Isaacman Evades Thorny Questions in Nomination Redo

In his second nomination hearing to be NASA administrator, Jared Isaacman faced renewed questions about his plans for the agency, notably its Earth science programs.

Isaacman attempted to strike a balance between his prior support for certain programs and a leaked document indicating his openness to cutting or privatizing them. He argued that the agency should focus on projects that private companies cannot pursue.

“I think NASA should constantly be recalibrated to work on that near impossible, what no one else is doing,” Isaacman said. “When they figure it out, they hand it off to industry, and they recalibrate to the next big bold endeavor.”

Isaacman’s initial nomination passed through the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee with bipartisan support, and Chair Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Ranking Member Maria Cantwell (D-WA) reiterated their support for his confirmation in Wednesday’s hearing. However, Isaacman also faced new pushback from Democrats who questioned President Donald Trump’s motivations for renominating him and his leaked plan, known as Project Athena, that they said contradicted Isaacman’s earlier statements to the committee.

For example, Sen. Andy Kim (D-NJ) criticized Project Athena’s stated goal to “take NASA out of the taxpayer-funded climate science business and leave it for academia to determine.”

Isaacman dodged Kim’s question about whether he stands by that goal, saying that he devoted a significant portion of the document to research requests from subject matter experts to inform “the definitive plan.” Kim responded that the climate science goal was “determinative” and was not seeking further information.

Isaacman wrote the document before his nomination was withdrawn, but said at the hearing that he stands by its contents. However, he also repeatedly argued that the document was a preliminary work that he had not yet finalized.

When Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) said the document calls for NASA to “stop collecting its own data,” Isaacman disagreed, saying it “contemplated” working with private companies for Earth observation and climate science data “specifically to free up resources for other planetary science missions that commercial companies are not capable of doing.”

Separately, Isaacman told Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) that he supports NASA continuing to gather data related to “hardships here on Earth,” such as droughts, wildfires, and floods. “At the present time, we inhabit only a single planet, and it’s probably important for us to continue to study it to the greatest extent possible,” Isaacman said, adding that he is “grateful that NASA has the capability to gather some of this data in real time. I don’t see that going away ever.”

Klobuchar raised concerns about NASA potentially partnering with private firms to collect data that is currently publicly available and upon which universities rely. Isaacman said he supports NASA making all of its data, especially Earth observation data, freely available to academia “so they can draw their own conclusions from it.”

“I don’t think it’s the most helpful, every four or eight years when administrations change, that certain scientific positions become overly political,” Isaacman added.

Budget

Sen. Jerry Moran (R-KS) asked Isaacman if he had any response to the Senate appropriations bill for NASA, which would hold the Science Mission Directorate and the agency’s topline at about the same levels as the previous year. Isaacman declined to comment on pending legislation, saying that, if confirmed, he would “absolutely maximize every dollar Congress affords to the agency.”

Several Democrats on the committee expressed concerns about the president’s budget request, which proposed cutting NASA’s Science Mission Directorate budget by almost 50%. Sen. John Hickenlooper (D-CO) asked if NASA’s science and exploration missions would become mutually exclusive because of budget issues, and expressed concern about “potentially draconian changes” at NASA’s Goddard Spaceflight Center.

“I do absolutely support the president and the goal of reducing the deficit and ensuring the nation is on good footing,” Isaacman said. He emphasized that “a lot has changed” since the president’s budget request came out. “Earlier this year, I understood that perhaps even the Nancy Grace Roman telescope might not launch under initial budget requests. I’ve since been informed that that is no longer the case. … I’d love to know where we stand today.”

Regarding Goddard, Isaacman said the center is “very important to spearheading the scientific efforts of NASA.” However, in Project Athena, Isaacman wrote that many of Goddard’s field sites were “opportunities for deletion” and that Goddard’s mission control facilities should be evaluated “with the aim to consolidate at JSC.”

Ranking Member Cantwell referenced NASA whistleblower reports that the White House was pushing the agency to implement parts of the budget request without congressional authorization, and said she expects Isaacman to “push back on these dangerous ideas and advocate for NASA’s budget” if he is confirmed.

Renomination

Sen. Gary Peters (D-MI) said he was concerned about the decision to renominate Isaacman, arguing that Isaacman’s reported donation to a Trump-affiliated super-PAC might have influenced the president. After pulling Isaacman’s original nomination, Trump wrote on Truth Social that he did so because Isaacman was “a blue blooded Democrat, who had never contributed to a Republican before.”

Isaacman said he “wouldn’t want to speculate” about Trump’s decisions. He described the donation as part of his belief that he might be able to have a political career and “maybe be able to contribute for all the right reasons, so it shouldn’t be surprising that I supported the Republican party.” He added that he “probably made 30 times that amount in donations to charitable causes” over the same time period.