Need to Know: With Trump slashing NASA’s budget, it’s time for Canada to embrace space

Welcome to Need to Know, The Hub’s twice-weekly roundup of expert insights into the biggest economic stories, political news, and policy developments Hub readers need to be keeping their eyes on.

If the U.S. isn’t going to prioritize space, why can’t Canada step into the void?

By Aiden Muscovitch, assistant editor at The Hub

Late last month, the U.S. Congress received President Donald Trump’s full 2026 budget request. In what would be the largest single-year funding cut in NASA’s history, the agency’s total budget could be slashed by 24 percent, and its space science division alone faces reductions of nearly 50 percent.

If Congress approves the budget request, NASA will face nearly $6 billion USD in clawbacks from its $25 billion allotment. These cuts would be “almost extinction-level” to NASA’s space science, according to Nobel Prize winner and Johns Hopkins astronomy professor Adam Reiss.

Reports conclude the cuts could force NASA—which put the first man on the moon, launched the Hubble Space Telescope, and sent rovers to Mars—to cancel 40 future missions, abandon the Lunar Gateway project, halt production of the Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope, and close the Goddard Space Flight Center, one of NASA’s largest facilities, employing about 10,000 workers.

The proposal does allocate $7 billion for human flights to the Moon and $1 billion for Mars missions. This focus on crewed spaceflight comes at the expense of important scientific research, including climate monitoring and planetary exploration via satellites and rovers.

Canada now faces a unique opportunity to lead in the research areas that Trump is effectively sidelining. It is home to companies like Telesat and MDA Space, global leaders in satellite communications and Earth observation, as well as world-class universities. However, Canada’s space involvement is closely tied to the American sector. The Canadian Space Agency and NASA often share missions, including having a CSA astronaut, Jeremy Hansen, participate in the Artemis II moon mission. Canada needs to fully embrace its growing space industry to avoid being hurt by these cuts, too.

The CSA’s president, Lisa Campbell, said the agency and Canada are “open for business,” ready to attract Canadian and European investment, and welcome scientists and researchers leaving NASA, as many academics in other fields are, to fill the potential void in practical, Earth-focused space research.

With a new federal government looking for ways to kickstart Canada’s slow-growing economy, there’s no reason to limit ourselves to what’s within our borders—the Canadian potential in space is as limitless as space itself. While America steps back, it’s time for Canada to adjust its sights to infinity and beyond.

Why didn’t Mark Carney mark the D-Day anniversary?

By Harrison Lowman, The Hub’s managing editor

Eighty-one years ago, Noel Shanks, a Lancaster bomber tail gunner and a 22-year-old from Sharbot Lake, Ontario, looked down upon hundreds of ant-like figures darting across a French beach. After dodging anti-aircraft fire and returning fire himself, the Royal Canadian Air Force gunner made it back to base. Over dinner he learned that he had taken part in the largest movement of men and machines in history—D-Day—the event that changed the course of the Second World War in Europe. Three hundred and forty Canadians lost their lives on that Juno Beach below. Five hundred seventy-four were wounded.

“A great landing in Western Europe is the opening of what we hope and believe will be the decisive phase of the war against Germany. Fighting is certain to be heavy, bitter, and costly,” Prime Minister Mackenzie King told anxious Canadians in his radio address at the time. “Let the hearts of all in Canada today be filled with silent prayer for the success of our own and Allied forces and for the early liberation of the peoples of Europe.”

In 2016, I met a 93-year-old Noel. He was a generous host, welcoming me into his Burlington home, showing me his medals and pictures. After his wife Eileen’s passing, his neighbours had taken it upon themselves to take care of Noel, ensuring he was fed and his yard was in order. They also took it upon themselves to honour his sacrifice.

Noel has since passed away.

It is my heartfelt wish that the new Canadian government models their behaviour after Noel’s neighbours, keeping our Canadian veterans top of mind. But early signs show that it doesn’t appear to be happening.

Last week, on the 81st anniversary of D-Day, the Prime Minister’s Office did not even issue a statement marking the moment. Instead, we were left with announcements about World Environment Day (“we affirm our commitment to protecting Canada’s natural heritage…”), the National Day Against Gun Violence (“we affirm our commitment to deliver on that mandate with purpose and full force”), Eid (“From my family to yours, Eid Mubarak”), and a mere retweet of a post from the Canadian Armed Forces account. It would have been good to see Canadian veterans added to that list—at the top of that list.

The current prime minister is dead set on the future.

“The questions now are how our nations will cooperate in the future and where we in Canada will move on,” he recently told a press conference focused on the U.S. and international allies. He’s followed this with promises of boosted defence spending.

But he would be wise to also take pause and acknowledge Canada’s history and the men and women who made it. His predecessor not only ignored large parts of our past, but sought to demonize it.

Lest we forget.

Mark Carney’s déjà vu development plans

By Livio Di Matteo, a professor of economics at Lakehead University

Last week’s meeting in Saskatoon was notable for its amicable atmosphere, with Doug Ford’s bel canto radiating love in the air. Some called it the best meeting in a decade, comparing Prime Minister Carney to Santa Claus. There seemed relief that the premiers had a grown-up prime minister to dialogue with, but there are questions about expectations for federal-provincial relations. While cooperation is welcome, countering the erratic U.S. and achieving Canada’s greatest economic transformation since 1945 remains a challenge.

The prime minister’s self-imposed deadline for Canadian free trade on July 1st seems optimistic given provincial standards and regulations affecting various sectors. Despite the premiers’ comprehensive list of “nationally significant” infrastructure projects, the prime minister’s response regarding what would be considered was vague, focusing on strengthening the economy, high likelihood of success, Indigenous priority, and potential clean growth, leaving the real criteria unclear. That the prime minister is playing cards close to his chest is apparent with the news that there are quiet negotiations underway on a trade and security deal with the United States and on resuming better trade relations with China.

This is not a surprise. Canadian exports have plummeted, and waiting several years for indiscriminate spending on infrastructure projects obtained through solicitation and bearing the word ”national” in their title will not address a slowing economy. If infrastructure projects are to be the longer-term solution, the key question is what is Ottawa’s vision for infrastructure? The crucial criteria for decision-making should be boosting Canadian productivity, which involves increasing capital investment and raising per capita GDP.

Moreover, any project’s rate of return must be considered, requiring an evaluation that should consist of arm’s-length reviews by experts in economics, accounting, and business, not politicians in high offices. Addressing the federal-provincial institutional and policy environment is also essential. Ottawa controls levers like immigration, the provinces control health and education spending, and municipalities have land zoning and building permits. Good feelings around a first minister’s table are not a substitute for actual coordination.

The infrastructure projects raised so far resemble a wish list from the 1960s and 1970s, with proposals like the northern corridor development plan and developing deep-water ports on James and Hudson Bay—concepts which have a long history stretching back to the 19th century.

Many of these projects—such as new pipelines—are tied to resource development, which is welcome given Canada’s comparative advantage in resources, but returning to being simple hewers of wood and drawers of water is also not the answer. How do we invest in 21st-century resource extraction in a manner that boosts high technology and creates backward linkages into our tech and AI industries?

While our economy will always have a strong link to the United States, we also need to cultivate markets and build links to new clients, diversifying away from the U.S. Simply building and assuming markets will come is aspirational economic development. Despite the déjà vu of many proposals, the positive tone of last week’s first ministers’ meeting is welcome, but the real work lies ahead.