Just last week, four astronauts left Earth’s orbit, journeyed around the moon, and returned safely home. In the midst of new lows for humanity–like someone threatening to destroy an entire civilization when they have the resources to actually do it–the human race is simultaneously reaching new heights. It is marvelous, miraculous, and a milestone for all humans to celebrate. It is almost unthinkable, however, that at this moment, as the world rallies behind NASA in amazement, Trump is dismantling many of its programs, threatening to slash its budget, and generally working to kill your “moon joy.” Houston, we have a problem.
Artemis II hit close to home for me. The astronauts splashed down off the coast of San Diego, where I was stationed as a Navy pilot for the last eight years. More astronauts come from Naval aviation than anywhere else, and I am proud to wear the same wings of gold as two members of the crew. Following multiple deployments as a pilot, I certified aviation departments of surface vessels and helped deploy tactical air control squadrons aboard them; one of those vessels is where the astronauts landed after getting scooped out of the ocean by H-60 helicopters, the aircraft I flew during my service. All to say: I know intimately the preparation, technical rigor, talent, and coordination required for even relatively insignificant pieces of a mission of astronomical proportions. If we want to shoot for the stars, then we'd better recommit ourselves to what gets us there: science and DEI.
You simply do not get to the moon without investing heavily in scientific research and education. During the Cold War, the space race became a national priority. 4.4% of the federal budget was allocated to NASA in 1966–a tab even larger than what had been put towards developing the atomic bomb. The U.S. government also quickly passed the National Defense Education Act, redesigned national curricula, and pumped $1 billion into schools. Only twelve years later, we landed on the moon. Even if exploring outerspace was a financial black hole, it might still be worth pursuing, but the return on investment for NASA science is actually stellar–every dollar spent on NASA adds $10 to the economy, often through technologies that help us every day, from air purifiers to cordless power tools to GPS. Nevertheless, funding for NASA today accounts for only .3% of the federal budget, and Trump’s proposal to the 2027 Budget would cut 23% of NASA’s overall funding and 47% of its science division, risking more than 50 missions. The Planetary Society calls it “an extinction-level event for science.”
Diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) has been a North Star for NASA. For decades, the agency has been a leader in DEI, even playing a role in the fight for civil rights. Kennedy worked to create more inclusive job opportunities at NASA in advance of the Apollo lunar program; many experts maintain that these inclusive programs have been instrumental in attracting a talented and diverse workforce. Diversifying has helped NASA achieve an unprecedented amount of skill and talent in its workforce. Plus, diverse teams perform better. NASA’s Unity Campaign was launched with a goal to “rise above…divisiveness,” and ensure employees felt “a genuine sense of belonging,” “empowered to be authentic,” and “safe and respected,” improving morale, cohesiveness, and motivation. When coworkers bond, their differences cease to be feared and misunderstood but are instead recognized as crucial to the mission. It's not rocket science.
The Artemis II astronauts know they stand on the shoulders of giants, from Katherine Johnson, Guion Bluford, and Mae Jemison to Charlie Blackwell-Thompson and Vanessa Wyche. Everyone on that list is Black, a woman, or both, yet the Trump regime seems set on re-segregating NASA. When two-thirds of all astronauts come from the military, the fact that Secretary of War Hegseth is aggressively purging the forces of anything even remotely hinting at DEI affects NASA downstream. Trump’s appointee for Administrator, appointed in defiance of a long-term custom that the job passes to the top civil servant in the agency, was Janet Petro. When Trump’s Executive Order against DEI came out, and NASA closed its diversity offices, she emailed the staff to pressure them to report anyone trying to obscure their connection to DEI, claiming it “divided Americans by race…and resulted in shameful discrimination.” NASA’s historically impressive DEI approach is unlikely to continue while Trump appointees reign.
But why is the government interfering with NASA’s personnel practices and bleeding it dry financially? There are some clues. Administrator Petro named Michael Altenhofen, a top executive at SpaceX, as a senior advisor, before being succeeded herself by Jared Isaacman, a billionaire who has flown on the SpaceX Dragon spacecraft. There are ongoing and valid concerns about SpaceX’s influence on NASA, especially given Musk’s involvement in the 2024 election. Now, many believe Trump hopes to privatize space entirely, a theory not debunked by a budget he proposed in his first term that would have ended funding completely for the International Space Station by 2025. U.S. Senator Van Hollen says the regime wants to “attack the heart of the NASA space science center enterprise in order to contract it out, ultimately to themselves.” By diminishing NASA’s capacity, they’ll be in a better position to push for privatization. So, it is yet another grift when space could and should be something we all share. What happened to Integrity?
It will take everything we’ve got, as it always does, to ensure these important contributions to humanity continue successfully and thoughtfully. But while we celebrate this heroic moonshot, Trump is gutting established programs without which the Artemis II crew would never have gotten off the ground. If astronauts can voyage to space on our behalf, then we can show up for them on Earth. Call your reps and advocate for investments in NASA, scientific research, and DEI–and consequences for corruption. It may take perseverance, but anything is possible when we choose each other.Julie Roland was a Naval Officer for ten years, deploying to both the South China Sea and the Persian Gulf as a helicopter pilot before separating in June 2025 as a Lieutenant Commander. She has a law degree from the University of San Diego, a Master of Laws from Columbia University, and is a member of the Truman National Security Project.
image of U.S. President Donald Trump is displayed on a digital billboard in Times Square in New York on April 8, 2026.
Trump is stuck between two realities. Neither serves the American people
Normally, I worry that events may overtake a column. But not so with the Iran war.
I don’t worry about running afoul of a headline or Truth Social post from the president because what is said about the situation is no longer very relevant to the reality.
On April 8, Nick Catoggio, my Dispatch colleague, dubbed an earlier stoppage with Iran “Schrödinger’s ceasefire.” This was a reference to the famous thought experiment by the physicist Erwin Schrödinger, who was trying to explain the weirdness of “superpositionality” in quantum physics. A cat in a box is both dead and alive at the same time until you open the box. Schrödinger meant to illustrate the absurdity of the idea that particles aren’t any one thing, but a “cloud of probabilities.”
The Trump administration is stuck in a word cloud of probabilities of his own making. The war is over. The war is on. The war isn’t a war. We have a deal, but we don’t have a deal, but we’re about to have a deal. We destroyed Iran’s military. No, we left it intact. We want regime change. No we don’t. We already accomplished it. We “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear program a year ago. We had to go to war in February to prevent nuclear war. The Strait of Hormuz is open, closed, or something in-between. No deal without “unconditional surrender.” Let’s make a deal!
This everything-all-at-once vibe can be disorienting, particularly since most Americans didn’t have a war with Iran on their bingo cards until the shooting had already started. President Trump didn’t prepare the country or consult with Congress beforehand because he thought it would all be a smashing success in a matter of weeks.
The miscalculation that started it all: killing Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and much of Iran’s senior leadership, on the first day of the war. To “the great proud people of Iran, I say tonight that the hour of your freedom is at hand,” Trump announced on Feb. 28. “When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take. This will be probably your only chance for generations.”
I support regime change in Iran and shed no tears for Khamenei or his goons. But when you start a war by killing the regime’s top leaders, it’s not unreasonable for the remaining ones to conclude that you really intend regime change.
Khamenei was a murderous fanatic, but he was a fairly cautious one. He liked to threaten closing the Strait of Hormuz or attacking our regional allies, but he was reluctant to actually do it, fearing it would invite a regime change war. The mullahs and IRGC goons believed, not unreasonably, that if they lost their grip on power, they’d be lynched by the Iranian people they’ve brutalized for decades.
By starting with a regime change war, Trump removed any reason for the regime not to go for broke. When you have nothing to lose — particularly when you are a millenarian religious fanatic — a Persian Alamo strategy makes a lot of sense.
So Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz and attacked its neighbors.
But it turns out this wasn’t the Alamo. In the contest of wills, Trump blinked. The Iranian regime’s tolerance for punishment proved — so far — to be greater than Trump’s and that of our gulf allies. Militarily we could finish the job, but that would require ground troops and much greater economic turmoil. In a conflict Trump launched unilaterally without the prior support of Congress, NATO or the American people, Trump doesn’t have the political capital for that.
But that’s only half the problem. Trump wants the war over, but he doesn’t want to pay — militarily, economically, politically — what that would cost. So he wants to make a deal that ends it. But there is no deal available that wouldn’t come at an equally undesirable cost. Any deal that looks like what President Obama struck with the Iranians would be too embarrassing to bear. But the Iranians are convinced that they can get just such a deal, and they’re willing to drag things out as long as it takes.
The result: Trump’s in a box of his own making. He thinks he can talk his way out by simply asserting a reality that doesn’t exist. When the financial markets get nervous, he announces a breakthrough that is, at best, a possibility. When the Iranians agree to a deal that looks similar to one Obama might negotiate, Trump goes back to his threats.
It can’t go on forever. But I’m sure it’ll last until long after this column is forgotten.
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.