Trump drops Nasa nominee Jared Isaacman, scrapping Elon Musk's pick
The White House has withdrawn as its nominee for Nasa administrator, abruptly yanking a close ally of Elon Musk from consideration to lead the space agency.
Donald Trump said he would announce a new candidate soon. 'After a thorough review of prior associations, I am hereby withdrawing the nomination of Jared Isaacman to head Nasa,' the US president posted online. 'I will soon announce a new Nominee who will be mission aligned, and put America first in space.'
Related: Drugs, marital advice and that black eye: key takeaways from Trump's Oval Office send-off for Elon Musk
Isaacman, a billionaire private astronaut who had been Musk's pick to lead Nasa, was due next week for a much-delayed confirmation vote before the US Senate. His removal from consideration caught many in the space industry by surprise.
Trump and the White House did not explain what led to the decision.
Isaacman, whose removal was earlier reported by Semafor, said he was 'incredibly grateful' to Trump 'and all those who supported me throughout this journey'.
'I have gained a much deeper appreciation for the complexities of government and the weight our political leaders carry,' he posted. 'It may not always be obvious through the discourse and turbulence, but there are many competent, dedicated people who love this country and care deeply about the mission.'
Isaacman's removal comes just days after Musk's official departure from the White House, where the SpaceX CEO's role as a 'special government employee' leading the so-called department of government efficiency (Doge) created turbulence for the administration and frustrated some of Trump's aides.
Musk, according to a person familiar with his reaction, was disappointed by Isaacman's removal.
'It is rare to find someone so competent and good-hearted,' Musk wrote of Isaacman on X, responding to the news of the White House's decision.
Musk did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
It was unclear whom the administration might tap to replace Isaacman.
One name being floated is the retired US air force Lt Gen Steven Kwast, an early advocate for the creation of the US space force and a Trump supporter, according to three people familiar with the discussions.
Isaacman, the former CEO of the payment processor company Shift4, had broad space industry support but drew concerns from lawmakers over his ties to Musk and SpaceX, where he spent hundreds of millions of dollars as an early private spaceflight customer.
The former nominee had donated to Democrats in prior elections. In his confirmation hearing in April, he sought to balance Nasa's existing moon-aligned space exploration strategy with pressure to shift the agency's focus on Mars, saying the US can plan for travel to both destinations.
As a potential leader of Nasa's 18,000 employees, Isaacman faced a daunting task of implementing that decision to prioritize Mars, given that Nasa has spent years and billions of dollars trying to return its astronauts to the moon.
On Friday, the space agency released new details of the Trump administration's 2026 budget plan that proposed killing dozens of space science programs and laying off thousands of employees, a controversial overhaul that space advocates and lawmakers described as devastating for the agency.
The Montana Republican Tim Sheehy, a member of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation committee, posted that Isaacman had been 'a strong choice by President Trump to lead Nasa'.
Related: Universe's mysteries may never be solved because of Trump's Nasa cuts, experts say
'I was proud to introduce Jared at his hearing and strongly oppose efforts to derail his nomination,' Sheehy said.
Some scientists saw the nominee change as further destabilizing to Nasa as it faces dramatic budget cuts without a confirmed leader in place to navigate political turbulence between Congress, the White House and the space agency's workforce.
'So not having [Isaacman] as boss of Nasa is bad news for the agency,' Harvard-Smithsonian astronomer Jonathan McDowell posted.
'Maybe a good thing for Jared himself though, since being Nasa head right now is a bit of a Kobayashi Maru scenario,' McDowell added, referring to an exercise in the science fiction franchise Star Trek where cadets are placed in a no-win scenario.
With Reuters
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Who is in the lead? Early voting results for Abilene runoff election
Here are the unofficial early voting results of the runoff election in Taylor County. Incumbent Kyle McAlister and Miguel Espinoza were the top two vote-getters in the May 3 general election for Abilene City Council Place 5. In a three-way field including Cynthia Alvidrez, no candidate garnered 50% plus at least one vote to avoid a runoff. The polls closed at 7 p.m. on Saturday. As of then, 2,536 or 3.7% of Taylor County's 68,816 registered voters participated at the polls or by mail-in ballots. Early voting results show Espinoza has earned 59.01% of the votes. McAlister follows with 40.99% votes earned. Full results will be found online later at Results include absentee voting and early voting at this time. New business page-turner: National retailer expected to open soon in Abilene When is the southside Braum's opening in Abilene? This article originally appeared on Abilene Reporter-News: Here are the results of the Abilene City Council Place 5 runoff election
Fox News
29 minutes ago
- Fox News
Lara Trump: China wants to replace us
All times eastern FOX News Saturday Night with Jimmy Failla FOX News Radio Live Channel Coverage WATCH LIVE: President Trump attends UFC event in Newark, New Jersey
USA Today
29 minutes ago
- USA Today
4 Social Security changes Washington could make to prevent benefit cuts
4 Social Security changes Washington could make to prevent benefit cuts Show Caption Hide Caption Biden criticizes Trump administration's handling of Social Security Social Security overhaul sparks criticism from Biden over service disruptions, layoffs and automation as Trump defends changes as efficiency. Straight Arrow News Social Security is an important source of income for millions of Americans, but the program has a serious financial problem. Costs have increased faster than revenues in recent years because the aging population is growing more quickly than the working population. As a result, the trust fund, the financial account that pays benefits, is on track to be depleted within a decade. Specifically, the Congressional Budget Office estimates the trust fund will be exhausted in 2034. That would eliminate one source of revenue (i.e., interest earned on trust fund reserves), and the remaining tax revenues would only cover 77% of scheduled payments. That means a 23% benefit cut would be necessary in 2035. Fortunately, the lawmakers in Washington have several years to find a better solution. Here are four Social Security changes that could prevent deep, across-the-board benefit cuts. 1. Apply the Social Security payroll tax to income above $400,000 Social Security is primarily funded by a dedicated payroll tax, which takes 6.2% of wages from workers and employers. But some income is exempt from the payroll tax. Specifically, the maximum taxable earnings limit is $176,100 in 2025. Income above that threshold is not taxed by Social Security. Importantly, the Social Security program is projected to run a $23 trillion deficit over the next 75 years as it's strained by shifting demographics. But the deficit could be slashed by applying the payroll tax to more income. For instance, including income above $400,000 would eliminate 60% of the 75-year funding shortfall, says the University of Maryland. 2. Gradually increase the Social Security payroll tax rate to 6.5% over six years Under current law, the Social Security payroll tax rate is 6.2% for workers and their employers. But gradually raising that figure would eliminate a portion of the long-term deficit. For example, increasing thetax rate by 0.05% annually over a six-year period would eliminate 15% of the 75-year funding shortfall, according to the University of Maryland. Now that I've discussed two possible changes, let's step back and look at the big picture. There are basically three ways to resolve Social Security's financial problems: (1) increase revenue, (2) reduce costs or (3) some combination of the first two options. The changes discussed so far would increase revenue, but the next two changes would cut benefits. However, they are more subtle cuts than the 23% across-the-board reduction that would follow trust fund depletion. 3. Gradually increase full retirement age to 68 by 2033 Workers are eligible for retirement benefits at age 62, but they are not entitled to their full benefit — also called the primary insurance amount (PIA) — until full retirement age (FRA). Anyone that claims before full retirement age receives a smaller payout, meaning they get less than 100% of their PIA. FRA is currently defined as 67 years old for workers born in 1960 or later, but raising the figure would reduce the long-term deficit. For instance, increasing FRA to 68 years old by 2033, meaning it would apply to workers born in 1965 or later, would eliminate 15% of the 75-year funding shortfall, according to the University of Maryland. 4. Reduce benefits for retired workers with income in the top 20% Social Security benefits are determined as percentages of two bend points. Specifically, income from the 35 highest-paid years of work is adjusted for inflation and converted to a monthly figure called the average indexed monthly earnings (AIME) amount. The AIME is then run through a formula that uses two bend points to determine the PIA for each worker. Modifying the second (highest) bend point would eliminate a portion of the long-term deficit by reducing benefits for high earners. For instance, the University of Maryland estimates that reducing benefits for individuals with income in the top 20% could reduce the 75-year funding deficit by 11%. Here's the big picture: The four changes I've discussed would eliminate 101% of Social Security's $23 trillion funding shortfall, which would prevent across-the-board benefit cuts in 2035. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. The Motley Fool is a USA TODAY content partner offering financial news, analysis and commentary designed to help people take control of their financial lives. Its content is produced independently of USA TODAY. The $23,760 Social Security bonus most retirees completely overlook Offer from the Motley Fool: If you're like most Americans, you're a few years (or more) behind on your retirement savings. But a handful of little-known "Social Security secrets"could help ensure a boost in your retirement income. One easy trick could pay you as much as $23,760 more... each year! Once you learn how to maximize your Social Security benefits, we think you could retire confidently with the peace of mind we're all after. JoinStock Advisorto learn more about these strategies. View the "Social Security secrets" »
