Isaacman’s Second Hearing Mostly Friendly, Nomination Could Clear Senate Soon

Jared Isaacman’s nomination to be NASA Administrator could be approved by the Senate in the next three weeks. During his mostly-friendly second confirmation hearing today, the top Republican and Democrat on the Senate Commerce Committee said they hope he will be in his new job before the end of the year. The committee will vote on the nomination next Monday. The full Senate can take it up anytime thereafter and is scheduled to complete its work for 2025 by December 19.

Isaacman got strong support from committee chair Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and ranking member Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA) and most of the other committee members who asked questions. Senators Andy Kim (D-NJ), Gary Peters (D-MI), and Ed Markey (D-MA) were the only three who posed contentious questions — Kim because of what he wrote in Project Athena, Peters over why Trump renominated him, and Markey on his relationship with Elon Musk and SpaceX.

Ensuring the United States stays ahead of China in space remained a key theme today as it was at Isaacman’s first nomination hearing in April and a September hearing specifically on what Cruz calls the “second space race.”  Getting Americans back on the Moon through the Artemis program before China puts taikonauts there is one of the few issues that unifies both parties.

Today was Isaacman’s second nomination hearing to be NASA Administrator because President Trump withdrew the nomination on May 31 after a falling out with Elon Musk, who had recommended him. Trump changed his mind and re-nominated Isaacman last month.

Since Isaacman’s first hearing, further delays in SpaceX’s development of the Starship space transportation system are raising concerns about whether America will, in fact, get back to the Moon before 2030, the year China is targeting. Starship has not even reached Earth orbit yet and the suborbital test flights have had mixed success. SpaceX is about to introduce a new version, V3, but the first launch was set back by an on-pad explosion during a test last month.

The Human Landing System (HLS) version of Starship is needed to get astronauts down to and back from the surface after they arrive in lunar orbit via NASA’s Space Launch System (SLS) rocket and Orion spacecraft. The Trump Administration’s plan to terminate SLS and Orion after that first Artemis landing, Artemis III, encountered stiff opposition from Cruz and other Republican Senators who added billions of dollars and specific language in the reconciliation bill — the One, Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) — keeping SLS/Orion at least through Artemis V.  The OBBBA also continues the Gateway lunar space station that the Trump Administration wants to terminate.

Directly asked by Cruz if he would commit to “full and timely compliance” with the NASA provisions in the OBBBA, Isaacman replied “Yes, Senator, I do.”

The Artemis II test flight that will send four astronauts around the Moon — but not land — for the first time since the Apollo era is getting closer and closer. Launch is planned for this coming spring, perhaps as early as February, adding urgency to getting a permanent NASA Administrator in place. NASA has had two Acting Administrators since Trump took office, currently Sean Duffy who is dual-hatted as Secretary of Transportation.

Worried about Starship’s delays, Duffy reopened the contract that was awarded to Elon Musk’s SpaceX in 2021 for Artemis III to other bidders. Jeff Bezos’s Blue Origin won a second HLS contract in 2023 with a first flight expected at the end of the decade, but is now looking at whether that can be accelerated.

Isaacman agreed today with Duffy’s decision to reopen the HLS contract for Artemis III and said NASA will go with whoever can get Americans back on the Moon first.

While he didn’t disagree with using SLS/Orion through Artemis V, he pointed out that by the time U.S. astronauts land on the Moon on Artemis III, it means that either SpaceX’s Starship or Blue Origin’s New Glenn heavy-lift rockets will have demonstrated the ability to go to the Moon since one or the other is needed to send an HLS lander there. Both systems require in-space refueling so that also will be demonstrated by then.

“When we see American astronauts walk on the Moon again, it means one or both of them were successful” and that means by the time Artemis V flies, “we should have numerous options … to have routine and affordable missions to the lunar surface.” He further committed to sustained presence on the lunar surface or in cislunar space and reiterated that the systems needed for those goals are the same as for getting humans to Mars and beyond.

The OBBBA also adds money to ensure the ISS has adequate funding through 2030 when NASA and its international partners — Europe, Canada, Japan and Russia — plan to deorbit the aging facility. Isaacman is an ISS enthusiast, insisting the U.S. should get maximum utilization out of it and ensure there is no gap before commercial space stations are ready to replace it. Reiterating what he said at his first hearing, Isaacman said we need to “crack the code on the orbital economy” and give multiple commercial space stations “a fighting chance.”

Several members on both sides asked about the Trump Administration’s proposed 47 percent cut to NASA’s science budget for FY2026. In her opening statement, Cantwell said OMB Director Russell Vought is “working to gut NASA’s budget, especially in science” and she expects Isaacman to “push back on these dangerous ideas.”

Sen. Jerry Moran (R-KS), a member of the Commerce Committee who also chairs the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce-Justice-Science that funds NASA, pointed out the importance of NASA’s earth science programs to farmers. Reading a letter from one of his constituents, Moran listed the many ways in which NASA earth science satellites are critical to agriculture, providing “real-time field level insight into soil moisture, biomass, drought stress, water use [and] yield stability.”

Sen. Ben Ray Luján (D-NM) pointed out that NASA has a statutory responsibility to conduct and support earth and space science programs under the NASA Act and they provide “indispensable” data not only for NASA, but national security. Isaacman agreed and assured Luján he would spend money appropriated for science exactly as directed by Congress.

Isaacman called NASA’s earth science program “vitally important” and later told Sen. John Hickenlooper (D-CO) that “the scientific side of NASA is just as important as human exploration, as is our work in aeronautics and technology development. … In terms of dollars allocated by Congress, we will absolutely maximize the scientific value.”

He had a frosty exchange with Sen. Kim, however, about statements he made in Project Athena about getting NASA out of the “taxpayer funded climate science business and leave it for academia to determine” and reevaluating “sustained lunar presence.” Project Athena was a document written by Isaacman prior to his first confirmation hearing. A 62-page version was leaked to the press in early November. Isaacman said today it reflected interactions he had seven months ago with NASA and Congress. He stands behind it as written, but intended to continually refine and update it and looks forward to cooperating with the committee and Congress going forward.

Sen. Peters challenged Isaacman over why Trump re-nominated him. Trump originally announced plans to nominate Isaacman in December 2024 and the nomination was formally submitted on January 20. The committee held a nomination hearing on April 9 and approved it on April 30 by a vote of 19-9. But Trump then withdrew the nomination on May 31 after his rift with Musk, asserting he’d discovered Isaacman contributed to Democratic candidates. On November 4, however, Trump changed his mind and agreed to re-nominate Isaacman. Peters wanted to know what changed and specifically if it was true Isaacman gave $2 million to Trump’s super PAC.

Isaacman declined to speculate on why he’d been renominated, but noted it was a competitive process and several candidates were interviewed. As for the money, “it shouldn’t be surprising that I support the Republican party” and “I probably made 30 times that amount in donations to charitable causes” in that time frame.

Peters and Sen. Markey honed in on Isaacman’s relationship with Musk, a topic of contention during the first hearing.  Isaacman said again that he does not have a close personal relationship with Musk, noting that no photos have emerged showing him with Musk “at dinner, at a bar, on an airplane or a yacht,” because they don’t exist. He bought flights on SpaceX spacecraft because they were the only ones available “and in that respect my relationship is no different than that of NASA.”

A billionaire, Isaacman paid for two private space missions, Inspiration4 and Polaris Dawn, on SpaceX Crew Dragons, each with a total of four crew members. Two of the four crew members on Polaris Dawn were SpaceX employees who helped train the Inspiration4 crew.

Markey again asked if Musk had been in the room at Mar-a-Lago in December when Isaacman was first interviewed by Trump. Isaacman again declined to answer saying it was a ballroom with many people coming and going and “I don’t think it’s fair to bring any of them into this matter.”  Markey also wanted to know how much Isaacman paid for the two spaceflights. Isaacman said he wasn’t allowed to disclose those amounts. At Markey’s insistence, he agreed to ask SpaceX to release him from the Non-Disclosure Agreement.  As for any other financial involvement he might have with SpaceX, Isaacman asserted “I have no direct or indirect equity exposure to any aerospace company including SpaceX. I have disclosed all of my financial ties to the ethics officials at NASA as well as the Office of Government Ethics” and will adhere to all ethics rules.

Ultimately, the hearing unveiled no big surprises and most members seem strongly supportive of the nomination. The committee vote on Monday is at 5:30 pm ET, just as Senators return to Washington for next week’s work. Seven other unrelated nominations are on the docket. When it will go before the full Senate is unknown, but the committee’s leadership is eager to get him confirmed.

On a side note, Moran commented that he expects the CJS appropriations bill to be debated by the full Senate in the next two weeks. Congress has passed only three of the 12 FY2026 appropriations bills. The new Continuing Resolution covers through January 30 so there is a lot of work to do to avoid another potential government shutdown on that date.