Senator Mark Kelly warns science funding is slipping

Former NASA astronaut and U.S. senator Mark Kelly says American science remains strong, but he fears proposed budget cuts and skepticism toward scientific investment could roll back decades of federal support—at a moment when global competitors are expanding t

Senator Mark Kelly has flown farther than most people can imagine, then watched the political decisions that decide whether the nation funds the work that makes those flights possible.

Kelly, a former U.S. Navy combat pilot and NASA astronaut who has served as a U.S. senator from Arizona since 2020, is blunt about what keeps American science at the top—and what could weaken it. “From a standpoint of still having great scientists and being the world’s best innovators and inventors. I would give us high marks. ” he said. “My concern is that we have some folks in government who don’t believe in science and don’t believe in the investments that need to be made for us to stay in that leadership position.”.

He points to the scale of the U.S. science machine as the reason the country holds its edge. Kelly argues the world’s biggest economy isn’t driven by real estate alone. but by “decades and decades of the federal government investing in research and education—especially the education of scientists and engineers and the funding of Ph.D. programs. as well as our investment in our national laboratories.” In his view. that foundation is now being “rolled back. ” and the result would be a hit to America’s ability to stay ahead.

Kelly is not speaking in generalities. Before he entered politics, he spent years living inside the systems of exploration and research. He earned a bachelor’s degree in marine engineering and nautical science from the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy and a master’s degree in aeronautical engineering from the Naval Postgraduate School. In 1996. he was selected as an astronaut. and he has spent more than 50 days in space. traveling more than 20 million miles. He retired from NASA in 2011 after commanding Space Shuttle Endeavour on its final flight.

So when he talks about science budgets, he does it with the urgency of someone who knows what delayed decisions look like long after the headlines fade.

What he says needs to change isn’t a lab’s ambition—it’s government’s commitment. Kelly told of speaking with directors of labs and centers who are worried about their budget. “I’ve had people tell me they’re not going to be able to do any science anymore. so they might as well just close the doors. ” he said. describing cuts “that have been proposed.”.

He says some of the worst threats have been pushed back “so far,” but warns the fight is far from over. “We’ve got a few more years of this administration, and you never know what comes next,” he said. His optimism, he added, doesn’t come from budgets. It comes from people.

Despite challenges from government officials who “really just don’t believe in the scientific method and the value of science. ” Kelly argues the U.S. still attracts “some of the best scientists in the world.” But he’s also watching a shift that worries him: “We’re seeing scientists go to China because that’s where the investments are being made.” Even with that trend underway. he says America is “still well positioned.”.

His perspective as a scientist who became an astronaut—and then a senator—shapes his advice to people starting out. Kelly stressed that becoming an astronaut is extraordinarily competitive. He said the astronaut job has “thousands of applications for a handful of spots.” When he applied. the numbers were “fewer but still in the thousands.” He also pointed to one change he sees as making the process more visible: “The number has gone up because it’s easier to get the information out there now that there is a process going on to select astronauts.”.

For early-career scientists who want a path into space, Kelly’s advice is practical. “I tell people to go into one of the fields that qualify you to be an astronaut. ” he said. citing backgrounds like being a U.S. Navy test pilot. or becoming “a scientist. engineer or medical doctor.” Then he adds the most personal part of his message: “But find something that you really like to do because if you like it. you can be good at it.”.

He also draws a line between knowing and doing. “We want people who can actually do things instead of people who just know things.”

Kelly says his field has changed. too. and he connects that change to a broader need to manage risk and spending. He pointed to NASA’s decision “to try to test the entire Artemis system. including the lander in low-Earth orbit. ” calling it “probably a good one to mitigate some of the risk.” He contrasted that with what he described as the earlier plan: “Going right into a landing on the surface of the moon seemed incredibly ambitious.”.

He also argues the U.S. has to keep adjusting how limited resources are used. “If you’re not changing things, they’re often getting worse,” he said. In his view. that means reevaluating where money goes and avoiding duplication—like overlapping capability across NASA centers and government labs. “Often in some of these NASA centers and government labs, you see overlapping capability,” Kelly said. “Maybe we don’t need three low-speed wind tunnels in different places. Maybe we could get by with one.”.

He acknowledges the political obstacle in making those cuts. “That becomes a political problem because the members of Congress who have those [projects] in their district don’t want to get rid of them. ” he said. And he places blame for the mismatch between decision-makers and technical realities at the center of his frustration. “We don’t have a lot of people in elected office who have a background in science and engineering. In the Senate, there are three engineers out of 100 people.”.

The thread running through Kelly’s remarks is a tension between progress and permission—between the scientific work the U.S. has built over “decades and decades” and the political choices that could shrink it or slow it just as global investment accelerates.

For Kelly, the answer isn’t to dim ambition. It’s to fund it steadily enough that labs can keep operating, scientists can keep choosing America, and exploration programs can keep learning without taking avoidable risks.

Mark Kelly NASA Artemis science funding U.S. Senate astronaut selection national laboratories Ph.D. programs research and education science journalism