It used to be that once your star had fallen in Donald Trump’s orbit, it was destined never to rise again. Any number of discarded former allies stretching back to Trump’s first term can testify to that much.
One who came out of a political black hole to return to the president’s firmament is the billionaire private astronaut Jared Isaacman, who on Wednesday will tell the senators – for the second time – why he is the best person to lead the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (Nasa).
Isaacman’s return to the launchpad is an intriguing story of the politics, ambition and above all the vanity of a president determined to ensure that the US flag is planted back on the surface of the moon before he leaves office in January 2029.
Related: Trump changes course to renominate billionaire Musk to lead NASA
It’s also a win for Elon Musk, the founder of SpaceX who championed his friend, and is now benefiting from Isaacman’s plans to outsource to commercial space operators more of what have traditionally been NASA staples in manned and scientific discovery.
Isaacman, meanwhile, downplayed his friendship with Musk, and there is no suggestion that his renomination is specifically linked to his vision for the advancement of private enterprise in space. But his monetary ties to SpaceX, revealed in a government financial disclosure report, have drawn scrutiny from Congressional Democrats, as well as his purchase of the Inspiration4 and Polaris Dawn missions aboard SpaceX craft, both essentially space tourism flights despite some worthy mission goals.
In May, everything looked very different. Trump’s first nomination of the pioneering space adventurer fell through when the White House discovered that Isaacman had committed the cardinal sin of making previous donations to Democratic politicians. Among them was former astronaut and Arizona senator Mark Kelly, now targeted by the administration for comments encouraging service members to disobey illegal orders.
In a Social Truth post at the time, Trump stated that he had conducted a “thorough review of previous associations”, and found Isaacman not to be “mission aligned”. Yet many, including Isaacman himself, saw his demise as a direct consequence of Trump’s now-resolved feud with Musk.
The president reversed course earlier this month amid an escalating power struggle between acting NASA administrator Sean Duffy and lobbyists and supporters aligned with Isaacman — including Musk — over the future direction of the space agency.
Passing judgment to resolve what has been described as a “Game of Thrones that has lasted for weeks”, Trump rejected the ambitious plan of Duffy – who is also the US transport secretary – to seize the role permanently and bring the agency into his own transport portfolio.
Duffy announced in October that NASA was re-advertising a contract already won by SpaceX to build the human lander system (HLS) that would put American astronauts on the moon for the first time since 1972.
Some analysts saw the move as an effort to appease Trump. In Duffy’s view, SpaceX was taking too long to develop the crucial component of the Artemis III mission, which is already planned for no earlier than mid-2027. Offers from other companies, such as Jeff Bezos’ ascendant Blue Origin, fuel competition and speed up the timeline.
The move, however, angered many in the White House, and it appears to have backfired spectacularly. Musk launched a furious defense of SpaceX, publishing a tirade that called the acting administrator “Sean Dummy”, accused him of trying to “kill NASA”, and insisted that his company was moving “at lightning speed” compared to the rest of the space industry.
Isaacman, on the other hand, argued in several reported meetings with Trump to continue with Artemis and HLS in full and without deviation. After Trump’s “flag on the moon” moment is secured, Nasa will move to scrap its overworked and long-delayed space launch system (SLS) – an expendable rocket and Orion capsule combination that made up the Artemis missions – and instead put future flights to the moon and Mars in the hands of SpaceX and its fully reusable Starship.
Some of those who have Trump’s ear, such as far-right influencer Laura Loomer, have strongly advocated for Isaacman, noting that he has also made substantial donations to Republican causes, including Trump’s inaugural committee.
Space policy experts, meanwhile, believe the reasons and consequences of Isaacman’s renomination are more involved than just a focus on returning to the moon.
His first Senate hearing in April before the committee on commerce, science and transportation preceded the Trump administration’s proposals to gut the NASA budget and reduce science funding for what the Planetary Society called an “extinction-level event.”
At that hearing, after the committee voted 19-9 to advance his nomination to the full Senate, he asserted that science was his top priority, spoke passionately about a “golden age of science and discovery,” and announced that NASa operates “multiple major scientific missions at once.”
“A lot has changed since April,” said Marcia Smith, founder and editor of spacepolicyonline.com.
“When he testified the first time, he didn’t know what the budget request was going to be, and he talked about how he doesn’t have a lot of detailed knowledge of what’s going on at Nasa because he wasn’t at Nasa. He was talking as an outsider, about how to do science, and the moon, and Mars, and all these other things, all at the same time.
“Now it’s kind of a different landscape, having a better understanding of where the administration is coming down in terms of its level of support for NASa.”
Trump has proposed cutting NASA’s annual budget by 24% to $18.8 billion, the lowest level in a decade, with space and earth science missions bearing the brunt of the cuts. Trump seems fully focused on his “moment of the moon”, and Isaacman said he will not abandon plans to let him have it.
“The drumbeat to get America back on the moon before it gets to China just got louder and louder since April,” Smith said.
“And that really is a different mode of operation. If your only goal is to get there before China, then maybe you’re going to rethink your whole plan for Artemis, and the focus is not on sustainable lunar exploration, or at least making the first Artemis landing part of the sustainable program.”
Isaacman is sure to face questions at his committee hearing on Wednesday about Project Athena, a confidential 62-page memo detailing his plans for a radical overhaul of Nasa’s structure and operations written for Duffy and leaked to Politico earlier this month at the height of the rivalry between the two.
It contains his proposal for the large-scale outsourcing of NASa missions to commercial operators and other ways of reducing government spending.
“This plan has never favored any one vendor, never recommended the closing of centers, or directed the cancellation of programs before objectives are met,” Isaacman wrote in a post on X that bemoaned its detractors.
“The more I see the imperfections of the policy and the lengths people will go to, the more I want to serve and be part of the solution… because I love Nasa and I love my country.”