The space science community has always taken pride in its ability to inspire individuals from various backgrounds. However, the recent executive orders issued by President Donald Trump aimed at dismantling diversity programs have thrown this optimism into turmoil. In a significant response, NASA has suspended funding for essential diversity and outreach programs, paused meetings of community groups that connect with space scientists, and prohibited the activities of internal employee resource groups, particularly those supporting women, LGBTQIA individuals, and other marginalized communities.
The White House also attempted to terminate thousands of probationary NASA employees, only to reverse the decision at the last moment. Nonetheless, the looming threat of substantial layoffs and budget cuts—potentially reaching up to 50 percent—continues to create anxiety among agency workers. Recently, NASA closed three offices, including the Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility (DEIA) branch of its equal opportunity office, resulting in significant layoffs of its staff. Many remaining employees at NASA feel compelled to hide symbols of LGBTQIA pride and have even removed pronouns from their email signatures, fearing repercussions. The uncertainty has compelled talented scientists who rely on federal funding to seek employment outside the federal realm or even consider relocating abroad for job security.
“Executive orders are not optional,” stated Charles Webb, acting director of NASA’s planetary science division, during a recent conference. He described NASA as “racing to comply” with these orders. Experts are deeply concerned that the changes mandated by the Trump administration are reversing decades of evidence-based work in diversity and outreach. They warn that these actions will hinder scientific discovery, resulting in a smaller, less innovative, and more generic agency. Furthermore, the lack of diverse perspectives could lead to increased accidents and potential loss of life, as personnel involved in space missions may feel unable to voice concerns about issues they observe.
The repercussions of these executive orders extend beyond NASA, affecting the broader scientific community. The legality of Trump’s actions is debatable, leaving individual federal grant recipients uncertain about how to proceed. Many scientists reported receiving conflicting communications from their university employers regarding permissible work and supported initiatives, with guidelines shifting daily. This atmosphere of fear compels many to adopt a low profile, hoping their research remains unaffected.
Typically, scientists rely on professional organizations for guidance. However, many have struggled to respond effectively to the crisis. The American Geophysical Union (AGU) faced criticism for deleting content related to diversity from its website, only to restore it after backlash. Similarly, the Space Science Institute (SSI) removed pages highlighting its commitment to diversity, while NASA briefly omitted references to inclusion from its list of core values, later reinstating them. “The removal of a statement does not diminish the commitment of individual researchers to diversity in the space science workforce,” said SSI in a statement, attributing the changes to the executive orders.
With NASA facing potential budget cuts and universities in damage control mode, scientists are exploring grassroots avenues to combat Trump’s interference. “We’ve not seen the kind of leadership that I think we need,” remarked Paul Byrne, a planetary scientist at Washington University. He suggests that resistance will largely arise from the grassroots level rather than top-down initiatives. A recurring theme among experts is that promoting diversity in the sciences is not merely a superficial effort but a crucial component of critical thought. While advocating for wider access to science for ethical reasons, they emphasize that greater diversity among scientists leads to improved scientific outcomes.
Julie Rathbun, a Cornell University astronomer, asserts that Trump’s campaign against diversity in sciences “has no basis in scientific evidence.” Diverse groups produce better science, she explains, citing social science research that demonstrates inclusive teams achieve superior results. NASA had previously embraced diversity based on this evidence, fostering an environment where varied perspectives could challenge and refine scientific thinking. The Challenger disaster in 1986 exemplifies the dangers of homogeneity; the lack of diverse viewpoints contributed to a groupthink mentality that ultimately led to tragedy.
Supporters argue that diversity initiatives are essential for accurately reflecting the US population within the scientific community. In planetary science, a 2011 demographic survey showed that only 25 percent of US researchers were women, and just 1 percent were Black or Latinx. While slight improvements have been made, Black researchers remain significantly underrepresented. DEIA programs aimed to address these disparities through outreach and support, emphasizing that creating a level playing field is vital for innovation and progress.
In light of the current challenges, scientists are banding together to resist these detrimental changes. Mark Sykes, CEO of the Planetary Science Institute (PSI), has expressed his commitment to promoting diversity as a core value. Should federal funding diminish, he is willing to seek alternative funding sources, even crowdfunding. Many scientists, including Rathbun, are dedicated to continuing their mentoring efforts for underrepresented students, inviting them to meetings and workshops despite the closure of official programs. The Choir Collaboration, a group focused on studying galaxy evolution, has initiated a mutual aid program to support those affected by funding cuts, particularly individuals involved in DEIA initiatives.
Financial pressures are a significant concern for early-career scientists, who may face severe hardships from missed paychecks. Many have embarked on postdoctoral positions with minimal savings or have received last-minute notifications regarding potential pay disruptions. While scientists do not pursue their careers for monetary gain, financial stability is crucial for their ability to perform research, especially for those from marginalized backgrounds or involved in DEIA work, which is often undervalued by employers.
Researchers outside federal agencies empathize with their NASA colleagues, recognizing that federal employees have limited freedom to contest executive orders. Rathbun emphasizes that “government employees are not the enemy,” highlighting the dedication of NASA personnel. There is a growing sentiment that these workers are being sacrificed in a cultural conflict that undermines their contributions. As scientists face these challenges, they see clear parallels between attacks on DEIA initiatives and broader assaults on scientific principles, such as climate change and vaccine research. “If you look at these executive orders in total, it’s an attack on science as a whole,” Rathbun concludes, reinforcing the critical need for diversity in scientific inquiry.
