
"In these basic areas of basic research, the private sector often underinvests," said Vasudeva Ramaswamy, an economist at American universities.
He said the knowledge generated is too general and the economic returns are too far.
The president's proposed cuts are merely proposals. Congress actually made a budget. But if lawmakers choose to follow Trump’s budget outline, Ramaswamy expects the U.S. future GDP could be more than 4% smaller due to these cuts. This is about the size of the contraction experienced during the Great Depression, which lasted from December 2007 to June 2009, the country's longest recession since World War II.
Ultimately, these cuts could end up paying a lot of money to the government itself, he said.
“The economy tomorrow will be smaller because you decide to cut funds today,” he said. “If tomorrow’s economy is smaller, you will be taxing less.”