Op-Ed: Isaacman’s Actions Threaten Trust and Stability at NASA

Jared Isaacman’s nomination to the office of NASA administrator was met with praise from much of the space industry. NASA is old, slow, and tired, went the refrain, and bold leadership is exactly what the agency needs to become young, active, and inspiring again. Isaacman likes to say NASA’s job is to achieve the near-impossible; it is easily one of the United States’ greatest contributions to the world, and sailing this colossal ship requires precise, methodical input. Unfortunately, Administrator Isaacman’s actions to date have instead destabilized NASA, damaged its most valued relationships, and jeopardized its future. As Isaacman speaks of NASA’s power to inspire the world, he has led the agency to strike out on its own, cancelling programs and advocating for historic budget cuts. If Isaacman wants to achieve lasting, positive change at NASA, his next step must be a major course correction.

Mission changes alienate the scientific community

NASA has a well-defined process for selecting and developing new missions in several categories. Some, like New Frontiers and Discovery, solicit competing mission proposals from researchers, who may spend their careers working towards the mere chance of selection. For example, the Venus probe DAVINCI+ was first proposed in 2015, rejected in 2017, and finally selected in 2021. Meanwhile, large “flagship” missions are directly recommended by the National Academies through Decadal Surveys. A Uranus orbiter was first established as a priority by the 2011 Decadal; the 2022 Decadal named it NASA’s top priority for a new flagship.

So what happens when this process is bypassed or discarded? During NASA’s Ignition event, Isaacman announced the ambitious Space Reactor-1 nuclear spacecraft, a Skyfall payload of Mars helicopters, and a swarm of nuclear-powered Moonfall drones, all pulled out of thin air to satisfy President Trump’s loosely-worded space policy executive order. In the same event, Dr. Nicola Fox pushed DAVINCI+ and the Uranus orbiter into the category of future concepts that NASA might one day pursue. Meanwhile, Isaacman has repeatedly supported and defended the President’s attempts to cancel dozens of other science missions, both active and in development.

More confusingly, during an April 21st press event showcasing the Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope, Isaacman and Dr. Fox proposed a new model for mission formulation. NASA’s most ambitious, and rewarding, missions often require large budgets and many years to execute, famously including the nearly $10 billion James Webb Space Telescope. However, in the new model, missions like these, which Isaacman calls “too costly to succeed,” would simply never be approved. Concepts like the Habitable Worlds Observatory might instead be executed piecemeal, using multiple, less capable missions to carve out their science return. Isaacman and Dr. Fox repeated that this approach would likely be more expensive, but could at least give the appearance of a faster mission cadence.

“If a team comes to me in 2028 and says [the Habitable Worlds Observatory is launching in] 2045, and this much budget, they won’t be getting funded.”

Dr. Nicola Fox

“I actually think the right way to go about it, and similar to what we’re trying to do now with the Moon Base, is a lot of littles, and to do things in an iterative way. […] Maybe, as a result, the overall project cost in itself could wind up being more, but […] you do it in a faster way.”

Jared Isaacman

There is certainly room for improvement in the formulation process, and there is nothing wrong with working to save money and operate more efficiently. But with so many high-priority missions set to be cancelled, deferred, or dissected, scientists and engineers can no longer count on NASA to give their ideas the resources and support they require. Advisory groups like the National Academies cannot trust NASA to respect their priorities instead of substituting NASA’s own. By casting aside years of work by the world’s brightest scientists and engineers in favor of vanity projects to appease the President, Isaacman sends a clear message: your hard work will amount to nothing when we stop caring.

Unilateral changes undermine trust inside and out

Mr. Isaacman’s desire to make major changes at NASA is not unreasonable, and any disruption to the status quo will cause discomfort and require adaptation. However, as the leader of one of the most respected institutions in America, Isaacman has an obligation to work closely with leadership throughout the agency and its partners. But Isaacman, both in hearings and on social media, is quick to frame his job as one in service of the President; that President is famous for an “America first” policy which spurns the United States’ allies and expects them to fall in line. Isaacman’s major decisions in office have accordingly been alarmingly unilateral.

For example, the week before Ignition, Josef Aschbacher, Director General of the European Space Agency, expressed his interest in the upcoming event, calling it “a welcome opportunity” to learn about the future of Artemis and Gateway. One of the program’s most visible hubs for international collaboration, Gateway would be built in large part by ESA and European industry. Five days before Ignition, Aschbacher was unaware that these contributions would be eliminated. Isaacman later said he informed Aschbacher “hours” after that comment was made. It’s unlikely that Ignition was planned before the decision to cancel Gateway; in any case, ESA leadership clearly had minimal input or warning. A similar phenomenon occurred last week, when Isaacman preempted Thales Alenia Space in revealing a corrosion issue with Gateway’s HALO and I-Hab modules, leaving the Italian contractor scrambling.

Closer to home, contractors and even members of NASA leadership have been blindsided by Isaacman’s changes to the Artemis program. The Gateway program was reportedly sent scrambling on February 27th, when its SLS Block 1B launch vehicle was cancelled; Isaacman later commented at Ignition that “it should not really surprise anyone” that Gateway would be cancelled as well. Despite Isaacman’s stated “no surprises policy,” contractors working on commercial stations were similarly caught off-guard when NASA declared at Ignition that those stations were unlikely to be successful, endorsing an alternate plan that caused confusion and concern throughout the industry.

The cumulative effect of these changes is to pull the rug out from under partners who rely on NASA’s forthcoming transparency. The effect is worsened by the fact that old plans are discarded before new ones are ready; basic questions about Artemis III’s flight profile are still unanswered, and the plan for what could replace SLS is still in its early stages. Europe, Canada, Japan, and the UAE haven’t gained new contracts for NASA’s promised Moon Base, but they’ve lost opportunities on Gateway. Merely communicating changes is not enough—collaboration means considering the inputs of NASA’s partners and making choices that satisfy all parties. If NASA continues to lead with unpredictable snap decisions, who will trust the agency’s promises?

Reverse advocacy is bizarre, unnecessary, and harmful

Administrator Isaacman is evidently passionate about his goals for NASA, including to eliminate waste and bureaucratic obstacles throughout the agency. Once again, this is not an inherently negative aim. Whether NASA can “do more with less” is a constant theme in its history, and the agency often scores its biggest victories—most recently Artemis II—despite being deprived of the resources it deserves. So why does Isaacman insist that NASA should get even less money? The Administrator sets exceedingly ambitious goals for NASA, including its biggest projects ever, while denying NASA the support it would realistically need to achieve them.

The President’s FY2027 budget request is largely a repeat of last year’s FY2026 request, which proposed sweeping cuts at NASA and was roundly rejected by Congress. It’s not surprising that the Trump administration wants to eliminate NASA programs it describes as “woke” or “extremism” such as student outreach and climate science; it’s not surprising that Congress, representing districts throughout the country which benefit from NASA funding, would reject these cuts; and it’s not surprising that Isaacman has not openly denounced the budget request, as a political appointee who must be careful not to draw the ire of an administration which has often retaliated against criticism. 

What is surprising is Isaacman’s repeated insistence to Congress that the cuts are necessary and appropriate, to the confusion of senators and representatives who have defended NASA before and are happy to do so again. Throughout several committee hearings over the past two weeks, Congress has been quick to highlight the disconnect in Isaacman’s messaging. Representatives consistently praised Artemis II while expressing dismay about programs and jobs placed on the chopping block, pressing Isaacman on whether NASA can accomplish its goals with its lowest budget since the early 1960s. Senator Jerry Moran (R–Kan), at a space policy round table event on April 12, expressed this confusion succinctly:

“One would think if you’re doing things faster and doing big things faster, it would require more resources.”

Senator Jerry Moran (R–Kan)

Furthermore, NASA has already taken unilateral action to cancel programs without congressional authorization, an action that mirrors the work of acting NASA Administrator Janet Petro in 2025. Petro illegally implemented the President’s FY2026 budget request, firing workers and cancelling programs, causing significant damage which was condemned by a House committee report. Now, Isaacman has begun to do the same, cancelling SLS upgrades like the Exploration Upper Stage and publicly deconstructing Mobile Launcher 2.

Even if Isaacman had a perfect justification for cutting losses and ending these programs before they can be completed, taking that action without Congress’ approval circumvents intentional checks and balances in the legal system. And as Representative Madeleine Dean (PA-04) pointed out in a recent hearing, cancellation is not cost-neutral, meaning these actions likely constitute inappropriate use of funding. In short, Isaacman’s reverse advocacy puts NASA in the bizarre position of convincing Congress that they should receive less resources, while the agency publicly abuses the resources it already has.

Final Thoughts

Many in the space industry had high hopes for Isaacman’s tenure, accurately predicting he would shake up the nation’s space program. In an era where many of NASA’s major programs seem to be hanging by threads, dramatic action and immediate results certainly seem attractive. Nevertheless, over his first few months in office, Isaacman’s leadership has destabilized NASA’s relationships with the scientific community, its industry and international partners, and its own employees. Major institutional changes threaten not only current NASA programs, but also the agency’s ability to execute on any future projects, let alone Isaacman’s exceedingly ambitious plans. The administrator’s passion for NASA is obvious, and his actions appear to be in good faith. But Isaacman would do well to slow down, thoroughly reevaluate who his office is meant to serve, and put down his sledgehammer.