Is Resistance Futile?
Keith’s note: Question to NASAWatch readers: A lot of you give Acting NASA Administrator Janet Petro a free pass to do absolutely whatever the White House tells her to do – even if it is to preside over the firing of 1/3 of the work force she leads and cutting out a massive chunk of her agency’s budget. And every week she just tells you to go along with what she says and to “Embrace The Challenge”. And the excuse is that “she is told to do this”. I totally get the whole notion that y’all want to stay employed – at the greatest exploration entity the world has ever assembled. But if everyone at NASA just does what they are told to do – even if it aids in enabling this disaster – then why should others outside of NASA try and keep your budget and your pre-eminent team mates in place? Thoughts? Put them in the comments section.
29 responses to “Is Resistance Futile?”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
You’re 100 percent right. Unfortunately, no one with influence will risk doing anything and people like me who are way down on the totem poll will just lose their livelihood. I think the best option for me is to just leave the agency before it becomes something I don’t recognize.
What do you suggest? It’s not as simple as any random front- or second-line supervisor deciding to say no. This is way above the paygrade of 99.9% of NASA employees; we can’t make money appear out of thin air and we don’t set Agency policy. Most of us are just busy enough with work, trying to make the most of each day, keep our projects on track and our people happy.
Almost everyone at NASA (civil servants and contractors) have specific roles, jobs, what JO to use. Only very few decide policy of major programs and decisions.
Count me among the many who do NOT give the embracing lady a free pass. Civil servants swear an oath to support and defend the constitution (not the president!) against all enemies, foreign and domestic. She is presiding over the hollowing out of one of the greatest institutions this country has created. The impact will diminish our scientific and technological dominance, soft power, economic well being, and resilience to climate change for a generation to come. She is not without power. Instead she is doing the politically expedient thing, and breaking the oath she swore when she entered the civil service.
And, as you have pointed out, she is doing so with a heavy dose of gaslighting. I wonder if she knows how widely she is ridiculed for her continued use of ’embracing the challenge’.
Wasn’t the real time to resist internally was when these unsustainable programs were being planned, promoted, and poorly executed?
I thought maybe Janet was slow walking these changes which is really the only internal resistance that may help. That may buy time to put pressure on local Congress people to alter these proposed cuts. Civil servants are supposed to implement the will of the President and Congress. However, they have every right to inform their Congress person that the greater threat to their job comes from supporting the bill not from opposing it.
If NASA manages to dodge this bullet and doesn’t fundamentally change, it is just kicking the can down the road.
There needs to be an emergency overnight nationwide campaign of contacting Representatives and Senators from every state, and (politely) lobbying to restore funding for NASA – If not increase. ASAP!!!!
Phone Calls to DC and home state offices, or maybe even a visit to speak with the staff. I’ve heard they pay a lot of attention to visits and letters to their campaign offices.
Here’s an example:
( ), first of all, I want to thank you for great work you do for us in ( ), have been a major supporter of you for years.
I have been a major fan of the fantastic work NASA has done over the decades and the Technology, Science, and Exploration they have provided to the United States and the world.
I am writing to you in regards to the proposed NASA budget coming from the White House, and the disturbing massive cuts that could cripple the agency. I implore you to PLEASE save the NASA budget at (or near) it’s current funding level. I believe they get on 0.3-4% of the entire Federal budget. Heck, even a 50-75% increase would not impact or even be felt in the fiscal world, but the benefits to the United States would be immeasurable.
With the grand plan of Moon and Mars, NASA needs MORE funding, along the Science to support and have a really balanced portfolio. With the intense and ambitious Chinese space program, it is imperative we match and exceeded them at this critical juncture.
Thank you for your time and support.
*I suggest rewording individually (personalized) for as not to appear to be a standard form letter.
Janet needs to blink twice to let us know she’s ok.
The problem is she was an active advocate for diversity at the Cape. Now, she’s silent as a church mouse like many of our other leaders. What do you stand for? Real leaders don’t shy away from the hard things just because they want to keep their jobs.
And stop those damn Embrace The Challenge emails. They are stupid at this point.
The problem is that there is a lot of bloat and waste at the agency. NASA can’t make an accurate schedule or budget and fails to do nearly any effective contract performance management… it rarely holds contractors accountable, preferring instead to just throw more money at everything.
A reorganization is desperately needed. Most of NASA operates as if it was still in the 80s and is already outclassed by commercial providers.
Personnel reductions will help streamline operations and its past time that they merge a couple Centers.
Cutting waste and trimming bloat is beside the point. The White House budget for NASA (and everything else) has nothing to do with either (it ADDS trillions to the national debt; historically speaking, if you want to rein in deficit spending elect a democratic president and Congress, if you want to explode it elect repulican ones). When it comes to science, it has everything to do with destroying, on purpose, the structural underpinings of a system that catapulted this country to the leading edge of scientific discovery and innovation. It’s maddening (and frightening).
I think Petro feels she has to stay in place because if she leaves or gets fired someone else will be chosen who will make things far worse. The problem with that thinking it gradually leads to more and more appeasement, until you finally end up being the someone else you were trying to guard against.
This administration is going to do what it’s going to do (unless the Senate stops it, and I have very little faith that will happen), they are going to run right over her (it looks like they already are). If I were her (thank God I’m not in such a position), I would either refuse to follow direction and force them to fire me, or I would quit. Either way, I would make it as big a public spectacle as I could (i.e. I’d write oped pieces for the Times, the Post, I’d appear on cable new, etc) explaining why I was fired or why I walked away. Then I would work like mad, from the outside (unfortunately), to lobby the Senate.
As Colin pointed out you’re sort of missing the point of these budget cuts. Oh yah, SLS, Orion, a lot of that stuff has been a mess. And people can always point to JWST on the science side. But for every bloated flagship program or manned space flight contract you’ve got an OSIRIS-REx, or a MAVEN, or a Lucy, or a TESS, or a Roman Space Telescope…
You know what all those programmatically successful missions have in common? They’re GSFC managed science missions. GSFC is slated to lose half its workforce in the proposed budget, and science is slashed basically in half. Meanwhile SLS and Orion have a stay of execution until after Artemis 3. The reality, obviously, is that this is not some reorganization intended to streamline NASA, that’s a post-hoc justification that you’ve made up. I’m not even sure the administration uses that as a justification themselves, I think they’re just openly ideologically opposed to most publicly funded science. Using NASA as a technological show of force by putting boots on the moon or Mars (hah), sure. Using NASA to understand Earth, or our universe, or nearby planets, eww. Especially since GSFC is in a blue state.
Neither can DOD. But they’re getting $1T.
Who are we fighting? The Romulans?
NASA has a long history of elevating mediocrity into positions of leadership while the talent tends to stay more engaged in the work and exert influence as senior researchers and engineers. In a funding friendly environment, this “do no harm” approach works fine, but when the storm comes, the leadership vacuum becomes glaringly apparent. Just when our influence was needed most, leadership fell into line, went behind closed doors, and planned our demise with no input from those closest to the work necessary to accomplish the mission. Embrace the Chaos!
This exactly. Worked there for 15 years and most of management has more of an HR background than technical in too many directorates. The time spend glossing over things was just getting worse. Sorry, not sorry, but Janet was a poor choice at KSC and perfect for the new administration to control. She was extremely disconnected at KSC before all this…it was disappointing. People were consistently picked for “leadership” roles because they had been interns together years ago, etc, and apparently never had real leadership training. Major overhauls are needed but across management more than anything. We know this will not happen unfortunately.
Anything short of nationwide protests (possibly dangerous already) or general strikes (definitely illegal, not suggesting that people do this) is going to be ignored. Ars Technica did a nice job of explaining that only ~3.5% of a population are needed to successfully perform a non-violent protest. (see: https://arstechnica.com/culture/2025/04/resist-eggheads-universities-are-not-as-weak-as-they-have-chosen-to-be/)
But really, what % of the US population is the sum of NASA and contractors? What are we supposed to do, risk our ability to put food on the family table?
53% of NASA employees are part of a union, so strikes are possible.
Federal workers can’t strike and can be fired for doing so. The federal workers unions don’t protect them from that like a normal union.
But they have a voice via the union and the Unions have been filing lawsuits against the government – and winning. Just remember there is a difference between partisan politics and freedom of speech. But if everyone in the NASA family sits on their hands out of fear then NASA will evaporate at the rate it is going.
The people can hold the leaders at ransom. But they need to be united. The center directors need to unite everyone and fight. We need war directors, not appeasement.
I think it’s easy to criticize from the outside, but a little context is helpful before condemning every NASA leader who “just obeys” the White House. Janet Petro is in a nearly impossible position: she was appointed to stabilize an organization rocked by leadership changes, yet was handed guidance that slashes Earth science and research funds by 50 percent. She doesn’t get to redraw the White House’s priorities; her job is to implement them while preserving as much institutional knowledge as possible.
Rather than “giving her a free pass,” many of us recognize that Petro has worked quietly to protect high-priority missions (NISAR, GRACE-Continuity, MAIA) and to keep critical teams intact even as funding falls away. At every turn, she’s had to negotiate internally to stretch shrinking dollars across dozens of essential programs—some visible, some working behind the scenes on climate models or data archives that most people will never see. Her repeated mantra, “Embrace the challenge,” isn’t blind obedience; it’s a call to find creative ways to preserve NASA’s core capabilities under draconian cuts.
If every NASA employee simply “did what they were told” without voicing concerns, that would indeed be a problem. But the reality is that thousands of civil servants, engineers, and scientists are quietly lobbying Congress, partnering with NOAA and USGS to co-fund critical tasks, and briefing congressional staff on the real-world consequences of these cuts (drought forecasting, wildfire smoke prediction, flood mapping). Many are also volunteering extra hours to compile “impact stories” illustrating how a single missing satellite data set could cost farmers or first responders hundreds of millions in losses. Those are not the actions of a workforce that’s “just obeying”—they’re the actions of people fighting to keep NASA’s missions aligned with public need.
Outsiders should not abandon NASA simply because current leadership is executing White House guidance. History shows that when Congress sees the human and economic toll of deep cuts—farmers without accurate crop forecasts, communities without timely flood warnings—they often restore at least part of the funding. If you walk away today, you’ll miss the moment when advocacy can still make a difference. Instead, call your representative, support grassroots efforts like AGU’s Capitol Hill visits, and highlight the proven return on investment that Earth-observing satellites deliver every single day.
If people care about NASA’s future—both Moon-to-Mars and “Earth-to-Home”—the best response isn’t blanket outrage at Petro. It’s holding everyone accountable (administrators, Congress, and the White House) while supporting the civil servants who, despite unimaginable pressures, are doing everything they can to keep NASA’s science, data, and people intact.
Jonathan Jiang
Mr Jiang is correct -it is easy to throw rocks from the cheap seats -but people need to read between the lines. Keith, how many posts have you made the past 5 months that have been blatantly false -or at best- wrong? Perhaps false is not the correct word to use because that would imply you are trying to mislead, which i don’t think you are. But…how many probationary employees did Janet get rid of? Oh…that’s right – none. Think that happened by accident? Or how many people were going to get laid off at Goddard? oh yeah..none. I wonder how much she has negotiated behind the scenes? Recall the X-post to Bring Butch and Sunni down from ISS in 48 hrs…? That didn’t happen either.
Janet ran KSC for many years before being placed in this role that she didn’t ask for. ‘Embrace the Challenge’ has been her tagline for years. Recall early on when the Administration was requiring template letters/language to all Agencies? Embrace the Challenge is her way of telling people “I wrote this”….
So Keith, i can’t decide if NASAWatch is just lazy in it’s reporting? Or maybe it is more into the Chicken-Little scare tactics. Dig in to what’s REALLY happening – don’t just rely on your “9th floor friends”
Hey “SeenAlot” It’s easy to post things like this while hiding behind fake names: “So Keith, i can’t decide if NASAWatch is just lazy in its reporting? Or maybe it is more into the Chicken-Little scare tactics. Dig in to what’s REALLY happening – don’t just rely on your “9th floor friends”
Simple answer: stop reading NASAWatch. You will feel much better – I promise. Hope you don’t get laid off.
While I agree that the situation is unique and difficult, we are not throwing Janet under the bus. Instead, we are asking for better leadership across the board. On her emails of 1/31 and 3/28, Janet mentions her commitment and desire to be as transparent as possible. That goal has not even come close to reality. Janet is a USMA grad and knows what true leadership looks like. We are not moving forward as an agency, and we cannot rely on our leadership to speak in code. We need more conversation at all levels in the spirit of transparency that Janet has espoused but failed to foster. For instance, our plans for responding to the potential budget cuts contains no discussion of the price we are paying for what we eliminate. While it is inappropriate for us to lobby, it is malfeasant for us to not fully articulate the impact of these budget cuts in a united and open fashion.
The probationary employee situation wasn’t Keith making up something or bad research, it was what was going to happen… until it didn’t, at the last second and contrary to most people’s expectations. See, for example: https://arstechnica.com/space/2025/02/nasa-receives-11th-hour-reprieve-from-probationary-employee-cuts/
Now hopefully Issacman didn’t have anything to do with it like the rumor suggests, because whoever his replacement is I can guarantee you they will be much more malleable to broad cuts. They won’t make that mistake again.
Clarification: When I mentioned that “thousands of civil servants, engineers, and scientists are quietly lobbying Congress,” I was using the broad definition of “lobbying”; what I really meant was contacting members of Congress as private citizens to share how critical NASA’s work is.
I agree, Jonathan. We all too often misinterpret what is meant by “lobbying”, but along with our actions as private citizens, the Agency should make clear statements and assessments of impacts. Only then can Congress decide what they want to do with clarity.
As a NASA retired executive who started at the JSC in 1962 it seems to me that it is time for a NASA rebirth. NASA was formed and expanded in the 1950s and 1960s based on a Civil Service laboratory/military base model in the midst of the Cold War. Janet Petro is doing her best to mitigate what is coming down from the White House in the process coming across as their sock puppet. Maybe it is time to think out of the box and propose an alternative NASA that would insure world leadership in the 21st century. Transition it off into a national government corporate or two similar to the DOE national labs or some other appropriate model. Human space flight and exploration could be one entity run as a government corporation with fewer of the salary, work place constraints of the civil service and less FAR controls on contracting etc. The science and more basic research could be spun into a university managed LLC like Los Altos and similar. It is time for reinvention and innovation at the core of NASA. With ideas like this Petro could go on the offense in DC rather than defense finessing things. Just looked her up on Wikipedia, she is 65 years old with many years of government service. She has little to personally lose playing offense with creative ideas.
This is not a terrible idea, is forward-thinking, practical, and aware of the nuances of Petro’s role. Wish as a country we could just implement good ideas when we see one.
What I hear from the inside is that Janet has been diligently and quietly fighting for us, and we would be in far worse shape otherwise. She is no dummy — there is a limit to how much she can push back and I trust she is being smart about her battles. There is no room in the present administration for mavericks, so it’s silly to think any acting administrator in a CS position could magically steer things with authority. They would be out on their ass if they tried.
I’d rather we be in an environment where the acting administrator could help move us forward instead of trying to minimize losses as we are forced to retreat. Unfortunately we are not in that environment right now. Don’t blame Janet, blame the White House and all their nut job cronies trying to tear the government down.
Open opposition would quickly lead to
Her replacement. Then she would have zero opportunity to try to influence events. I’m not excusing her compliance, but I can understand it.
The problem is by no means limited to NASA. Science and academic endeavors of all sorts are under full-fledged attack. The civil service has been completely politicized and is helpless to resist. Only Congress and the courts can try to reverse, or at least slow, the descent of the US to banana republic status.