![\"NASA](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/nasa-union-isaacman.jpg\")
<\/p>\n\t<\/p>\n
\t\t\t Brendan SMIALOWSKI \/ AFP via Getty Images\n\t<\/p>\n
During the government shutdown in November, the Trump administration suddenly accelerated its plans to shutter over a dozen buildings and around 100 laboratories at NASA\u2019s iconic Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC).<\/p>\n
The decision angered Democratic lawmakers, who accused them of going ahead with the \u201cconsolidation\u201d effort without even consulting them.<\/p>\n
In a November 10 letter<\/a> addressed to Sean Duffy, who served as NASA\u2019s interim administrator at the time, representative Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) noted that her staff had received \u201cdisturbing reports that NASA is directing the imminent closure of laboratories and facilities hosting mission-critical capabilities\u201d at the GSFC.<\/p>\n Of particular concern is the campus\u2019 main library, which was unceremoniously shut down last month<\/a>, as the New York Times reported<\/a> on December 31. NASA officials tried to downplay these concerns seemingly to no avail \u2014 as former and current staffers, advisors, and union representatives continue to watch in horror<\/a> as the GSFC closures go on.<\/p>\n NASA insiders cried foul<\/a> following the library\u2019s closure, warning that critical and still-undigitized materials could be thrown out in what they said were reckless efforts by the Trump administration.<\/p>\n NASA\u2019s new administrator, Jared Isaacman, who was confirmed by the Senate on December 17, was angered by the NYT\u2018s framing, accusing the newspaper<\/a> of not fully reflecting the \u201ccontext NASA shared.\u201d He argued that \u201cat no point is NASA \u2018tossing out\u2019 important scientific or historical materials.\u201d<\/p>\n That\u2019s despite later admitting<\/a> that \u201csome materials with no historical or technical value may not be retained\u201d following a \u201cdeliberate review\u201d over a period of 60 days.<\/p>\n NASA press secretary Bethany Stevens chimed in as well, describing the moves at Goddard as a \u201cconsolidation, not a closure.\u201d<\/p>\n Isaacman\u2019s comments have seemingly done little to reassure rattled NASA staffers. In a January 7 response<\/a> spotted by Astronomy<\/a>, Matt Biggs, the president of the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers (IFPTE) \u2014 a union that represents thousands of NASA scientists and engineers \u2014 accused Isaacman of making \u201cpatently false\u201d statements.<\/p>\n \u201cThe rapid and haphazard shutdown of the library at NASA\u2019s Goddard Space Flight Center, reported on by The New York Times, decimated this valuable collection housed at NASA\u2019s largest research library,\u201d Biggs wrote.<\/p>\n The labor union boss also took issue with Isaacman\u2019s argument that the consolidation efforts were part of the 2022 Goddard Master Plan<\/a>, which dates back to the Biden administration.<\/p>\n \u201cThis was not part of some \u2018long-planned facilities consolidation\u2019 as Isaacman claims,\u201d Biggs wrote. \u201cThe Goddard Master Plan, written in 2022, does not call for the library\u2019s closure. Building 21, which houses the library, was scheduled for renovation, not elimination.\u201d<\/p>\n Futurism has reached out to NASA for clarification. The agency failed to reply to a previous request for comment regarding details of the 2022 Master Plan.<\/p>\n Biggs also accused Isaacman of misleadingly stating on X<\/a> that \u201cNASA researchers will continue to have access to the scientific information and resources they need to do their work.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cThat\u2019s simply not true,\u201d he wrote. \u201cMuch of the material that was available in the library in Greenbelt, Maryland, is copyrighted or unique out-of-print material that cannot or has not been digitized and will no longer be available to researchers.\u201d<\/p>\n It\u2019s a precarious moment, as NASA\u2019s future continues to be debated in Congress. If it were up to the White House, the historic agency would face the largest budget cuts in its 67-year history<\/a>. Lawmakers, however, have since passed a counteroffer<\/a> that would leave the agency\u2019s science budget largely unaffected for the fiscal year of 2026 \u2014 which technically started in October, as the chaos has dragged on.<\/p>\n