Washington- US| August 8, 2025
In a controversial and far-reaching move, the Trump administration has signaled its intent to terminate two critical NASA missions that provide invaluable data on carbon dioxide levels and plant health, a decision that has sent shockwaves through the global scientific community. The president’s budget request for fiscal year 2026, released today, proposes zero funding for the Orbiting Carbon Observatories (OCO), a suite of satellites that have been a cornerstone of international climate monitoring for over a decade. The decision, framed by the White House as a necessary reallocation of resources to prioritize space exploration, has been met with fierce condemnation from scientists and policymakers who warn that the move will create an irreparable gap in global environmental data, hindering efforts to understand and combat climate change.
The two missions in question, the OCO-2 satellite, launched in 2014, and the OCO-3 instrument, which has been attached to the International Space Station since 2019, are widely considered to be the world’s most accurate tools for measuring and mapping atmospheric carbon dioxide. Their data has provided an unprecedented, high-resolution view of the planet’s carbon cycle, revealing with astonishing precision where carbon is being emitted and absorbed. For example, data from these missions helped scientists discover that the Amazon rainforest, once thought to be a massive carbon sink, is in some areas emitting more carbon than it absorbs, while boreal forests in places like Canada and Russia are absorbing more than previously thought. The satellites have also been instrumental in monitoring plant growth and health, providing data that has proven vital for farmers, agricultural ministries, and food security agencies in predicting crop yields and identifying areas affected by drought. The missions, which employ technology with a lineage stretching back to the Hubble Space Telescope, have been called “a national asset” by scientists.
The stated rationale from the White House is that the missions are “beyond their prime mission” and that the funding is being redirected to “align with the President’s agenda and budget priorities,” which have long focused on human spaceflight to the Moon and Mars. This decision is part of a broader budget blueprint that seeks a significant overall cut to NASA’s budget, with Earth science funding slated for a 47% reduction. This dramatic shift is seen by many as a clear effort to sideline climate science and pivot NASA’s focus entirely to space exploration. Proponents of the move argue that the United States must reassert its leadership in space and that the immense cost of climate-related missions is better spent on inspirational projects that can unite the country and spur technological innovation.
However, the reaction from the scientific community has been overwhelmingly negative. Scientists at NASA and other institutions have warned that defunding the OCO missions will create an immediate and catastrophic data gap that no other system, either planned or operational, can fill. Dr. Michael Mann, a prominent climate scientist at the University of Pennsylvania, described the move as a “premeditated blackout of real-time climate surveillance during an era of escalating planetary emergency.” He and others argue that the decision is not about budgets or scientific priorities, but a calculated political move to make it harder to measure climate change and, consequently, to hold polluters accountable. Without this vital data, it becomes significantly more difficult for governments to track emissions, enforce international agreements, and develop effective climate policies.
The impact of this decision extends far beyond America’s borders. For European and British space agencies, the announcement is a cause for significant alarm. The European Space Agency (ESA) and NASA have a strategic partnership on Earth science and climate change, with many joint missions and a shared commitment to addressing global warming. The ESA’s Director of Science, Carole Mundell, speaking at a recent European conference, noted that while Europe has the technical capabilities to fill some of the gaps left by the U.S. cuts, the disruption and the cost of doing so would be immense. “We value deeply the collaboration between Europe and NASA,” Mundell stated, “but we do have the technical capabilities in Europe today, should it be necessary to reproduce missing elements.” However, the prospect of having to shoulder this immense financial and logistical burden has raised concerns in Brussels and London. Scientists at institutions like the UK’s National Centre for Earth Observation, who rely on NASA’s data, have voiced their dismay, highlighting that the loss of OCO data will make it harder for them to conduct their own research and provide accurate forecasts.
The move also comes at a time when the need for climate data is more critical than ever. The OCO missions were not just about measuring carbon but also had a crucial role in agriculture. The data they provided on plant fluorescence—the light plants emit during photosynthesis—was used to monitor drought conditions, predict crop stress, and forecast potential food shortages, information that is of immense value to both American farmers and global food security efforts. The shutdown of these missions, experts warn, will be a classic example of being “penny-wise and pound-foolish,” saving a relatively small amount of money while forfeiting a wealth of priceless data that has both economic and environmental value.
In conclusion, the decision to terminate the NASA Orbiting Carbon Observatories is more than a budgetary maneuver; it is a profound policy shift that has ignited a firestorm of controversy. The move pits the administration’s desire to refocus on human spaceflight against the global scientific consensus on the urgency of climate research. While the White House may see it as a bold step towards a new era of space exploration, many in the scientific community, both in the U.S. and around the world, view it as a dangerously shortsighted decision that will leave the planet flying blind into a worsening climate crisis. The ultimate fate of the missions now rests in the hands of Congress, which will decide whether to accept the President’s budget or stand with the scientific community and continue to fund these vital eyes in the sky.
