Trump and Musk focus on the Moon and Mars. Nasa budget cuts could impact European space efforts.

A document previewing the U.S. administration’s 2026 spending proposals outlines a new future for space exploration. Major programs with Esa and Italian contributions such as the Orion capsule, the Gateway lunar station and the Mars Sample Return have been scrapped.

BY EMILIO COZZI

Less than a month had passed since Halo, the first module of the lunar space station, built in Turin by Thales Alenia Space, had landed in Arizona to be integrated into the propulsion system. The original plan saw it as the foundation for the first human outpost orbiting another celestial body: the Lunar Gateway. However, the Trump administration confirmed what had been feared for weeks: the project would have to be canceled. Along with it, six billion dollars in funding intended to fuel the most ambitious effort in the exploration of the Solar System. Earth science, climate science, and Earth observation would also fall victim to Trump’s axe.

Only two objectives would remain, almost turning into an obsession: beating China to the Moon and “sending a man to Mars.” In relation to these goals, Europe might lose a lot, and who knows if it would gain anything.

In the summary of changes to the spending plan, which involves all sectors of the U.S. administration, Donald Trump proposes a Nasa budget of 18.8 billion dollars, which is a 24% reduction compared to the 24.8 billion dollars for the current fiscal year.

To be clear, the president is not using an executive order; he is using an all-encompassing (though still brief) document. The long and detailed final list will not be available until the end of May, when it will be published and then submitted to Congress for approval. It will be in that context that politics will do its work, particularly in regard to the challenge (or affront) of saving costly operations that many analysts consider out of step with the times.

The Senate Launch System

For example, the Space Launch System (Sls), the rocket developed in recent decades for the Artemis lunar exploration program: partly “recycled” from the Space Shuttle era, its costs are incomparable to those promised, for example, by SpaceX with Starship.
Sls is a non-reusable launch system. It is primarily built by Boeing, a competitor of SpaceX, a characteristic noted by more than one observer. According to a report on the budget prepared by the Inspector General in 2023, each launch would cost 2.5 billion dollars (the document mentions 4 billion), after which everything would need to be redone.

It is estimated that a Starship launch would cost twenty to forty times less.
This is a hypothesis: unlike Sls, Starship is not yet operational. However, it is designed to be fully reusable. For this reason, the Trump administration intends to abandon Sls after three launches: meaning that with Artemis II and III, humanity will return to orbit and then land on the Moon using the costly launch system. Afterward, Sls will be “retired,” along with the Orion capsule designed to be integrated with it at the top (mainly by Lockheed Martin, another SpaceX competitor).
This is not a detail, at least not for the European industry, which makes an essential part of the lunar transport system: the Service Module, responsible for providing propulsion and energy to Orion, supplied by the European Space Agency (Esa).

In fairness, skeptics had been calling the system the “Senate Launch System” for years: in their view, it was kept alive to preserve thousands of jobs. It’s no surprise it became a target for the “hardline” approach of the new American administration.
Politically, its abandonment will be a bitter pill for elected officials in the regions involved in the production process. However, from the perspective of the spending review initiated by Trump, and with Musk guiding the focus, it seems unlikely that the Space Launch System will survive.
Under scrutiny is the cost-plus contracting system, with no spending cap, that is, the old Nasa model. Today, the commercial sector is being looked at to streamline, speed up, and save money. That the paradigm shift enriches a couple of people present at the Inauguration Day of the reelected president, Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos, almost seems like an afterthought.

The first with funding for the development of Starship, which, it should be reiterated, is now the primary choice for lunar landings as well as aiming for Mars; the second with his New Glenn rocket and another lunar lander.
In the section “Inherited Human Exploration Systems from the Past,” which proposes a cut of 879 million, it states: “The budget funds a program to replace Sls and Orion flights to the Moon with more cost-effective commercial systems that will support more ambitious future lunar missions.

No More Lunar Orbital Station

The Trump administration also proposes to terminate the Lunar Gateway, the station under development with international partners, designed to support future missions on the lunar surface and in deep space. This would be another hard blow for Europe: in addition to the industrial fallout on projects already in advanced stages it would end a new adventure before it even begins, an example of international cooperation far from Earth, an infrastructure capable of allowing crews to dock like in a port and then descend to conduct operations on the surface.

Italy is heavily involved in the development of the Gateway: as mentioned earlier, a significant part of the habitable volumes is being built in Turin by Thales Alenia Space. The program also involves Japan, Canada, and the United Arab Emirates (with a module once again contracted to Thales).

So, what will happen to the modules that have been worked on and continue to be worked on for the Gateway? They will likely be used for different purposes or, who knows, sold to companies designing new private stations in low Earth orbit, where the International Space Station (Iss) is set to be deorbited (“by 2030,” the document specifies).

Meanwhile, in the Iss chapter, the proposal is to cut funding by over half a billion dollars: “The budget reflects the imminent transition to a more cost-effective commercial approach for human activities in space, reducing the crew and research activities,” it states. “Crew and cargo flights to the station will be significantly reduced to focus on activities essential for the Moon and Mars exploration programs.”

It is likely that many in Italy are waiting for the details of the next, more complete budget proposal to know if at least the lunar surface habitat module, Made in Italy by Nasa’s choice (and also produced by Thales Alenia Space), will remain part of the government’s plans.

The goal, however, seems different. It is explicitly stated, in just a few lines, even twice: beat China in the new race to the Moon and “send a man to Mars.”

On Mars. What’s going to happen to ExoMars?

So, what will happen to the Mars Sample Return, a complex and expensive program, always in collaboration with Europe?
Already during the Biden administration, Congress had slashed it due to the skyrocketing costs, pushing Nasa to explore low-cost alternatives.
Its goal is to retrieve and bring back to Earth the Martian soil samples collected by the Perseverance rover, and then analyze them in Earth laboratories. This too is an adventure undertaken with ESA and European countries. And this, according to Trump, should also be eliminated.
It’s clear how little the new American administration cares about scientific research: space seems to have transformed exclusively into a matter of conquest. Eventually, the person destined for Mars might be the one to collect the samples and bring them back to Earth, just as the astronauts of the Apollo missions did for the Moon.

Not by chance, the only chapter to see a proposed increase is Human Space Exploration: “By allocating over 7 billion dollars for lunar exploration and introducing 1 billion dollars in new investments for Mars-focused programs, the budget ensures that America’s efforts in human space exploration remain unmatched, innovative, and efficient.”

Among many things, one question remains unanswered for Europe.

What will be the fate of ExoMars?

After the end of the collaboration with Russia, the Rosalind Franklin rover is awaiting tools and logistical support made in the Usa to launch and land on Mars. Nasa had committed to contributing an instrument for the analysis of organic compounds, the launch vehicle, the radioisotope power system, and the descent motors for landing on the Red Planet (the latter being crucial, given the difficulties the Esa has already faced in ‘Mars-landing’).
In the budget drafted last year, 73 million dollars were allocated for Rosalind Franklin in 2026, with an increase expected until 2028, the year of the planned launch.
At this moment, it is difficult to add anything further.

Cuts to research, climate, staff, and maintenance

Given the attempts during his first presidential term, it is not surprising that Trump wants to make significant cuts to the funding of scientific research and satellites related to the environment: a 1.1 billion dollar reduction for Earth sciences, including ‘low-priority climate monitoring satellites’ and the Landsat program; ‘expenses for ‘green aviation’ focused on climate, while simultaneously protecting the development of technologies with applications for air traffic control and defense’ (a 346 million dollar cut); monstrous cuts to everything that enables the agency to function: 1.134 billion dollars less for ‘mission support,’ a heavy blow to the number of employees, maintenance, and environmental compliance activities.
As noted by the New York Times, as reported by a Nasa report published in 2024, this effort should, in fact, be increased, as many facilities date back to the 1960s.

No woke space

Finally, a “methodological” indication that appears no less than 12 times in the 46 pages of the document – a document, it is important to emphasize, that summarizes the changes to the entire spending plan of the American administration across all sectors, with Nasa being a relatively small chapter: the repudiation of “woke culture,” awareness and activity against social injustices (racism, gender discrimination), which conservatives view as progressive ideologies (and which includes, for example, the fight against climate change).

It reads as follows: ‘Nasa’s primary role is space exploration, and just as the generations before us were inspired by the Apollo lunar landings, Nasa will inspire the next generation of explorers through exciting and ambitious space missions, not funding “woke” Stem programs and research that favor certain student groups at the expense of others and that have had minimal impact on the aerospace sector.’

The path of the law that will define Nasa’s budget for fiscal year 2026 is still long, and Congress also has the power to significantly alter its structure. Yet, the road seems clear.
The future of space exploration will not be as imagined just a few years ago.