NASA’s Goddard Lab Closures Heighten Uncertainty Over Future of Federal Research Facilities
Uncertainty looms over the future of NASA’s laboratory facilities as accelerated closures and consolidations at Goddard Space Flight Center spark widespread concern among scientists and policymakers.
NASA’s decision to shutter and consolidate laboratories at the Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, MD, has ignited a firestorm of criticism from lawmakers and scientists, raising urgent questions about the fate of the agency’s physical research infrastructure and its scientific capabilities.
On November 10, Representative Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), ranking member of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, sent a letter to NASA Acting Administrator and US Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy, demanding that NASA “immediately halt plans to close and move laboratories and mission-critical facilities” at Goddard. Lofgren cited reports of ongoing shutdown-related closures that were taking place at the time she sent the letter, and warned that the agency’s actions could have “severe and lasting consequences” for NASA’s research capabilities.
“NASA must stop what it is doing at Goddard and submit to oversight by Congress and the OIG before it inflicts permanent damage on agency scientific capabilities,” Lofgren wrote in the letter to Duffy. The lawmaker gave NASA 24 hours to confirm that all closures and relocations had ceased and seven days to provide a full accounting of any damage already done.
NASA has denied allegations that it improperly closed or relocated laboratories at Goddard Space Flight Center during the recent 44-day government shutdown, calling reports of dismantling mission-critical facilities “false” and stating that any employees on site were approved on a case-by-case basis. However, members of Congress and local officials have raised serious concerns, citing reports of lab closures, equipment moves, and potential disruptions to high-priority missions like Artemis, and have demanded transparency, investigations, and a halt to any further closures. Employees and observers warn that such actions—if true—could damage ongoing projects, hinder workforce development, and threaten the US’s leadership in space research.
Concerns over premature implementation
The controversy centers on what critics describe as a premature, possibly unlawful implementation of President Trump’s proposed fiscal year 2026 budget, which Congress has not yet approved. According to Space.com’s reporting, NASA officials at Goddard have been pushing ahead with an accelerated consolidation of buildings under the center’s 20-year “Master Plan,” even while nearly 15,000 agency employees nationwide remained on furlough during the 44-day government shutdown that ended on November 12.
Under the plan, as many as 13 major facilities on the Goddard campus have been marked for closure by March 2026. In several cases, researchers have been given mere days to vacate their labs, with no clear indication of where personnel, equipment, or ongoing projects will be relocated. One scientist told Space.com that “there’s potentially millions of dollars of equipment that is being planned just to be abandoned in place.”
Lofgren’s letter singles out the laboratories supporting NASA’s next-generation Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope—slated to continue the legacy of Hubble and James Webb—as particularly vulnerable. “These actions put essential hardware and capabilities at great risk,” she wrote. “The laboratories and facilities facing closure support many NASA flight missions, and they include laboratories essential to the completion of the Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope.”
NASA leadership has defended the closures as part of a long-planned modernization effort, noting that many of the affected buildings were “largely unoccupied.” However, Lofgren and other critics reject this justification, arguing that the pace and secrecy of the current actions—particularly during a government shutdown—represent a breach of trust and a failure of transparency.
“NASA compounded its error by taking advantage of a government shutdown to accelerate the timeline for the Goddard rapidly moves while broadening their scale and breadth to a degree that risks drastically negative consequences,” Lofgren wrote.
A string of federal research facility closures
The Goddard situation now stands as the latest flashpoint in a growing pattern of federal lab closures and consolidations that have left scientists and local communities uncertain about what will happen to these high-value facilities and the equipment they contain.
In August, the US Department of Agriculture announced plans to close its Beltsville Agricultural Research Center (BARC)—another Maryland-based hub of scientific activity—citing modernization costs and underused space. As Lab Design News previously reported, the USDA has yet to detail what will happen to BARC’s extensive infrastructure, which supports crop genetics, pest management, and soil health studies across nearly 7,000 acres. Lawmakers and researchers alike have warned that the closure could disrupt critical agricultural research and dismantle decades of scientific collaboration.
Further reading: USDA Announces Closure of Key Agricultural Research Center; Future Plans Remain Unclear
Similarly, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) faces uncertainty amid proposed 2026 budget cuts that would shutter more than a dozen labs nationwide—including facilities in Boulder, Princeton, Seattle, and Miami. Lab Design News reported in July that the plan would eliminate over 12,000 positions and cast doubt on NOAA’s future physical infrastructure. Without clear transition strategies, many fear that specialized research equipment, climate-controlled data centers, and experimental facilities could be permanently lost.
Further reading: Proposed NOAA Lab Closures Raise Critical Questions about Research Facilities
Calls for oversight
These developments suggest a growing trend toward centralization and downsizing of federal research capacity—one that risks hollowing out the very laboratories that underpin US leadership in science and technology. In each case, the lack of transparent planning for facility reuse, relocation, or preservation has amplified concerns about the long-term stewardship of taxpayer-funded assets.
For NASA, the immediate concern is safeguarding mission-critical programs during an uncertain period of administrative flux. With laboratory doors being locked and workspaces emptied, researchers warn that irreplaceable instruments could be left behind, and ongoing projects could face delays or even cancellation.
Lofgren’s directive calls for NASA’s Office of Inspector General to launch a full investigation into the agency’s recent actions at Goddard, underscoring the need for oversight before “irreversible damage” occurs. “NASA must halt any laboratory, facility, and building closure and relocation activities at Goddard,” she wrote. “It must do so now.”
As Congress and NASA leadership prepare for a likely confrontation over the future of Goddard’s facilities, one thing remains clear: the fate of America’s federal research laboratories—spanning agriculture, ocean science, and space exploration—has become an increasingly urgent question, with implications that reach far beyond any single agency or mission.
