It used to be that once your star had fallen in Donald Trump’s orbit, it was destined never to rise again. Any number of discarded former allies stretching back to Trump’s first term of office could testify as much.
One who has emerged from a political black hole to return to the president’s firmament is the billionaire private astronaut Jared Isaacman, who will on Wednesday tell senators – for the second time – why he is the best person to lead the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (Nasa).
Isaacman’s return to the launchpad is an intriguing tale of politics, ambition and above all the vanity of a president determined to ensure the US flag is planted back on the surface of the moon before he leaves office in January 2029.
It is also a victory for Elon Musk, the SpaceX founder who advocated vocally for his friend, and now stands to benefit from Isaacman’s plans to outsource to commercial space operators more of what have traditionally been Nasa staples in crewed and scientific discovery.
Isaacman, meanwhile, has downplayed his friendship with Musk, and there is no suggestion his renomination is tied specifically to his vision for advancing private enterprise in space. But his monetary ties with SpaceX, revealed in a government financial disclosure report, have attracted scrutiny by congressional Democrats, as have his purchase of the Inspiration4 and Polaris Dawn missions onboard SpaceX craft, both essentially space tourism flights despite some worthy mission objectives.
In May, it all looked very different. Trump’s first nomination of the pioneering space adventurer collapsed when the White House discovered Isaacman had committed the cardinal sin of making previous donations to Democratic politicians. Among them were the former astronaut and Arizona senator Mark Kelly, now in the administration’s crosshairs over comments urging service members to disobey illegal orders.
In a Truth Social post at the time, Trump stated he had conducted “a thorough review of prior associations”, and found Isaacman not to be “mission aligned”. Yet many, including Isaacman himself, saw his axing as a direct consequence of Trump’s now resolved feud with Musk.
The president reversed course earlier this month amid an escalating power struggle between the acting Nasa administrator Sean Duffy and Isaacman-aligned lobbyists and supporters – including Musk – over the future direction of the space agency.
Passing judgment to resolve what has been described as a “weeks-long Game of Thrones”, Trump rejected the ambitious plan by Duffy – who is also the US transportation secretary – to seize the role permanently and to envelop the agency into his own transportation portfolio.
Duffy announced in October that Nasa was re-advertising a contract already won by SpaceX to build the human lander system (HLS) that would place US astronauts on the moon for the first time since 1972.
Some analysts saw the move as an effort to appease Trump. In Duffy’s view, SpaceX was taking too long to develop the crucial component of the Artemis III mission, which is already slated for no earlier than mid-2027. Bids from other companies, such as Jeff Bezos’s ascendant Blue Origin, would spark competition and hasten the timeline.
The move, however, angered many in the White House, and looks to have backfired spectacularly. Musk launched a furious defense of SpaceX, posting a tirade calling the acting administrator “Sean Dummy”, accusing him of trying to “kill Nasa”, and insisting his company was moving “at lightning speed” compared with the rest of the space industry.
Isaacman, on the other hand, argued in several reported meetings with Trump to press on with Artemis and HLS at full steam and without diversion. After Trump’s “flag on the moon” moment is secured, Nasa would move to scrap its own over-budget and much-delayed space launch system (SLS) – an expendable rocket and Orion capsule combination that formed the Artemis missions – and instead place future flights to the moon and Mars in the hands of SpaceX and its fully reusable Starship.
Some of those who have Trump’s ear, such as the far-right influencer Laura Loomer, have advocated loudly for Isaacman, pointing out he has also made substantial donations to Republican causes, including Trump’s inaugural committee.
Space policy experts, meanwhile, believe the reasons for and consequences of Isaacman’s renomination are more involved than solely a focus on the return to the moon.
His first Senate hearing in April before the committee on commerce, science and transportation preceded the Trump administration’s proposals for eviscerating Nasa’s budget and slashing science funding to what the Planetary Society called an “extinction level event”.
At that hearing, after which the committee voted 19-9 to advance his nomination to the full Senate, he maintained science was his top priority, spoke passionately of a “golden age of science and discovery”, and touted Nasa operating “multiple flagship science missions at once”.
“A lot has changed since April,” said Marcia Smith, founder and editor of spacepolicyonline.com.
“When he testified the first time, he didn’t know what the budget request was going to be, and talked about how he doesn’t really have a lot of detailed knowledge of what’s going on in Nasa because he wasn’t in Nasa. He was talking as an outsider, about doing science, and the moon, and Mars, and all these other things, all at the same time.
“Now it’s sort of a different landscape, having a better understanding of where the administration is coming down in terms of its level of support for Nasa.”
Trump has proposed slashing Nasa’s annual budget by 24% to $18.8bn, its lowest level in a decade, with space and Earth science missions bearing the brunt of the cuts. Trump appears fully focused on his “moon moment”, and Isaacman has said he will not abandon plans to allow him to have it.
“The drum beat for America to get back on the moon before China gets there has just grown louder and louder since April,” Smith said.
“And that really is a different mode of operation. If your only goal is to get there before China, then maybe you’re going to rethink your whole plan for Artemis, and the focus is not on sustainable lunar exploration, or at least having the first Artemis landing be part of the sustainable program.”
Isaacman is certain to face questions at his committee hearing on Wednesday over Project Athena, a confidential 62-page memo detailing his plans for a radical overhaul of Nasa’s structure and operations written for Duffy and leaked to Politico earlier this month at the height of the rivalry between the two.
It contained his proposal for the large-scale outsourcing of Nasa missions to commercial operators and other ways of cutting government spending.
“This plan never favored any one vendor, never recommended closing centers, or directed the cancellation of programs before objectives were achieved,” Isaacman wrote in a post on X decrying those who leaked it.
“The more I see the imperfections of politics and the lengths people will go, the more I want to serve and be part of the solution … because I love Nasa and I love my country.”
