US space policy prioritizes short-term fiscal cuts over long-term lunar infrastructure, risking global scientific collaboration and equitable access to space exploration

Indigenous cosmologies often frame celestial bodies as kin or sacred entities, contrasting with the extractive, colonial mindset driving Western space policy. NASA’s Artemis Accords, for example, have been criticized for their lack of consultation with Indigenous communities whose ancestral lands host launch sites (e.g., the sacred sites of the Gwich’in in Alaska). The proposed budget cuts further marginalize these perspectives by deprioritizing lunar research that could incorporate traditional ecological knowledge, such as Indigenous lunar calendars used for agriculture and ceremony.

The current debate echoes Cold War-era tensions where space exploration was weaponized as a proxy for ideological competition, with NASA’s Apollo program serving as a tool of US soft power. However, unlike the 1960s, today’s lunar ambitions are fragmented by commercial interests (e.g., SpaceX, Blue Origin) and geopolitical rivalries, risking a repeat of the Space Race’s unsustainable, short-term sprints. Historical precedents like the 1993 cancellation of the Superconducting Super Collider show how abrupt shifts in scientific funding can cripple long-term infrastructure and talent retention.

While the US and Europe treat space as a domain for scientific and commercial exploitation, countries like India and Japan have integrated space programs into broader social goals, such as Japan’s JAXA using satellites for disaster resilience in Southeast Asia. China’s lunar ambitions, meanwhile, are framed within its Belt and Road Initiative, offering infrastructure loans to African and Latin American nations in exchange for access to lunar resources—a model that contrasts with the US’s militarized approach. These differences highlight how space policy reflects broader cultural values, from individualism in the West to communal welfare in the Global South.

NASA’s budget cuts threaten critical scientific missions, including the Lunar Gateway’s role in deep-space research and the Artemis program’s goal of sustainable lunar habitation. The proposed reductions also undermine NASA’s Earth Science Division, which provides essential climate data—ironically, given the administration’s stated priorities. Long-term funding instability disrupts research continuity, as seen in the James Webb Space Telescope’s decade-long delays due to budgetary uncertainty, demonstrating how fiscal volatility undermines scientific progress.

Artistic and spiritual traditions have long engaged with the Moon as a symbol of cyclical time, feminine energy, and human aspiration—from the Sumerian moon god Nanna to the Islamic tradition of moon sighting for religious festivals. Contemporary artists like Trevor Paglen have critiqued the militarization of space through works like *The Last Pictures*, which explores humanity’s legacy in the cosmos. Meanwhile, Indigenous artists like the Māori weaver *Rona Ngahuia Smith* use celestial motifs to challenge Western narratives of space as a frontier to be conquered.

If enacted, the budget cuts could accelerate a bifurcated space economy where wealthy nations and corporations dominate lunar resource extraction, while poorer nations are relegated to data consumers rather than contributors. Scenario modeling suggests that without sustained investment, the US risks losing its lead in space science within a decade, as China’s lunar base plans and Europe’s Moon Village initiative gain momentum. The cuts also jeopardize international collaborations like the Artemis Accords, which require long-term funding commitments to function, potentially fragmenting global space governance.

Marginalized communities, including women in STEM and scientists of color, are disproportionately affected by NASA’s underfunding, as they often rely on public institutions for career opportunities and research support. The proposed cuts also ignore the contributions of Global South scientists in lunar geology and space medicine, whose expertise is critical for sustainable exploration. Additionally, the framing excludes the voices of future generations, whose access to space exploration is being mortgaged for short-term fiscal gains.