Pluto’s Comeback? NASA Chief Wants It Back As Planet, But Who Gets To Decide?

Last Updated:May 02, 2026, 14:38 IST

NASA chief Jared Isaacman has called for Pluto’s planet status to be reconsidered, reviving a debate over the 2006 reclassification and the rules that led to it.

Pluto was the ninth planet for generations. Then, in 2006, it wasn’t. The decision was meant to settle a scientific problem, but it ended up creating one that never really went away. Now, nearly two decades later, the debate is back, and it has been triggered by the person currently leading NASA.

At a US Senate hearing on April 28, NASA administrator Jared Isaacman was asked where he stood on Pluto. His answer was direct: “I am very much in the camp of ‘make Pluto a planet again.’"

He also said NASA is “doing some papers right now" to take a position back into the scientific community. There was also a clear personal note—he said Clyde Tombaugh, who discovered Pluto in 1930, should “get the credit he received once and rightfully deserves to receive again."

“I would say, we are doing some papers right now on, I think, a position that we would love to escalate through the scientific community to revisit this discussion and ensure that Clyde Tombaugh gets the credit he received once and rightfully deserves to receive again," the NASA chief said.

That has put Pluto’s status back into active discussion.

The 2006 Moment That Changed Everything For Pluto

Before 2006, Pluto had been accepted as a planet since its discovery in 1930. That changed when the International Astronomical Union stepped in to define, for the first time, what a “planet" actually is.

By the early 2000s, several objects had been discovered in the outer Solar System that looked a lot like Pluto. Then came Eris in 2005—an object at a similar distance from the Sun and initially thought to be even more massive. That created a problem scientists couldn’t ignore anymore: if Pluto is a planet, then Eris and many similar bodies would also have to be planets.

Instead of expanding the list indefinitely, the IAU narrowed the definition.

A planet, the IAU said, must orbit the Sun, be large enough to become round under its own gravity, and must have “cleared its orbit".

That last condition is key. It means that over time, a planet should either pull in or push away most other objects near its path, so that it becomes the main gravitational presence in that region.

Pluto meets the first two conditions. It falls short on the third.

It lies in the Kuiper Belt, a distant zone of the Solar System that is packed with icy bodies left over from its formation. Instead of dominating this region, Pluto moves through it alongside many other objects of comparable nature.

In other words, Pluto isn’t alone in its path, it is part of a crowded neighbourhood. That is why it was reclassified as a “dwarf planet."

The One Rule That Keeps The Argument Alive

On paper, the rule sounds neat. In reality, it has been the most contested part of the decision.

The idea behind “clearing the orbit" comes from how planets form. When the Solar System was taking shape, some bodies grew large enough to pull in or push away nearby material. These became the dominant planets.

But not every region evolved the same way. In the outer Solar System, many objects remained grouped together. Pluto is part of that population.

This is where the disagreement begins.

As pointed out by Pluto supporters and defenders of its planetary status, Earth shares its orbital region with asteroids, and even Jupiter coexists with many smaller objects. If that is the case, they argue, the “clearing the orbit" rule is not being applied consistently.

This is why the debate never ended. It isn’t just about Pluto; it is about whether the definition itself holds up.

Why Pluto Still Refuses To Fade From The Conversation

Pluto’s case is not purely scientific.

It was discovered in 1930 by Clyde Tombaugh, making it the only planet discovered by an American. That alone has given it a lasting emotional pull, particularly in the United States. It has long been described as a “crowd favourite," and its 2006 reclassification by the International Astronomical Union triggered a storm of controversy.

Then came 2015.

NASA’s New Horizons spacecraft flew past Pluto and sent back the first close-up images. What came back was not what many had expected.

Pluto showed towering mountains made of ice, vast nitrogen glaciers, and a surface that appeared geologically active. The now-famous heart-shaped region—Tombaugh Regio—became a defining image.

The takeaway was simple: Pluto was not a static, frozen object. It was a complex world. For many, that strengthened the argument that its classification deserved another look.

If NASA Wants It Back, Why Can’t It Just Change It?

Because it doesn’t have that power.

The authority to define what counts as a planet lies entirely with the International Astronomical Union. NASA can study, publish, and push for reconsideration, but it cannot change Pluto’s status on its own.

That is why Isaacman spoke about “papers" and taking a position to the scientific community. The process, if it happens, would have to move through global scientific consensus.

When A Science Debate Starts Picking Up Political Noise

The Pluto debate has not stayed confined to scientists.

US President Donald Trump has also backed calls to restore Pluto’s planetary status and even suggested it could be done through a presidential decree.

In practice, that would not change anything. Even if a President were to issue such an order, it would only be symbolic, as Pluto’s classification is not decided by governments.

So, Is Pluto Really Coming Back As A Planet?

For Pluto to return as a planet, the definition itself would have to change. And that is a much bigger conversation than Pluto alone. For now, it remains exactly where it has been since 2006—on the edge of the Solar System, and at the centre of a debate that refuses to close.

News world Pluto’s Comeback? NASA Chief Wants It Back As Planet, But Who Gets To Decide?

Read More