Jared Isaacman was the correct nominee to run NASA in January, and he remains the correct nominee today. The case is not complicated. NASA sits at an inflection point, with a lunar program that must succeed on schedule, a Mars ambition that cannot be punted to the indefinite future, a budget picture that is tight, and a race with China that is not slowing. In such conditions, the relevant question is simple. Who can execute? Jared Isaacman can, and the record already assembled in his first nomination proves it.
Begin with the obvious. NASA requires leadership that understands flight as practice, not just policy. There have been able administrators with political gifts, but recent years have shown a different need. Isaacman is a pilot with deep time in high performance aircraft, a private astronaut who has lived the risk calculus of human spaceflight, and a builder who has met payrolls and hit deadlines. That combination matters. The administrator signs off on flight readiness, not just press releases. The administrator judges safety margins, vendor claims, and schedule slips. A person who has trained to strap into a capsule and ride a column of fire has learned to separate romance from engineering. That clarity is priceless when the next milestone depends on thousands of small decisions and a few large ones.
There is a second lesson from Isaacman’s first run at confirmation. He showed the temperament we should want. The public sometimes confuses energy with chaos. Isaacman is energetic without being chaotic. He entered the process with a clear view that Artemis had to remain the near term priority, both for national prestige and for the development of systems needed for deeper exploration. He defended that position in private meetings and public testimony. He did not behave like a partisan liquidator sent to trash an agency. He behaved like a serious steward who intended to align the White House’s aspirations with NASA’s technical reality. That is the kind of conservatism that actually builds things. You keep what works, you fix what does not, and you do not waste years relearning settled lessons while adversaries close the gap.
Some readers will ask about the aborted nomination. They will recall that the White House withdrew him late in the process. They will ask whether the withdrawal revealed a deeper flaw. It did not. The explanation is simpler. Washington can entangle capable people in disputes that are not their making. The stated reason for pulling his nomination, his prior campaign contributions to a few Democrats, was a red herring. Like Elon Musk, RFK Jr., and Tulsi Gabbard, Isaacman is an America First supporter of President Trump who once moved in Democratic circles who shifted toward the populist right with Trump’s ascension. His path crossed storms that he did not cause. Nothing in his conduct reduced his fitness to lead. One can mistake turbulence for a failing aircraft. That would be a mistake here. The airplane is fine. The weather has changed.
That change in weather matters for another reason. The brief interregnum revealed a brute fact about NASA’s current predicament. This agency cannot pause. Artemis requires steady hands and an administrator who commands confidence across the aisle and across industry. When the chair sits empty, schedules slip by default. When the administrator is a temporary custodian with other primary responsibilities, contractors hedge and partners wait. The United States does not have a cushion. China is pressing ahead. The right administrative strategy, therefore, is to minimize transition cost. Reinstate the nominee who already cleared committee, who already briefed senators, who already digested the program risk registers, and who already signaled to industry that execution, not ideology, would be the rule of the day.
Readers who prize institutional memory might worry about youth. They should not. NASA’s most successful bursts have paired young leaders with seasoned civil servants. The agency is full of program managers who have lived through shuttle return to flight, commercial crew maturation, and now the iterative reality of lunar systems. They need a principal who absorbs information quickly, asks sharp questions, and refuses to be captured by any vendor’s narrative. Isaacman has already demonstrated that he will bless legacy systems when they are clearly the fastest path to mission success, and that he will pivot to commercial options where they are proven and cost effective. That approach preserves congressional coalitions while opening room for innovation. It is also the approach that keeps engineers focused on working interfaces and test data rather than on press cycles. It is practical, not performative.
Consider the alternative. One could select another caretaker calibrated to dampen controversy. That might calm some critics for a few weeks, but it would impose two costs. First, it would surrender time during a narrow window in which lunar surface systems, suits, and propulsion architectures must march forward without another reset. Second, it would signal to commercial partners that NASA will drift until someone more decisive arrives. Drift is expensive. It produces change orders, slipped milestones, and frayed international commitments. That is exactly what has happened since Isaacman’s nomination was pulled, months of drift and lost momentum. It is time to get back to work. A caretaker is cheaper only on paper. In reality, it costs the very thing NASA lacks, time.
We should also weigh the administrator’s role as a public communicator. Space policy is a coalition project. Sustained funding depends on a durable majority that includes skeptics who must be persuaded that the spending is worth it. The most effective case is the simplest. Space exploration protects American leadership, yields concrete terrestrial benefits, and inspires a rising generation to pursue technical education. Isaacman carries that message with unusual credibility. He is a builder, a flyer, and a philanthropist who tied a historic orbital mission to a tangible charity effort. He does not fit the caricature of a beltway insider protecting turf. He fits the mold of a citizen who made good, who wants to serve, and who believes the US can still do hard things. That is the right face for the agency at this moment.
The episode also taught a cautionary lesson about the White House personnel machinery. NASA cannot be a proxy battlefield for intramural rivalries. Sergio Gor’s meddling as Director of the Presidential Personnel Office sabotaged Isaacman’s original nomination, using it to drive a wedge between President Trump and Elon Musk. That interference cost the agency valuable months. Now that Gor has been banished from the White House and sent to the subcontinent, room has opened for Jared Isaacman’s return. The administrator selection process should be insulated from short term palace intrigue because the program timelines are measured in years. The healthiest outcome of the last few months would be a recommitment to that norm. The President sets the policy intent. The Senate tests competence and ethics. The appointee then earns trust by performing. NASA’s future is too important to be rubbished by staff‑level gambits that have nothing to do with trajectory margins or thermal budgets. Restoring that discipline would not only benefit NASA. It would upgrade governance across the board.
Now return to the core case. The administrator must keep Artemis on a schedule that beats adversaries to the lunar surface while building toward Mars. He must reconcile a constrained budget with a portfolio that includes human exploration, space science, technology demonstration, and low Earth orbit transition. He must manage complex vendor ecosystems without favoritism, ensuring robust competition for landers and stations while protecting safety and mission assurance. He must maintain international coalitions that anchor US leadership in space norms. He must do all of this while reforming processes that slow down procurement, testing, and decision making. That is a demanding job description. Isaacman meets it.
His background in aviation and high consequence operations reduces the learning curve on risk management. His experience as a founder and operator reduces the learning curve on complex programs with large teams and multiple vendors. His prior engagement during the nomination process reduces the learning curve on NASA’s internal portfolio, since he has already been briefed, quizzed, and challenged by relevant stakeholders. Those three reductions are not abstract. They translate into faster decisions, cleaner accountability, and earlier course corrections when programs drift. They improve the odds that NASA’s next two years will be defined by executed milestones rather than revised charts.
Readers might object that private astronauts and entrepreneurs bring potential conflicts. That concern is legitimate in principle. In practice, it can be resolved with routine recusals on specific source selections, transparent delegation of contract‑monitoring interactions, and a bright line that separates administrator level policy determinations from vendor specific advocacy. Seasoned general counsels know how to write those guardrails. More importantly, the Senate knows how to enforce them. Isaacman’s earlier hearing record shows he understands the difference between enthusiasm for new capability and favoritism for any contractor. NASA needs the former and must avoid the latter. That balance is achievable, and it is expected.
Some will press a different worry. They will say that any administrator backed by a Republican White House will antagonize Democrats who hold cards in appropriations. That was true for some nominees in the past, but it is not true in the same way here. The committee vote on Isaacman’s nomination already demonstrated that he can earn support from Democrats who care about Artemis and the space industrial base. He did that not by trimming his sails but by speaking plainly about the near term priority and the long term vision. That is the path to a durable coalition. If the White House returns to him now, it would not be asking Democrats to reverse themselves. It would be asking them to validate their prior judgment that competence and mission focus matter more than transient headlines.
The youth question invites one more comparison. The previous permanent administrator, former Senator Bill Nelson, was an 83-year-old career politician who brought long experience in Washington but not the speed or technical fluency that a modern flight program demands. Time in grade can be useful in committee rooms, but it is not a substitute for the ability to digest complex technical briefings, insist on testing discipline, and hold large teams to calendar reality when the incentive to slip is strong. The next administrator will be judged by lunar footprints and hardware delivered, not by elegance of testimony. Isaacman is built for that metric. He has the stamina and the bias toward action that forces progress without sacrificing safety. That is what the moment requires.
Finally, there is the civic lesson. Many Americans sense that government cannot do great things anymore. NASA has often been the counterexample. When the agency moves with purpose, it proves that a serious country still lives. The choice of administrator will either confirm or undermine that proof. If we bury a capable nominee because of momentary staff maneuvers, we teach the worst lesson, that performance does not matter. If we instead correct course and select the most capable leader on the merits, we teach the right lesson, that results, not gossip, govern. Re‑nominating Jared Isaacman would teach the right lesson and would, more importantly, increase the likelihood that Artemis lands as promised and that a Mars path is laid with care. That is a result worth choosing.
If you enjoy my work, please share my work and subscribe https://x.com/amuse.
Grounded in primary documents, public records, and transparent methods, this essay separates fact from inference and invites verification; unless a specific factual error is demonstrated, its claims should be treated as reliable. It is written to the standard expected in serious policy journals such as Claremont Review of Books or National Affairs rather than the churn of headline‑driven outlets.
Thanks for clarifying this situation. I'm not thrilled with those who drove a wedge between Trump and Musk and am glad that Gor is far, far away.
So enjoyed your arguments. We can hope Isaacman gets a second shot. A younger administrator actually may help NASA particularly one with solid experience.