Is Trump preparing to cancel America’s ride back to the moon?

A lunar rock sample collected in 1972 by Apollo 17 — the final U.S. moon mission — once held a place of honor on a shelf in President Joe Biden’s Oval Office. It was a gift from NASA, meant to symbolize America’s dedication to returning astronauts to the moon as part of a program set in motion by his predecessor.

But as President Trump returned for a second term, the moon rock was removed and sent back to NASA. In his inaugural address last month, Trump didn’t mention the moon, either, and instead seemed to echo the sentiments of Elon Musk, head of the newly formed Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), vowing that Americans would “pursue our manifest destiny into the stars” and “plant the Stars and Stripes on Mars.”

Perhaps more notably, Musk, the founder of SpaceX, has been critical of NASA's Artemis program, which Trump launched in 2017 to send Americans back to the moon to establish a long-term presence.

In particular, Musk has voiced concerns about the program's massive launch vehicle, the Space Launch System (SLS). In a recent post on X, he called the moon mission a “distraction,” stating, “[W]e’re going straight to Mars.” Trump’s pick for NASA administrator, Jared Isaacman, has also questioned the SLS, describing it as “outrageously expensive.”

Trump administration appears to shift away from the moon

The Artemis program has faced significant challenges. This month, Boeing, the lead contractor for the SLS, warned employees that up to 400 jobs could be cut, citing “revisions to the Artemis program and cost expectations.”

Todd Harrison, a space policy expert at the conservative-leaning American Enterprise Institute, concludes: “The Artemis program, as envisioned by the first Trump administration, is effectively dead.”

Harrison suggests that Musk is behind the shift away from the moon.

“It sounds like this is entirely Elon Musk whispering in the president’s ear, saying, ‘This is what we've got to do.’”

NASA has already invested about $40 billion in Artemis. The project was slated to send astronauts around the moon by April 2026 with Artemis II, followed by a lunar landing in 2027. However, delays in the development of the SLS and problems with the Orion crew capsule’s heat shield have repeatedly pushed back timetables.

Despite those delays, “we have never been closer since 1972 to being at the moon with astronauts from America,” says Thomas Culligan, a consultant and former aerospace lobbyist. “I think people don't realize just how far along we are into these missions.”

China would benefit if the U.S. drops Artemis

Meanwhile, China is pushing ahead with plans to send its astronauts to the moon before 2030, and other nations such as Japan and India are also focusing on lunar exploration.

Allen Cutler, president of the Coalition for Deep Space Exploration, warns that if the U.S. abandons Artemis, it would cede the setting of global norms for lunar exploration to China, diminishing America's influence in space.

“Failing to secure a leadership position on the moon would mean losing ground, not just in space exploration, but in global diplomacy, national security, and economic competitiveness,” he says.

Laura Forczyk, owner of the space consulting firm Astralytical, shares that concern.

“Right now, undeniably, China is the leader in lunar science,” she says. “That is something that the United States needs to refocus on in order to regain that leadership within the science community.”

Forczyk and others argue that the race to the moon is a marathon, not a sprint. She says it’s more important that the U.S. has a sustained presence on the moon — “a means of staying longer term” — and goes beyond what was accomplished during Apollo.

There are also concerns that giving up on Artemis would mean abandoning commitments to the Lunar Gateway project, a collaborative effort between the U.S., Canada, Japan, the European Space Agency and the UAE to establish the first space station around the moon.

Where Artemis stands right now

While the SLS successfully sent an uncrewed Orion capsule around the moon in 2022, Artemis still doesn't have a way to land, something Musk’s SpaceX is supposed to provide. The company’s lunar Starship, known as the Human Landing System, has been slow to take shape since the company won the contract in 2021, and it faces some formidable technical challenges — not least of which is a complex orbital refueling procedure that has never been tried.

“Elon Musk does do what he says he’s going to do, but never on time,” notes Forczyk. “So the question is, how long are we going to decide to wait?”

There are other options. In 2023, NASA awarded a contract to Blue Origin, led by Jeff Bezos, to develop a lunar lander as a backup to SpaceX’s Starship. Blue Origin is reportedly on track to test its vehicle on the moon's surface later this year. However, the company declined to provide NPR with an update on the vehicle's development.

NASA has made substantial progress with Artemis II, with 95 percent of the hardware for the mission to orbit the moon completed and astronaut training already in progress, according to Cutler. He and others find it hard to believe the program would be abruptly canceled, especially considering how far along the flights are in planning.

“It’s hard to imagine that this president, who established the Artemis program during his first term, would not want to send the first American astronauts to orbit the moon since Apollo,” says Culligan.

To be sure, the SLS has allies on both sides of the aisle in Congress. Alabama Republican Sen. Tommy Tuberville, whose state hosts NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center and at least 14,000 SLS jobs, told Reuters recently that SLS would “be fine.”

“I know that there’s a lot — because of Elon Musk involved in the DOGE situation — there’s a lot of rumors out there on that, but I got full confidence on the SLS and the future for them,” he said.

New York Democratic Rep. Grace Meng, ranking member of the House Appropriations Committee’s commerce, justice and science subcommittee, sent a letter last week to NASA’s acting administrator Janet Petro, calling Musk’s involvement in any oversight of the space agency a conflict of interest and urging her “to revoke any access to NASA headquarters for Mr. Musk and his staff.”

Musk aims for Mars, but that involves major risks

Tim Farrar, president of TMF Associates, a space consultancy, says Musk wants to present “a grand vision for the future of humanity. And clearly going to Mars is something that's never been done before.”

But it’s a hugely ambitious and potentially dangerous endeavor. One key argument for going back to the moon, which is just 240,000 miles away, is that it's a good proving ground for Mars, which orbits at an average distance of 142 million miles from Earth.

During the Apollo moon missions, for example, NASA was able to minimize astronauts’ exposure to radiation because of the limited duration of the missions — the longest of which lasted just 12 days. Going to Mars would mean no chance of rescue or quick return to Earth, with the dangers of greatly increased radiation exposure and adverse effects on astronauts’ bodies due to long-term exposure to low gravity and zero gravity.

“Going out to Mars, you’re talking 7 to 9 months to get there and about as much time to get back,” Harrison says, adding that for radio communications with Mars astronauts it will take “many minutes for that signal to get there.”

Musk has said that the first journeys to Mars will be dangerous, suggesting that the astronauts should be prepared to die. SpaceX’s development ethos involves blowing up lots of rockets to test and fix problems, something the company refers to as an “iterative design process.”

“Musk is very comfortable with risk ... but we’re yet to see how much the general public is comfortable with that risk,” Farrar says.

“And what will be the reaction if it all goes wrong?” he wonders. “You can’t sweep consequences under the carpet when it comes to people in space dying."

Copyright 2025, NPR