Media: NASA weighs headquarters closure, redistributing key roles across states

NASA is considering a major structural shift that could involve closing its headquarters in Washington, D.C., and redistributing its functions across various states. This proposal, which comes as part of a broader effort to reduce federal spending under the Trump administration, could have significant implications for NASA’s coordination and influence, particularly in Washington.

According to two sources familiar with the plan, quoted by Politico, the move could affect up to 2,500 jobs, potentially impacting roles that manage space exploration and coordinate major scientific missions, per Caliber.Az.

While NASA's 10 centres handle much of the day-to-day operations, the headquarters in Washington plays a critical role in lobbying for NASA’s priorities in Congress, ensuring support from the White House, and facilitating collaboration with foreign nations on key space projects.

Some offices at NASA's headquarters may remain in Washington, though it remains unclear which specific offices would stay or which employees would retain their positions. The potential relocation of key functions has raised concerns about the agency’s ability to maintain effective coordination.

Tom Culligan, a veteran space lobbyist, expressed concern about the impact on NASA’s connectivity. "The biggest fear if you’re NASA is you lose that connectivity," he said, referring to the challenges that could arise if the agency’s functions are spread out.

NASA did not respond to requests for comment on the potential restructuring.

A major downside to the proposal, according to former NASA official Dan Dumbacher, is the damage it could do to internal communication and coordination. "The minute I go and take that communication centre and move it to a [NASA] centre, I have now made that communication harder and longer," he said, highlighting the complexities that could arise when operations are dispersed.

Additionally, the proposed changes could hinder NASA's collaboration with international partners, as much of this cooperation is facilitated through embassies in Washington. NASA works with countries across the globe on various projects, including the International Space Station and plans for lunar exploration. The European Space Agency, for example, is contributing to NASA’s Artemis program by providing modules for Gateway, a lunar space station central to efforts to return American astronauts to the moon.

NASA has previously explored the idea of decentralizing its operations by giving its centers more authority, a move that has sparked political interest in states like Texas and Florida. Recently, Florida senators introduced a bill proposing to relocate NASA’s headquarters to their state, aiming to bring the agency’s leadership closer to the growing space industry in the region.

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis voiced his support for the plan, claiming it would save NASA “about a billion dollars.” In a post on X (formerly Twitter), he called the potential relocation “a no-brainer,” underscoring the financial benefits that such a move could bring to both NASA and the state.

Meanwhile, politicians from Ohio have also entered the conversation, with efforts to pitch Cleveland as a new home for NASA’s leadership. As states vie for the agency’s headquarters, the debate over its potential relocation highlights the growing competition to host NASA’s most influential operations.

By Tamilla Hasanova