On August 24, 2006, the International Astronomical Union (IAU) redefined what qualifies as a planet during a meeting in Prague. This change reclassified Pluto as a "dwarf planet," reducing the number of recognized planets in the solar system from nine to eight. The decision was controversial and remains a topic of debate among some scientists. This year, on August 24, 2026, marks the 20th anniversary of that decision. Jared Isaacman, who became NASA administrator in December 2025, has taken a stance on the issue. During a budget hearing in the Senate on April 28, 2026, Senator Jerry Moran from Kansas asked Isaacman about Pluto's status. In response, Isaacman said he supports "making Pluto a planet again," comparing the idea to Donald Trump’s slogan, "make America great again." He mentioned that NASA is working on scientific documents to potentially restore Pluto's planetary status. The issue also has a political dimension: Pluto was the only planet discovered by an American, Clyde Tombaugh, in 1930. The IAU set three criteria for a celestial body to be considered a planet: it must orbit the Sun, have enough mass to form a nearly spherical shape due to gravity, and have cleared its orbital neighborhood of other objects. Pluto meets the first two criteria but not the third, as its orbit lies in the Kuiper Belt, which contains many other objects of similar size. This means Pluto no longer qualifies as a planet under the IAU definition. The decision to redefine planets was partly driven by the discovery of Eris, a distant celestial body found in the Kuiper Belt in 2005. Eris was about the same size as Pluto, which led to the question: if Eris is a planet, why isn't Pluto? This prompted further discoveries of similar objects, such as Haumea, Makemake, and Sedna. The IAU’s new definition aimed to address this by requiring a planet to dominate its orbital neighborhood, a standard that Pluto did not meet. The debate over Pluto’s status has divided the scientific community into two camps. The "geophysical" group argues that a planet should be defined by its physical characteristics, such as its shape and geological activity, not its orbital dynamics. The "dynamicists" favor a definition based on orbital behavior and surroundings. This split has led to differing views on whether Pluto should be considered a planet. Some scientists, like Philip Metzger, reject the IAU definition altogether. Supporters of Pluto's reinstatement argue that its geological features, such as mountains and ice formations, clearly indicate it is a planet. They also welcome the idea of having more planets, even if it complicates educational materials for children. Others, like astronomer Mike Brown, oppose this, arguing that defining planets based on physical characteristics could include moons like Earth's, which are not typically considered planets. The debate has also raised questions about the legitimacy of the IAU’s 2006 vote. Some critics argue that the IAU did not follow proper procedures when making the decision, while others, like Brown, deny any political influence. The discussion remains ongoing, with some scientists believing the IAU’s definition is outdated and not in line with modern scientific understanding of the solar system. As the 20th anniversary of the vote approaches, the question of Pluto's planetary status continues to spark both scientific and public interest.