Is the nomination of Jared Isaacman as NASA’s administrator facing political headwinds?
Jared Isaacman
I admit immediately that I have no inside information to back up the speculation that will follow. Instead, it is based entirely on my fifty years of experience observing the political machinations that take place inside the DC swamp.
In the past week there have been a slew of stories all aimed at pressuring Congress to quickly confirm Jared Isaacman (, jet pilot, businessman, and commercial astronaut), Trump’s pick to be NASA’s next administrator. For example, two days ago NASA’s last Republican-appointed administrator Jim Bridenstine publicly called for Isaacman’s confirmation by the Senate.
“I think Jared Isaacman is going to be an amazing NASA administrator,” he said. “I think he’s got all the tools to be what could be the most consequential NASA administrator given the era in which we live in now.” That era, he said, involves greater reliance on commercial space capabilities. “He’s going to be able to take that and do things that have never been able to be done before.”
This week there was also an article in Space News, touting Isaacman’s desire to increase funding to NASA’s planetary defense program, expressed by him in February when it looked like asteroid 2024 YR4 had a good chance of hitting the Earth in 2032.
Furthermore, a group of seven Republican senators this week also joined the chorus, sending a letter [pdf] to Senators Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Maria Cantwell (D-Washington), the chair and ranking members respectively of the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, extolling Isaacman in glowing terms and calling for his quick confirmation.
So with all this enthusiastic support bubbling out everywhere, why do I suspect Isaacman might actually be in trouble?
This last effort above appears prompted by the delay in scheduling Isaacman’s confirmation hearing before the Senate. Unlike almost all of Trump’s other picks, which were quickly vetted and confirmed, Isaacman’s remains in a strange limbo. For some unexplained reason, the Trump administration has not yet submitted the formal paperwork to the Senate that would allow it to schedule that hearing.
Why? I think a news story in mid-January provides a possible explanation. It revealed that Isaacman has been a heavy Democratic Party donor since 2010, contributing $300,000 to that party’s candidates. Worse, it appears his companies until very very recently have been proudly supportive of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI).
[T]he payment processing company Shift4 that Isaacman founded has touted its DEI efforts in a publicly available fact sheet obtained by the Washington Examiner. Draken, a defense company Isaacman founded, has helped sponsor DEI-related events and recently deleted a page from its website called “Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI).” Another since-deleted page on Draken’s website referenced a “gender pay gap report” that appeared to be related to Draken’s workforce.
That Isaacman’s companies have deleted these webpages suggests he recognizes this support could cause him a problem. That the companies pushed those racist policies at all however raises questions about his judgment. And from a political point of view, his financial support to Democrats will certainly make many Republicans question his reliability going forward.
These facts suggest to me that within both the Trump administration and among Republican in the Senate there are now second thoughts about Isaacman. Trump’s experience in his first administration, with federal appointees constantly sabotaging his efforts behind his back, has made him very determined to only bring people into his second administration he is certain to trust. Isaacman’s long support for the Democratic Party as well as DEI could be the reason the administration is delaying his confirmation.
The spate of news stories this week touting Isaacman could be the Washington swamp’s effort to counter these second thoughts. Or it could be Isaacman has — like Musk and others — truly changed his political views and his supporters are trying to highlight that fact.
Either way, something strange appears to be happening in the background for this nomination. Either my speculations are junk and will vanish quickly, or we might find Isaacman soon withdrawing his nomination. Stay tuned.
Readers!
My annual February birthday fund-raising drive for Behind the Black is now over. Thank you to everyone who donated or subscribed. While not a record-setter, the donations were more than sufficient and slightly above average.
As I have said many times before, I can’t express what it means to me to get such support, especially as no one is required to pay anything to read my work. Thank you all again!
For those readers who like my work here at Behind the Black and haven't contributed so far, please consider donating or subscribing. My analysis of space, politics, and culture, taken from the perspective of an historian, is almost always on the money and ahead of the game. For example, in 2020 I correctly predicted that the COVID panic was unnecessary, that the virus was apparently simply a variation of the flu, that masks were not simply pointless but if worn incorrectly were a health threat, that the lockdowns were a disaster and did nothing to stop the spread of COVID. Every one of those 2020 conclusions has turned out right.
Your help allows me to do this kind of intelligent analysis. I take no advertising or sponsors, so my reporting isn't influenced by donations by established space or drug companies. Instead, I rely entirely on donations and subscriptions from my readers, which gives me the freedom to write what I think, unencumbered by outside influences.
You can support me either by giving a one-time contribution or a regular subscription. There are four ways of doing so:
1. Zelle: This is the only internet method that charges no fees. All you have to do is use the Zelle link at your internet bank and give my name and email address (zimmerman at nasw dot org). What you donate is what I get.
2. Patreon: Go to my website there and pick one of five monthly subscription amounts, or by making a one-time donation.
3. A Paypal Donation or subscription:
4. Donate by check, payable to Robert Zimmerman and mailed to
Behind The Black
c/o Robert Zimmerman
P.O.Box 1262
Cortaro, AZ 85652
You can also support me by buying one of my books, as noted in the boxes interspersed throughout the webpage or shown in the menu above.
I think it’s unlikely that the heavy Democratic tilt to his donations will hurt him — I mean, this is an administration that just put RFK Jr and Tulsi Gabbard in senior positions, and Elon himself mostly gave to Democrats until rather recently.
But he will certainly get some questions from the GOP side of the committee about his DEI programs at Shift4, and his gambling debts — especially behind closed doors. But if he can come up with explanations that limit his responsibility for them, or at least convey a sincere conversion, he ought to be able to have little difficulty winning confirmation. If the confirmation delay suggests resistance, these new endorsements show that there are people in the party keen to knock it down.
I think we also cannot rule out that he will pick up a few votes on the other side of the aisle.
P.S. Jared posted an enthusiastic tweet about SPHEREx’s launch yesterday on X, which might be the sort of thing that soothes the paranoid in NASA’s science mission directorate a little. ” The universe is full of questions—we need SPHEREx and more missions like it to find answers.”
https://x.com/rookisaacman/status/1899858709565653128
“It revealed that Isaacman has been a heavy Democratic Party donor since 2010, contributing $300,000 to that party’s candidates. Worse, it appears his companies until very very recently have been proudly supportive of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI)”
Timely article, considering Glenn Beck‘s program this morning revealing NASA’s DEI involvement… All set into motion while we were distracted by the catastrophe in the withdrawal from Afghanistan.
https://www.glennbeck.com/research/documents-nasa-dei-glenn-tv
The actual whistleblower NASA documents are available on his site, free to download.
I think it is the ears.
They are just not aerodynamic.
Unless he was involved to some Democrap fundraising hanky-panky to buy a contract or two for his companies?
[sarc] And he flies a Russian jet!{/sarc]
I’m wondering if he doesn’t need to unwind some financial/business arrangements before going to the Senate. Doing those can take time. He IS a billionaire CEO, after all (dang sarc filter keeps tripping).
Robert’s speculation may well be correct, but as Richard points out, that hasn’t kept RFK and Tulsi out, although they had very spirited hearings. I can’t imagine seeing the same level of passionate discourse over a NASA admin.
I would also point out that he is buddies with Musk, and that might be the BIGGEST resistance point, from the D side. You all know how thoughtful and rational they can be.
And of course, all of SpaceX’s competitors and NASA stooges could paint him as an Elon fanboy, having been to space twice with SpaceX. In all fairness, he probably is, and with solid justification!
He just went way down in my estimation. DEI? Democrat donor? Gambling debts?
In any case, who cares who the NASA Administrator is? That isn’t where the action is.
I don’t see the DEI problem. Just about EVERY company in the Anglosphere and Europe jumped on the DEI bandwagon during the time concerned. Why Isaacman should be singled out for that is beyond me.
If one of your top policy objectives as a Republican Senator, or indeed a Republican President, is to stomp out all signs of DEI in hiring, procurement, or outreach at NASA, then….it’s a valid line of inquiry in exercising your “advice and consent” role. I like Jared, or what I have seen of him, but I confess that if I were such a senator, I would want to get him for a personal interview to ask him about just what the nature of these DEI programs at Draken and Shift4 were, why they happened, what his role in erecting and maintaining them were.
It’s quite possible that even if he had some culpability, I could still vote for him if he seemed genuinely converted on the issue, and resolutely committed to administering NASA that way. (I note for the record that RFK Jr had to exactly this one-on-one kind of commitment with GOP senators in regards to handling abortion at HHS, as a result of his past enthusiasms for abortion rights. Apparently, he persuaded them.) It might be that Isaacman’s corporate DEI programs were not especially egregious. But certainly, something to do my homework on as a senator.
The gambling stuff bothers me less (and will likely bother senators less) if there have been no recurrences of it since 2009. It sounds like the sort of thing that a high risk entrepreneur techbro might do in his wild and woolly 20’s.
Senators and Congressmen attacking nominees for gambling, drinking, etc., is an especially rich and hilarious irony!
By the way, here are 30 major companies that ditched their DEI departments after the election (which means, of course, they *had* DEI departments *before* the election). Truly, there is absolutely nothing remarkable about Isaacman supporting DEI during or even before the Biden administration.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/life/2025/03/13/30-companies-that-removed-dei-programs-trump/82268705007/
The general rule is that businesses donate to both parties just to stay out of any cross-hairs
“Senators and Congressmen attacking nominees for gambling, drinking, etc., is an especially rich and hilarious irony!”
“Former Senator John Tower’s nomination was blocked for being drunk and silly, but not drunk and silly enough to be a Senator again.” — PJ O’Rourke
The question becomes “aren‘t there any nice Republican astronaut/business people we can put in this position?”.
“The question becomes “aren‘t there any nice Republican astronaut/business people we can put in this position?”.”
There are, but they tend to be Old Space affiliated guys.
Thanks for the article. If the nomination gets to the hearing stage, the questions and answers from both Republicans and Democrats will be exceedingly interesting.
Grammar police. 2nd to last paragraph spat -> spate?
Like Griffin…
He did think the primes and the AF were trying to foist EELVs upon NASA.
There has been a history of the USAF meddling…killing Saturns…. making Shuttle orbiters too big, etc
Mike really did believe in Arsenal method– he was thinking Ares I was going to be quick and dirty–only one liquid engine–J-2.
This was when we first heard the phrase “NASA shouldn’t build rockets but buy rides.”
But that phrase wasn’t NewSpace–the EELV providers came up with that slogan.
But when Elon showed up as a TRUE commercial alternative–then what would become ULA started to sound like Mike–talking about preserving in house capability.
I share that view with Griffin–but ULA tried to have it both ways.
They should have been punished with the down select going to Falcon and Omega.
OldSpace forced Elon off the coast under the aegis of “range safety,” proving Mike correct in NOT trusting vendors.
It sounds nice to just buy what a vendor makes–but that can get you in trouble…
Griffin’s idea was a lot like what my Dad told me about auto mechanics.
Don’t walk in and say “my car’s broke.”
That shows weakness.
Come up with a good idea as to what the problem is–and you tell the mechanic what you want done–and you tell him to only work on that.
Delta IV based hydrogen depots would doubtless be a bucket with a hole in it–so Griffin’s idea was an SD-HLLV. Boeing wanted EELVs, because boil-off was a feature.
So while folks have this imaginary concept of Mike Griffin being OldSpace–consider how he mentored Elon—vertical integration–don’t trust businessmen.
Patton always talked to lower ranking folks who would speak truly.
After a fashion–arsenal method is why SpaceX succeeds. Elon, unlike Beal–toughed it out.
Falcon does well enough–but, as the kids say “it’s mid ”
That is why an individual who literally wrote the book on spacecraft design–needs to be NASA Chief and that be a lifetime appointment.
I think Elon is in over his depth with Starship–which is why engineer Mike Griffin needs the appointment more than an adventure tourist who may (or may not) be a staunch DEI defender.
Bob Wilson: “spate” is more correct, though looking at the definitions “spat” might also work, though not as well. I have made the change. Thank you.
“If the nomination gets to the hearing stage…”
Unless something really dramatic pops up in Jared’s background, I think we can feel reasonably confident that a) Jared will get his hearing, and b) he will be confirmed.
It is worth bearing in mind that Trump is (checks notes) 29 for 29 on confirmation votes. He is batting 1.000! Yes, it’s been by the skin of his teeth on a couple, but he’s always been able to whip just enough GOP votes when he had to. Obviously, too, a 53 seat majority allows a buffer for the usual suspects to defect.
And frankly, even with these little revelations, Isaacman is obviously not remotely the lightning rod that (fairly or not) Hegseth, RFK, or Gabbard were.
Also for the record, Trump has so far nominated for 235 total positions in the executive branch. 29 down, 206 to go…which is actually somewhat more than Biden at this juncture in time, according to the Washington Post’s tracker graph. So…frustrating as it is, maybe we should not be surprised that Isaacman has yet to get a vote. At least, for now.
“So while folks have this imaginary concept of Mike Griffin being OldSpace–consider how he mentored Elon—vertical integration–don’t trust businessmen.”
VSECOTSPE’s working theory is that Mike is pro commercial when he thinks politics will allow him to get away with it (as visible in his last gig at DoD), but folds like a cheap tent when they don’t. He suspects that that Griffin had to make certain promises to Shelby and other AL, UT, FL, TX, and maybe CO appropriators to get their vote on his NASA nomination, and that’s where ESAS, Ares I, and Constellation really came from, and why he immediately abandoned O’Keefe’s EELV-leveraged procurement plan for a crew vehicle.
Then again, this may leave us wondering why he was still flogging an Old Space based retread of Constellation on the Hill last year. Some have speculated that he was angling for another crack at the NASA Admin job, but if he was, that seemed like a strange reading of Trump’s mindset even before Elon became his BFF. Maybe he’s just a hardener sinner now.
Richard M: Actually Trump’s record is no longer perfect. Earlier today Dave Weldon withdrew his nomination for CDC head. Apparently the administration recognized they didn’t have the votes in the Senate.
SpaceX was founded in 2002, Tesla in 2003, with Musk having no specific expertise in either field. 20 plus years later they dominate their markets commercially and in innovation. Not too shabby.
Lady friend was having a virtue attack the other day about Musk’s many love interests and offspring. I asked her if she had ever read about the personal life of one A. Einstein? The term “relativity” has multiple meanings in his life!