You have a preview view of this article while we are checking your access. When we have confirmed access, the full article content will load.
The Trump administration wants to switch off and possibly destroy the climate-monitoring technology.

Sept. 5, 2025, 5:02 a.m. ET
Starting back in the Bush administration, the United States has spent more than $800 million launching powerful climate-monitoring satellite technology into space.
The satellites, known as the Orbiting Carbon Observatory missions, came with huge risks. In 2009 the first launch attempt failed, incinerating a satellite. But two later missions were successful, and today the satellites are in “perfect health,” according to a government report issued in January.
Now, however, the Trump administration wants to scrap them as a money-saving measure.
It’s like buying a car “and then running it into a tree after a few years, just to save the price of tank of gas,” said David Crisp, a former scientist at the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory who led the missions to launch the satellites, which help monitor plant life and greenhouse gases and are used by forecasters, farmers and scientists.
He noted that most of the expense of the satellites was at the front end. “They cost a vast amount to build,” he said. But, once in orbit, “they cost a fraction of that a year to operate.” The satellites have more than a decade of life left in them, Dr. Crisp said.
In May, the Trump administration proposed to cut NASA’s 2026 budget by 25 percent and to cut spending for Earth and climate science in half. Bethany Stevens, the NASA spokeswoman, said the president’s 2026 budget aimed to realign the agency with the “core mission of space exploration.”
At other science agencies, including the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the National Science Foundation, the administration has also asked Congress to shrink spending for next year. A smaller budget request “provides ample resources to advance our mission while cutting through bureaucratic bloat and agenda-driven programs that dilute NOAA’s impact,” said Kim Doster, the agency’s spokeswoman.