When President-elect Donald Trump nominated Jared Isaacman to become NASA administrator, it seemed like a brilliant choice. Business entrepreneur, private astronaut, Isaacman was just the man to revamp NASA and make it into a catalyst for taking humanity to the moon, Mars and beyond.
Isaacman sailed through the confirmation process in the Senate Commerce Committee, chaired by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), by a vote of 19 to 9. He was poised to be confirmed by the full Senate when something so bizarre happened that it beggars the imagination.
The White House suddenly and with no clear reason why, pulled Isaacman’s nomination. After months of a confirmation process, NASA was back to square one for getting a new leader.
Ars Technica’s Eric Berger offered an explanation as to why. “One mark against Isaacman is that he had recently donated money to Democrats,” he wrote. “He also indicated opposition to some of the White House's proposed cuts to NASA's science budget.”
But these facts were well known even before Trump nominated Isaacman. Trump himself, before he ran for president as a Republican, donated to Democrats and was close friends with Bill and Hillary Clinton.
Berger goes on to say that a source told the publication that, “with Musk's exit, his opponents within the administration sought to punish him by killing Isaacman's nomination.”
The idea that Isaacman’s nomination is being deep-sixed because of Musk runs contrary to the public praise that the president has given the billionaire rocket and electric car entrepreneur.
Trump was uncharacteristically terse in his own social media post. “After a thorough review of prior associations, I am hereby withdrawing the nomination of Jared Isaacman to head NASA,” he wrote. “I will soon announce a new nominee who will be mission aligned, and put America First in Space. Thank you for your attention to this matter!”
CNN reports that Isaacman’s ouster was the result of a palace coup, noting that a source said, “Musk’s exit left room for a faction of people in Trump’s inner circle, particularly Sergio Gor, the longtime Trump supporter and director of the White House Presidential Personnel Office, to advocate for installing a different nominee.”
The motive seems to be discontent about the outsized influence that Musk has had on the White House and a desire to take him down a peg or two.
Isaacman was profoundly gracious, stating in part, “I am incredibly grateful to President Trump @POTUS, the Senate and all those who supported me throughout this journey. The past six months have been enlightening and, honestly, a bit thrilling. I have gained a much deeper appreciation for the complexities of government and the weight our political leaders carry.”
The idea that a man like Isaacman, well respected by the aerospace community, who was predicted to sail through a confirmation vote in the full Senate, could be taken down by an obscure bureaucrat in White House intrigue, motivated by petty spite, is mind boggling.
Even Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), who has not been fond of Trump’s space policy, was appalled. He posted on his X account that Isaacman “ran into the kind of politics that is damaging our country.”
“Republicans and Democrats supported him as the right guy at the right time for the top job at NASA, but it wasn’t enough.”
NASA is in for months more of turmoil and uncertainty as the nomination process gets reset and starts grinding its way through the Senate. The draconian, truncated budget proposal is certainly not helpful, either.
Congress, which had been supportive of Trump’s space policy, is not likely to be pleased by the president’s high-handed shivving of his own nominee.
Whoever Trump chooses to replace Isaacman as NASA administrator nominee, no matter how qualified, should face some very direct questioning. Trump’s NASA budget proposal should be dead on arrival, which, considering the cuts in science and technology, is not necessarily a bad thing.
China must be looking at the spectacle of NASA being mired in political wrangling, a leadership vacuum and budget uncertainty with glee. Beijing has its own space ambitions, with a planned crewed lunar landing by 2030. It’s possible that the Chinese will steal a march on NASA, with all the damage that will do to America’s standing in the world.
It didn’t have to be this way. Isaacman could be settling in as NASA administrator, deploying his business acumen and vision to lead the space agency to its greatest achievements.
Instead, America’s space effort has received a self-inflicted blow from which it will be long in recovering,
Mark R. Whittington, who writes frequently about space policy, has published a political study of space exploration entitled “Why is It So Hard to Go Back to the Moon?” as well as “The Moon, Mars and Beyond,” and, most recently, “Why is America Going Back to the Moon?” He blogs at Curmudgeons Corner.
Source link
