The bill
NASA Reauthorization Act of 2026
HR. 7273, 119th Congress — read as touching Aerospace (Commercial).
Sponsored by
Rep. Babin, Brian [R-TX-36]
ID: B001291
Follow the money
The bill
HR. 7273, 119th Congress — read as touching Aerospace (Commercial).
The sponsor
Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.
The money
23 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.
The alignment
This bill's text tracks the "Department of Energy and Related Commissions" section, p. 425-427 of the Mandate for Leadership.
Track this bill's progress through the legislative process
Latest Action
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 37 - 0.
February 3, 2026
📍 Current Status
Next: The bill will be reviewed by relevant committees who will debate, amend, and vote on it.
1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.
2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.
3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.
4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.
5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.
6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.
7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!
The NASA Reauthorization Act of 2026 - because what's $24 billion dollars among friends? This bill is a masterclass in bureaucratic doublespeak, a symphony of empty promises and vague objectives designed to make you feel good about the future of space exploration while actually doing nothing.
**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The main purpose of this bill is to reauthorize NASA's funding for 2026, because Congress loves to pretend they're doing something meaningful by throwing money at problems. The objectives are as vague as a politician's promise: "continuity of purpose for space exploration," "reaffirmation of the Space Launch System," and "advanced spacesuit capabilities." Wow, I bet those sound impressive to the average voter who doesn't bother to read beyond the headlines.
**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill authorizes $24.4 billion in funding for NASA, with a breakdown that's as transparent as a politician's tax returns. The highlights include:
* $7.8 billion for Exploration (because we need more flags on the moon) * $4.2 billion for Space Operations (aka "keeping the ISS from crashing") * $7.3 billion for Science (where the actual innovation happens, but who cares?) * $935 million for Aeronautics (because hypersonic planes are cool, I guess)
The changes to existing law? Oh boy, get ready for some thrilling updates:
* The bill "reaffirms" the Space Launch System, because we all know how well that's going. * It also "continues" the Artemis program, which is just a fancy name for "we're still trying to go back to the moon." * And, of course, it includes some token language about STEM education and commercial space development, because who doesn't love a good buzzword?
**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects:
* NASA (the agency that will actually have to deal with this mess) * The aerospace industry (who will get to bid on all the juicy contracts) * Commercial space companies (who will pretend to be excited about the "opportunities" created by this bill) * Taxpayers (who will foot the bill for this boondoggle)
**Potential Impact & Implications:** The impact of this bill? Zilch. It's just another example of Congress throwing money at a problem without actually solving anything. The implications?
* More bureaucratic red tape and inefficiency * Continued waste of taxpayer dollars on pet projects and pork-barrel spending * A further erosion of public trust in government (as if that was possible)
In short, this bill is a classic case of "legislative theater" - all sound and fury, signifying nothing. But hey, at least it'll make for some great campaign ads come election time.
Rep. Babin, Brian [R-TX-36]
Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle
No PAC contributions found
No committee contributions found
This bill has 3 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.
ID: L000397
Top Contributors
10
ID: H001099
Top Contributors
10
ID: F000477
Top Contributors
10
Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.
Showing 45 nodes and 32 connections (38 secondary connections hidden)
Total contributions: $118,436
Showing top 21 donors by contribution amount
Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 9 helped.
Multiple sections (202, 203, 204, 205, 321, 324, 611) explicitly support commercial lunar payload services, low-Earth orbit development, and space transportation, directly benefiting commercial aerospace companies like SpaceX, Boeing, and Lockheed Martin.
Section 813 restricts NASA funds from being used for activities with the People's Republic of China, which benefits defense contractors by limiting competition and potentially increasing domestic contracts for space-related work.
Section 607 (NASA Data for Agricultural Applications) directs NASA to partner with other Federal agencies to disseminate NASA Earth science data to support American agricultural producers, including water, soil, vegetation, land-use data, and to advance precision agricultural capabilities. This clearly benefits agribusiness by providing data and tools for improved farm management and crop yield.
Section 607 explicitly supports agricultural producers, including crop producers, by disseminating NASA Earth science data (precipitation, temperature, soil moisture, vegetation health) to inform decisionmaking, improve farm management and crop yield, and facilitate stability of the national food supply. This directly benefits crop producers such as corn, wheat, soybean, and cotton growers.
Section 302 requires the Administrator to submit a strategy for low-Earth orbit architecture that includes a mix of crewed and uncrewed platforms and considers requirements that could affect the design of future United States commercial low-Earth orbit platforms and supporting capabilities. Section 321 authorizes agreements with commercial providers to develop and certify private low-Earth orbit platforms. These provisions support the development of space-based telecommunications infrastructure,
Sections 605, 606, and 607 facilitate commercial Earth observation data acquisition and use, which benefits big tech platforms involved in data processing, cloud services, and AI applications.
+ 3 more industries not shown.
For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Rep. Babin, Brian [R-TX-36])received from donors associated with that industry during the 2022–present cycles. Donations are not proof of intent — they are a record of who funds the people writing the law.
This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.AI-enhanced analysis provides detailed alignment ratings.
AI Analysis:
"The NASA bill shares broad themes with the Project 2025 DOE policy—such as promoting U.S. scientific and technological leadership, funding R&D, encouraging private-sector technology transfer, and supporting STEM education—but it applies to NASA rather than DOE’s Office of Science, resulting in only moderate thematic overlap."
— 393 — Department of Energy and Related Commissions l Ensure that R&D funds are used for projects that protect and advance that edge. l Ensure that successful advances, with a focus on new natural resource development technologies, artificial intelligence, cybersecurity, and space, are transferred swiftly to American interests in the private sector. New Policies l Focus on benefits to Americans. OTT’s operations should be based on the recognition that the new technologies generated by American taxpayers’ investment in DOE are a significant national security asset rather than some neutral scientific gift to humanity. l Increase oversight and coordination. OTT needs to be vigilant in overseeing and coordinating OTT offices associated with each National Lab. For security and economic espionage reasons, the work funded by the American people needs to be protected, and when commercialized, it needs to go to American businesses. OFFICE OF SCIENCE (SC) Mission/Overview The Office of Science (SC) supports and oversees research facilities and pro- grams that cover basic science through its application to the demonstration and deployment of energy technologies. SC oversees 10 of the 17 DOE National Labs and 28 major federal research user facilities. Its mission is to preserve U.S. leader- ship in science, fund and perform basic research, and provide the scientific facilities that the private sector is unable or unwilling to provide. New initiatives include quantum information sciences and artificial intelligence. SC is led by a Senate-con- firmed Director at the Assistant Secretary level and has eight program offices.82 Needed Reforms The next conservative President should commit the United States to scientific dominance to support national and economic security, especially in light of similar efforts by China. To aid in this effort, the Office of Science should: l Return to its primary mission: nonpartisan and basic science. SC’s mission should be international leadership in basic and early applied science and provision of world-leading facilities for this work. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and Inflation Reduction Act mark the major — 394 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise reorientation of DOE primarily from defense applications in the NNSA and basic and early applied science across SC and the applied offices to a massive federal research, development, demonstration, and commercialization body.83 Distraction from SC’s basic science mission should be prevented. l Increase the level of accountability. The National Laboratories need to be more directly accountable to the Secretary of Energy and Congress for their work and management. New Policies l Commit to U.S. science dominance. The United States is losing its dominance in scientific discoveries and technological development. China and other adversaries have been stealing American science and technology for years and are now on the verge of dominating science—a development that is fraught with negative strategic and economic implications for the United States. The next Administration must commit itself to ensuring that the U.S. continues to dominate scientific discovery and technological advancement. l Refocus on mission and eliminate duplication and waste. The Administration should work with Congress to rationalize the National Lab network to meet specific national objectives (such as the NNSA laboratories’ role in national defense) and conduct basic research that the private sector would not otherwise conduct. Activities that duplicate those of other government agencies or the private sector should be eliminated. l Properly manage the National Labs’ contributions to the private sector. SC should improve private-sector access to the National Labs, through programs like the GAIN voucher program and consistent with national security considerations, while ensuring that the economic benefits of taxpayer-funded technologies flow back to taxpayers through patent- review sharing or a revolving fund. Budget The Office of Science was appropriated slightly more than $7 billion in FY 2021, and DOE requested slightly less than $7.8 billion for FY 2023.84 OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT (EM) Mission/Overview The Office of Environmental Management’s mission is to “complete the safe cleanup of [the] environmental legacy resulting from decades of nuclear
AI Analysis:
"The NASA Reauthorization Act centers on space exploration, aeronautics, and NASA-specific programs, while the Project 2025 DOE section focuses on refocusing national labs, nuclear waste remediation, and NNSA nuclear arsenal updates; there is only a tangential connection through general support for science and technology innovation."
— 371 — Department of Energy and Related Commissions l Refocus the National Labs on fundamental and advanced science. DOE currently oversees 17 National Laboratories. The three National Labs run by DOE’s NNSA should continue to focus on national security issues. The remaining 14 science and energy labs should focus on basic research projects; demonstration and deployment of technology should be left to the private sector. This goal can be achieved by realigning the labs to limit duplication and mission creep and to maximize potential. l Conduct a whole-of-government assessment and consolidation of science. Before the start of a new Administration, there should be a review of all the federal science agencies.12 This should include a review of the ill-advised attempt to expand the National Science Foundation’s mission from supporting university research to supporting an all-encompassing technology transition. Specific to DOE, there should be a review to measure, prioritize, and consolidate DOE programs based on a range of beneficial factors, including degree of relationship to national security; furtherance of energy security (cyber but also international aspects); and importance to scientific discovery/advancement. New Policies: Remediation of Nuclear Weapons Development Programs and Civilian Nuclear Waste Cleaning up the radioactive waste produced in support of the Manhattan Project and the Cold War at America’s nuclear development sites is a massive and com- plicated process led by DOE’s Office of Environmental Management. Projected liabilities and costs to be borne by America’s taxpayers, according to DOE’s FY 2023 budget request, total $887,205 billion.13 In addition, the federal government is required by law to dispose of nuclear waste produced by the private sector, includ- ing spent fuel rods from nuclear power plants. The new DESAS should: l Continue DOE’s remediation of radioactive waste created by the nuclear weapons projects from the Manhattan Project and Cold War. Strong leadership focused on accelerating the cleanup, coupled with technical and administrative innovation, will be needed to reduce the federal government’s third largest liability. l Develop a new approach that increases the level of private-sector responsibility for the disposal of nuclear waste. Disposing of civilian nuclear waste is an important national issue that requires strong scientific study. According to an independent audit conducted by the public accounting firm of KPMG, the Nuclear Waste Fund holds $46 billion in payments by utilities and their ratepayers, plus interest, for a permanent waste disposal site for spent nuclear fuel and other nuclear waste.14 The — 372 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise licensing process for Yucca Mountain as a permanent repository for spent nuclear fuel is on hold. Without storage sites, spent nuclear fuel remains temporarily stored at nuclear plants. In addition to permanent storage, low- level nuclear waste facilities are needed. New Policies: NNSA The U.S. nuclear arsenal needs to be updated and reinvigorated if we are to be able to deal effectively with threats from China, Russia, and other adversaries. As a semi-autonomous agency, the NNSA has the primary responsibility for researching and designing new nuclear warheads and for ensuring that the existing nuclear arsenal is still potent. These efforts require significant funding and scientific know- how. In addition, NNSA develops and designs nuclear propulsion reactors for the U.S. Navy. NNSA also plays a role in preventing nuclear proliferation. With strong leadership by the Secretary of DESAS, the next Administration should: l Fund the design, development, and deployment of new nuclear warheads, including the production of plutonium pits in quantity.15 l Expand the U.S. Navy and develop new nuclear naval reactors to ensure that the Navy has the nuclear propulsion it needs to secure America’s strategic interests. l End ineffective and counterproductive nonproliferation activities like those involving Iran and the United Nations. Budget DOE’s total FY 2023 budget request (which does not include IIJA, IRA, and CHIPS and Science Act funding) was for $48,183,451,000.16 Many DOE activities are required by various authorization and appropriations bills. To implement many of the policies contained in these proposals, several laws will need to be amended, including the Department of Energy Organization Act, IIJA, IRA, and possibly portions of the CHIPS (Creating Healthy Incentives to Produce Semiconductors) and Science Act.17 Ending taxpayer subsidies will promote an “all of the above” energy policy, lead to more energy resources, reduce costs, and save taxpayers billions of dollars. OFFICE OF CYBERSECURITY, ENERGY SECURITY, AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE (CESER) Mission/Overview CESER’s mission is to “enhance the security and resilience of U.S. critical energy infrastructure to all hazards,” to “mitigate the impacts of disruptive events and risk
AI Analysis:
"The NASA Reauthorization Act centers on civilian space exploration, science, and technology programs, while the Project 2025 Space Force section focuses on offensive deterrence, space control architecture, and military space reforms; there is only tangential overlap in areas like space technology and lunar/cislunar interests."
— 117 — Department of Defense 2. Create better incentives to retain talented junior NCOs, especially in infantry and other critical military occupational specialties. 3. Reduce unnecessary deployments to increase dwell time in order to enable more robust primary military education. l Align Navy amphibious shipbuilding with Force Design 2030. The U.S. Navy has struggled for decades to maintain an amphibious fleet that could support USMC war plans around large-scale amphibious operations. In addition, amphibious shipbuilding has often had to compete against other priorities within a constrained budget and limited shipbuilding capacity. 1. Develop and produce light amphibious warships (LAWs) to support more distributed amphibious operations, especially in the Pacific.34 2. Maintain between 28 and 31 larger amphibious warships as opposed to the 25 specified in current Navy shipbuilding plans and the 38 specified before 2020.35 U.S. SPACE FORCE U.S. space forces conduct global space operations to sustain and enhance air, land, and sea effectiveness, lethality, and superiority by providing secure broad- band global communications (precision position, navigation, and timing accuracy); attack warning and threat tracking and targeting capability (real-time intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance information); and their assured continuity of operations both by defending U.S. assets and by conducting offensive operations that are capable of imposing unacceptable losses on adversaries that might seek to attack them. The U.S. Space Force (USSF) was established to assure continuous global and theater combat support from space, to deter attacks against U.S. space assets, and to prevail in space should deterrence fail. The USSF posture was conceived as a balance of offensive and defensive deterrent capabilities designed for maximum effectiveness. Needed Reforms l Reverse the Biden Administration’s defensive posture. The Biden Administration has eliminated almost all offensive deterrence capabilities and instead will rely solely on defensive capabilities of disaggregation, maneuver, and reconstitution—the most costly, the slowest, and ultimately the most fragile architecture selection. — 118 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 1. Reestablish offensive capabilities to guarantee a favorable balance of forces, efficiently manage the full deterrence spectrum, and seriously complicate enemy calculations of a successful first strike against U.S. space assets. 2. Restore architectural balance in U.S. space forces, both offensive and defensive, to restore deterrence dominance efficiently and quickly. 3. Rapidly expand space control capability, to include cis-lunar space (the region beginning at geosynchronous altitude and encompassing the moon), to provide early warning of an enemy attack. 4. Seek arms control and “rules of the road” understandings only when they are unambiguously in the interests of the U.S. and its allies, and prohibit their unilateral implementation. l Reduce overclassification. The USSF must move beyond the Cold War– era culture of secrecy and overclassification that surrounded military space to facilitate greater coordination and synchronization of efforts across the government and commercial sectors. Declassify appropriate information about terrestrial and on-orbit space capabilities that threaten the U.S. space constellation, as well as those being pursued by our competitors, to secure the principled right to counter them offensively. l Implement policies suited to a mature USSF. No longer a “newborn,” the USSF has entered its fourth year of existence, and the lessons learned can be incorporated across all facets of the force to increase its effectiveness. 1. Restructure from the current “unity of effort” structure to “unity of command.” 2. Lead the U.S. government’s development of a clear and unambiguous declaratory policy that the United States will operate at will in space and enforce these operations with capabilities that ensure effective deterrence and the ability to impose our will if necessary. 3. End the current study phase of concept development and issue necessary guidance for the development and fielding of offensive capabilities.
Showing 3 of 5 policy matches
Policy matches are calculated using a hybrid approach: initial candidates are found using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text, then an AI model (Llama 3.1 70B) provides detailed alignment ratings and analysis. Ratings range from 1 (minimal alignment) to 5 (very strong alignment). This analysis does not imply direct causation or intent.