What is the skinny budget and what does it mean for NASA?

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) just released an overview of its funding request to Congress for federal agencies in fiscal year (FY) 2027. This document, termed the President’s Budget Request or "skinny budget," communicates the executive branch’s top-level fiscal priorities to Congress, which will be charged with accepting, rejecting, or iterating on the proposal. 

This year's request arrives at an unusually charged moment. NASA has a newly confirmed Administrator, Jared Isaacman, who was sworn in on Dec. 18, 2025, and has since unveiled an ambitious vision for the agency: a whirlwind of human and robotic lunar landings, a lunar surface station, a nuclear-propelled mission to Mars, and sustained support for ongoing science. The lunar base alone, presented at a NASA event called "Ignition," carries an anticipated cost of roughly $20 billion over the next seven years and will require extensive complementary scientific research and analysis for safe implementation. While the skinny budget calls for funding to support the base, the science and research infrastructure required to effectively see the project through do not appear compatible with what OMB director Russell Vought has proposed.

For the second year in a row, the President's Budget Request (PBR) includes a nearly one-quarter (23%) cut to NASA's top line, and what would be the largest drop in agency history, including a 47% cut to NASA science. The detailed budget, which includes line items for specific programs and missions, is typically released a few weeks after the skinny budget overview. Last year's detailed document outlined the cancellation of 45 missions, and the skinny budget this year indicates that at least 40 missions would be canceled.

This repetition invites an obvious question: why would the OMB propose the same deep cuts after Congress already decisively rejected them? The current full-year spending bill, passed in mid-January 2026 after a month-long government shutdown and a continuing resolution, supported $7.25 billion for NASA science, and used statutory language to explicitly protect missions that were facing cancellation under the PBR.

Part of the explanation lies in timing. A major step in the PBR drafting process, known as passback, is when the OMB responds to individual agencies' internal budget requests. That process was already well underway before the FY2026 budget passed in January, meaning the OMB was likely operating on the assumption that its first round of cuts would hold. A more strategic interpretation is that this reflects a deliberate effort by Vought and the OMB to normalize deep reductions to government programs over time, though that may overestimate the foresight at play.

What is new this year is NASA Administrator Isaacman. Prior to his confirmation, NASA had lacked a permanent Senate-confirmed leader for nearly a year. During that period, the OMB was carrying out a plan to significantly reduce U.S. space science, one that first surfaced publicly in 2022. Isaacman has moved quickly to reverse that direction. He has called for a reinvigoration of science and exploration, is overseeing workforce regrowth following the loss of over 4,000 NASA civil servants, and has added a preparatory flight to the Artemis program in pursuit of a crewed lunar landing in 2028.

The tension between the Isaacman plan and the Vought plan is the defining question hanging over this budget cycle. If both Congress and the White House see promise in NASA's new direction, the Ignition agenda could become the olive branch that stabilizes NASA's budget. Congress has already shown it is willing to fight for NASA Science — and with Isaacman's ambitious roadmap now on the table, the case may be even stronger than it was a year ago.

You can be part of that case. The Planetary Society's 2026 Day of Action is scheduled for April 19–20, a direct opportunity to make your voice heard at this pivotal moment. In March, we launched a campaign to help our community submit appropriations request forms to individual representatives. The Planetary Science Caucus also sent a letter, signed by a quarter of the House of Representatives, urging appropriators to prioritize NASA science. We will continue advocating for consensus-informed policies and funding, and we hope you will join us.