NASA is quietly ending financial support for independent planetary science advisory groups, according to a letter posted to the agency’s website on January 16.
The affected groups have historically offered feedback to the space agency on science efforts ranging from the exploration of Mars and ocean worlds to the storage of extraterrestrial samples, and more.
The decision has taken many in the scientific community by surprise, says Jack Kiraly, director of government relations at the Planetary Society, a nonprofit that supports space exploration. “This is such a strange decision with no clear rationale. None of it really makes sense,” he says.
On supporting science journalism
If you’re enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.
According to the letter, signed by Louise Prockter, director of NASA’s Planetary Science Division, funding to support these “Analysis and Assessment Groups” will stop “toward the end of April 2026.”
The letter cites “several recent changes in the NASA landscape,” including U.S. president Donald Trump’s executive orders and a “highly constrained” budget, as reasons for no longer supporting the groups. NASA did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
At the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine’s Committee on Astrobiology and Planetary Sciences meeting on Tuesday, Prockter stressed that the groups won’t necessarily be eliminated by the decision but that they will lose funding, SpaceNews reported. “We are simply not able to support them for a number of reasons,” she said.
Independent input from the planetary science community has helped support key NASA missions, including New Horizons, which launched 20 years ago to explore Pluto and the outer edges of our solar system, and the Curiosity and Perseverance Mars rovers, Kiraly says. “Consulting outside experts is critical for the success of the agency,” he adds.
“When [NASA administrator Jared Isaacman] is out there saying, ‘We need to be rapidly iterating and being on the forefront of science and technology,’ you only know that you’re there by consulting the community,” Kiraly says.
Editor’s Note (1/21/26): This story was updated after posting to include additional information. This is a breaking news story and may be updated further.
It’s Time to Stand Up for Science
If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.
I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.
If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.
In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can’t-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world’s best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.
There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.