[derstander]

Here is a link [0] to the NASA Authorization Act of 2005. And here's a relevant snippet:

"The Administrator shall ensure that NASA carries out a balanced set of programs that shall include, at a minimum, programs in— ... (A) human space flight, in accordance with subsection (b); ... The Administrator shall establish a pro- gram to develop a sustained human presence on the Moon, including a robust precursor program, to promote exploration, science, commerce, and United States preeminence in space, and as a stepping-stone to future exploration of Mars and other destinations. The Administrator is further authorized to develop and conduct appropriate international collaborations in pursuit of these goals."

Artemis grew out of these efforts and enjoyed fairly bipartisan support over the years (including by President Trump in his first term, see [1]).

[0] https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-109publ155/pdf/PLAW...

[1] https://www.nasa.gov/news-release/new-space-policy-directive...

[lazide]

And this authorizes mass layoffs and doing things for profit how?

[derstander]

I didn't say nor mean to imply it did. I assumed your initial question about a congressional mandate was about Artemis rather than the layoffs specifically as that's what sparked this comment chain (the wonderment at NASA spending money on Artemis and the Lunar Gateway).