Trump pulls Musk ally's NASA nomination
By Joey Roulette and Trevor Hunnicutt
The White House on Saturday withdrew its nominee for NASA administrator, Jared Isaacman, abruptly yanking a close ally of Elon Musk from consideration to lead the space agency.
President 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," Trump wrote on his Truth Social site. "I will soon announce a new Nominee who will be Mission aligned, and put America First in Space."
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 U.S. 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, did not respond to a request for comment.
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 Department of Government Efficiency 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 retired U.S. Air Force Lieutenant General Steven Kwast, an early advocate for the creation of the U.S. Space Force and Trump supporter, according to three people familiar with the discussions.
Isaacman, the former CEO of 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 U.S. can plan for travel to both destinations.
As a potential leader of NASA's some 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.
Montana Republican Tim Sheehy, a member of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation committee, wrote on X that Isaacman "was a strong choice by President Trump to lead NASA" in response to reports of his departure.
"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 said on X.
"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.
© Thomson Reuters 2025.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yomiuri Shimbun
8 hours ago
- Yomiuri Shimbun
Are 4.8 Million People on Medicaid ‘Cheating the System'?
Matt McClain/The Washington Post House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-Louisiana) speaks during a news conference. 'You've got about 4.8 million people on Medicaid right now nationwide who are able-bodied workers, young men, for example, who are not working, who are taking advantage of the system. If you are able to work and you refuse to do so, you are defrauding the system. You're cheating the system.' – House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-Louisiana), interviewed on CBS's 'Face the Nation,' May 25 With the passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill in the House, which included new work requirements for Medicaid, the health-care program for the poor, Republicans led by Johnson made the case that the legislation was necessary because there were nearly 5 million freeloaders in the system – an example of what Johnson called 'fraud, waste and abuse' that is draining federal coffers. Because the bill also includes tax cuts, the Congressional Budget Office says it will boost federal budget deficits by more than $2 trillion over 10 years, a finding that has irritated Johnson – but that's another story. We became interested in the origin of the 4.8 million figure. It didn't track with a February study by KFF, a nonprofit health-policy organization, on the 26.1 million people who used Medicaid. Most people who did not work were caregivers, parents, students or had a disability, according to 2024 Current Population Survey data analyzed by KFF. Only 8 percent fell in a category of 'not working due to retirement, inability to find work, or other reason' – which adds up to only about 2 million people. So Johnson's figure is more than double. The speaker's office directed us to the House Energy and Commerce Committee as the source of the figure. The committee provided documentation that the number was generated by the CBO. And therein lies a tale. The facts The CBO is a nonpartisan committee staffed by dedicated professionals. But they are bound by the requests made to them by members of Congress. This month, for instance, Democrats claimed that 13.7 million Americans would lose health insurance because of the House bill, citing the CBO. As the New York Times reported, Democrats came up with that figure by also asking the CBO for the impact of a related health-care policy that is due to expire at the end of the year (as originally designed by Democrats). The big number earned headlines – but it was misleading. The figure of 4.8 million promoted by Johnson requires some interpretation from technical language. The committee provided the CBO language that was the source of the figure. In a May 12 email, a CBO official wrote: 'We plan to communicate that on a stand-alone basis, work requirements reduces the deficit by $300.8 billion, reduces Medicaid coverage by 5.2 million, and increases uninsured by 4.8 million; however, effects on the deficit and coverage are smaller when interacted with other Medicaid policies.' 'Increases uninsured' then was crafted into the talking point of 'adults who can work but are refusing to.' But that doesn't necessarily mean the same thing. Medicaid is funded by states and the federal government. Under the bill, states would be required to mandate that certain Medicaid recipients work at least 20 hours a week – or participate in 'community engagement' activities like volunteering – to keep their coverage. The CBO wrote of 5.2 million people losing Medicaid coverage because of the new rules. But apparently 400,000 would gain insurance in other ways, leaving 4.8 million without insurance. (It also suggested that the numbers would be smaller when combined with other policies in the bill.) Matt VanHyfte, the House Energy and Commerce Committee's communications director, argued that the bar for work requirement is low enough that it's clear these people refused to work. VanHyfte provided a list of the exemptions to work requirements given to the CBO when doing its calculations. One was 'under age 19 or age 65 or older (or a former foster youth under the age of 26).' But, in 2023, when the House GOP pushed a different Medicaid bill with work requirements, it also exempted people 55 to 64. According to KFF's research, less than half of the people in that age group have jobs. Jennifer Tolbert, deputy director of KFF's program on Medicaid and the uninsured, said that people in this age range have higher rates of disability or may be retired. (Social Security benefits can be received as early as 62.) Republicans haven't emphasized this shift in policy – which we suspect could be a factor in the CBO's estimate of a big increase in uninsured people – and instead have focused, as Johnson did on 'Face the Nation,' on 'young men' gaming the system. In April, Johnson colorfully put it: 'You return the dignity of work to young men who need to be out working instead of playing video games all day.' But that's a relatively small universe. Jim Stimpson, a health economics professor at UT Southwestern Medical System, crunched the numbers in the 2023 American Community Survey for us and calculated that about 1.65 million men ages 19 to 25 are unmarried and unemployed while on Medicaid. (Almost 1.5 million men in that age group are employed.) So even if each of those men lost their access to Medicaid, there's supposedly an additional 3.2 million people who also lost their coverage. VanHyfte acknowledged adding work requirements for the 55-to-64 age group is big shift from 2023. But he said the policy is drafted to 'more explicitly exempt people with disabilities on a broader scale.' The CBO has not yet released a full report explaining its estimates or assumptions; in fact, the figure cited by Republicans is preliminary and does not reflect the final legislative language as passed by Congress. VanHyfte said, however, he did not expect the number to change. The 2023 bill was modeled on an Arkansas work requirement program that, according to a 2020 Harvard study published in Health Affairs, led to a drop in the number of insured while not increasing the number of people who worked because of burdensome paperwork requirements. When the CBO evaluated the 2023 bill, it calculated 1.5 million people would lose health insurance, relying in part on the Arkansas experience. By contrast, the Medicaid provisions of the new bill is modeled after a Georgia program called Pathways to Coverage and requires verification of work at the time of enrollment. VanHyfte said the CBO studied the effect of the Georgia program when doing its analysis. 'The CBO score for the 2023 bill cannot be used to compare the two because they are fundamentally two different policies,' VanHyfte said. One major change is that the 2023 bill allowed people to reenroll in Medicaid after a three-month lockout period, even if they still weren't meeting the work requirements. In contrast, the 2025 House bill allows individuals to reenroll only if they do meet the requirements – which can include working at least 80 hours a month (or earning the equivalent of minimum wage for that time), volunteering or attending school part-time. 'The bar is low and if folks are uninsured, it's because they chose not to comply,' VanHyfte said. 'Given all the exemptions, notices and grace periods, the people who would not comply with the requirements would be those who refuse to work.' The bottom line All estimates depend on assumptions. The CBO determined that 4.8 million would lose Medicaid insurance if the House bill became law. The House GOP has concluded that this means these people refuse to work and are therefore 'cheating the system.' Without access to the full CBO analysis, that's a big assumption. The CBO appeared to predict what might happen under the new law – not what people are doing now. But it's ironic that Johnson is relying on the CBO for this estimate when he's also attacking the agency for its deficit forecast for the same bill.
Japan Today
16 hours ago
- Japan Today
Elon Musk came to Washington wielding a chain saw. He leaves behind upheaval and unmet expectations
By CHRIS MEGERIAN Elon Musk holds up a chainsaw he received from Argentina's President Javier Milei, right, as they arrive to speak at the Conservative Political Action Conference, CPAC, at the Gaylord National Resort & Convention Center, on Feb 20, 2025, in Oxon Hill, Md. Elon Musk arrived in the nation's capital with the chain saw-wielding swagger of a tech titan who had never met a problem he couldn't solve with lots of money, long hours or a well-calibrated algorithm. President Donald Trump was delighted to have the world's richest person — and a top campaign donor — working in his administration, talking about how he was 'a smart guy' who 'really cares for our country.' Musk was suddenly everywhere — holding forth in Cabinet meetings while wearing a 'tech support' shirt and black MAGA hat, hoisting his young son on his shoulders in the Oval Office, flying aboard Air Force One, sleeping in the White House. Democrats described the billionaire entrepreneur as Trump's 'co-president,' and senior officials bristled at his imperial approach to overhauling the federal government. After establishing Tesla as a premier electric automaker, building rockets at SpaceX and reshaping the social media landscape by buying Twitter, Musk was confident that he could bend Washington to his vision. Now that's over. Musk is leaving his job as a senior adviser, an announcement that came after he revealed his plan to curtail political donations and he criticized the centerpiece of Trump's legislative agenda. It's a quiet exit after a turbulent entrance, and he's trailed by upheaval and unmet expectations. Thousands of people were indiscriminately laid off or pushed out — hundreds of whom had to be rehired — and some federal agencies were eviscerated. But no one has been prosecuted for the fraud that Musk and Trump said was widespread within the government. Musk reduced his target for cutting spending from $2 trillion to $1 trillion to $150 billion, and even that goal may not be reached. In Silicon Valley, where Musk got his start as a founder of PayPal, his kind of promises are known as vaporware — a product that sounds extraordinary yet never gets shipped to market. Trump, who once called Musk 'a truly great American' and 'a patriot,' said nothing about the departure. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said: 'We thank him for his service.' Musk's position was always designed to be temporary, and he had previously announced his intention to dedicate more of his time to his companies. But he also told reporters last month that he was willing to work part-time for Trump 'indefinitely, as long as the president wants me to do it.' It was clear that Musk wouldn't be the typical kind of presidential adviser around the time that he showed the world his belly button. Racing on stage at a campaign rally one month before the election, he jumped for joy next to Trump, his T-shirt rising to expose his midriff. Musk had already sold Trump on his idea for a Department of Government Efficiency while also putting at least $250 million behind his candidacy. The plan called for a task force to hunt for waste, fraud and abuse, a timeworn idea with a new twist. Instead of putting together a blue-ribbon panel of government experts, Trump would give his top donor a desk in the White House and what appeared to be carte blanche to make changes. Musk deployed software engineers who burrowed into sensitive databases, troubling career officials who sometimes chose to resign rather than go along. Trump brushed off concerns about Musk's lack of experience in public service or conflicts of interest from his billions of dollars in federal contracts. Their unlikely partnership had the potential for a generational impact on American politics and government. While Musk dictated orders for government departments from his perch in the White House, he was poised to use his wealth to enforce loyalty to the president. His language was that of catastrophism. Excessive spending was a crisis that could only be solved by drastic measures, Musk claimed, and 'if we don't do this, America will go bankrupt.' But even though he talked about his work in existential terms, he treated the White House like a playground. He brought his children to a meeting with the Indian prime minister. He let the president turn the driveway into a makeshift Tesla showroom to help boost sales. He installed an oversized screen in his office that he occasionally used to play video games. Sometimes, Trump invited Musk to sleep over in the Lincoln Bedroom. 'We'll be on Air Force One, Marine One, and he'll be like, 'do you want to stay over?'' Musk told reporters. The president made sure he got some caramel ice cream from the kitchen. 'This stuff's amazing,' Musk said. 'I ate a whole tub of it.' Looking back on his experience in government, he described it as a lark. 'It is funny that we've got DOGE,' an acronym that references an online meme featuring a surprised-looking dog from Japan. 'How did we get here?' From the beginning, Musk treated federal workers with contempt. At best, they were inefficient; at worst, they were committing fraud. His team offered them a 'fork in the road,' meaning they could get paid to quit. Probationary employees, generally people new on the job without full civil service protection, were shown the door. Anyone who stayed faced escalating demands, such as what became known as the 'five things' emails. Musk wanted every government employee to submit a list of five things they accomplished in the previous week, and he claimed that 'failure to respond will be taken as a resignation.' Some administration officials curtailed the plan, concerned that it could jeopardize security in more sensitive areas of the government, and it eventually faded, an early sign of Musk's struggle to get traction. But in the meantime, he continued issuing orders like thunderbolts. One day in February, Musk posted 'CFPB RIP,' plus an emoji of a tombstone. The headquarters of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, created after the Great Recession to protect Americans from fraud and deceptive practices, was shut down and employees were ordered to stop working. Musk had already started gutting the U.S. Agency for International Development, a pillar of the country's foreign policy establishment and the world's largest provider of humanitarian assistance. 'Spent the weekend feeding USAID into a wood chipper,' he bragged. Thousands of contacts were cut off, pleasing conservatives who disliked the agency's progressive initiatives on climate change and gay rights. Musk rejected concerns about the loss of a crucial lifeline for impoverished people around the globe, saying, 'no one has died.' However, children who once relied on American assistance perished from malnutrition, and the death toll is expected to increase. The lawsuits began piling up. Sometimes workers got their jobs back, only to lose them again. The Food and Drug Administration, which is responsible for ensuring the safety of everything from baby formula to biotech drugs, planned to lay off 3,500 employees. But again and again, the agency was forced to rehire people who were initially deemed expendable, including laboratory scientists, travel bookers and document specialists. Commissioner Marty Makary, who started his job after many of the cuts took place, told attendees at a recent conference that 'it was hard and my job is to make sure we can heal from that.' Only 1,900 layoffs took place, but another 1,200 staffers took buyouts or early retirement. Experts fear the agency has lost much of its institutional knowledge and expertise in areas like vaccines, tobacco and food. There are also concerns about safety on public lands. The National Park Service has been bleeding staff, leaving fewer people to maintain trails, clean restrooms and guide visitors. More cuts at the Forest Service could undermine efforts to prevent and fight wildfires. The Environmental Protection Agency faces a broad overhaul, such as gutting the Office of Research and Development, which was responsible for improving air pollution monitoring and discovering harmful chemicals in drinking water. Not even low-profile organizations were exempt. Trump ordered the downsizing of the U.S. Institute of Peace, a nonprofit think tank created by Congress, and Musk's team showed up to carry out his plan. The organizations' leaders were deposed, then reinstated after a court battle. The bulk of federal spending goes to health care programs like Medicaid and Medicare, plus Social Security and the military. Unfortunately for Musk, all of those areas are politically sensitive and generally require congressional approval to make changes. Thousands of civilian workers were pushed out at the Pentagon, and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is reducing the ranks of top generals and looking to consolidate various commands. A plan to downsize an office for testing and evaluating new weapons systems could save $300 million per year. Hegseth recently asked employees to submit one idea per week for cutting waste. However, the Pentagon budget would increase by $150 billion, for a total of more than $900 billion, under Trump's spending proposal working its way through Congress. The money includes $25 billion to lay the groundwork for Trump's 'golden dome' missile defense program and $34 billion to expand the naval fleet with more shipbuilding. Another $45 million is expected to be spent on a military parade on June 14, which is the 250th anniversary of the Army's founding and Trump's 79th birthday. Musk also faced blowback for targeting Social Security, which provides monthly benefits to retirees and some children. He suggested that the popular program was 'a Ponzi scheme' and the government could save between $500 billion and $700 billion by tackling waste and fraud. However, his estimates were inflated. Social Security's inspector general said there was only $71.8 billion in improper payments over eight years. Nor was there any evidence that millions of dead people were receiving benefits. Changes to Social Security phone services, pitched as a way to eliminate opportunities for fraud, were walked back after an outcry from lawmakers and beneficiaries. But the agency could still shed 7,000 workers while closing some of its offices. Musk's popularity cratered even though Americans often agreed with his premise that the federal government is bloated and wasteful, according to polling from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. Just 33% of U.S. adults had a favorable view of Musk in April, down from 41% in December. In addition, 65% said Musk had too much influence over the federal government. During a campaign rally in October, Musk said he could find 'at least $2 trillion' in spending cuts. In January, before Trump was inaugurated, he revised by saying, 'if we try for $2 trillion, we've got a good shot at getting one.' But in April, at a Cabinet meeting, Musk provided a different target. He was 'excited to announce' that they could reach $150 billion in savings during the current fiscal year. Whether that figure proves to be accurate is difficult to measure, especially because DOGE routinely inflated or mischaracterized its work. But it falls short of President Bill Clinton's initiative three decades ago, which resulted in $136 billion in savings — the equivalent of more than $240 billion today. Elaine Kamarck, a key figure in the Clinton administration, said they focused on making the government more responsive and updating antiquated internal procedures. The work took years. 'We went about it methodically, department by department,' she said. The effort also reduced the federal workforce by more than 400,000 employees. However, Musk did little to seek insight from people who knew the inner workings of government. 'They made some changes without really knowing what they were doing,' said Alex Nowrasteh, vice president for economic and social policy studies for the libertarian think tank Cato Institute. He said there were 'a lot of unforced errors.' In the end, Nowrasteh said, 'they set themselves up for failure.' Associated Press writers Tom Beaumont in Des Moines and Lolita Baldor, Matthew Daly, Gary Fields, Fatima Hussein, Ellen Knickmeyer, Matthew Perrone, Michelle Price and Amelia Thomson DeVeaux in Washington contributed to this report. © Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.
Japan Today
17 hours ago
- Japan Today
Trump officials visiting Alaska to discuss gas pipeline and oil drilling
FILE - The Kaktovik Lagoon and the Brooks Range mountains of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge are seen in Kaktovik, Alaska, Oct. 15, 2024. (AP Photo/Lindsey Wasson, File) By BECKY BOHRER The Trump administration is sending three cabinet members to Alaska this week as it pursues oil drilling in the pristine Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and reinvigorating a natural gas project that's languished for years. The visit by Department of Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, Energy Secretary Chris Wright and Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin comes after Trump signed an executive order earlier this year aimed at boosting oil and gas drilling, mining and logging in Alaska. It also comes amid tariff talks with Asian countries that are seen as possible leverage for the administration to secure investments in the proposed Alaska liquefied natural gas project. Their itinerary includes a meeting Sunday with resource development groups and U.S. Sens. Dan Sullivan and Lisa Murkowski in Anchorage before heading to Utqiagvik, an Arctic town on the petroleum-rich North Slope where many Alaska Native leaders see oil development as economically vital to the region. The federal officials also plan to visit the Prudhoe Bay oil field Monday — near the coast of the Arctic Ocean and more than 850 miles (1,368 kilometers) north of Anchorage — and speak at Republican Gov. Mike Dunleavy's annual energy conference Tuesday in Anchorage. While it's not unusual for U.S. officials to visit Alaska during warmer weather months, Dunleavy's office said the officials' visit is significant. Dunleavy, a Trump ally, said he is thankful for an administration that 'recognizes Alaska's unique value.' Government and industry representatives from a number of Asian countries, including Japan, are expected to participate in a portion of the trip, reflecting pressure from the U.S. to invest in the pipeline — despite skepticism and opposition from environmental groups. In Alaska, some environmentalists criticized the agenda for Dunleavy's conference. Highlighting fossil fuels alongside renewable or alternative energy make 'energy sources of the past look more legitimate at a conference like this," said Andy Moderow, senior policy director with the Alaska Wilderness League. 'I think we should be looking at climate solutions that work for Alaskans, not trying to open up places that industry is taking a pass on, namely the Arctic refuge,' he said. Trump has long taken credit for provisions of a 2017 tax law championed by Alaska's congressional delegation that called for two oil and gas lease sales in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge's coastal plain by late 2024. The first one remains the subject of ongoing litigation, with the main bidder a state corporation that saw its seven leases later canceled by then-President Joe Biden's administration. A judge in March ruled Biden's administration overstepped, and the Interior Department, in line with Trump's executive order, is working to reinstate the leases. There weren't any bids in the second sale, held under Biden and blasted by the state as overly restrictive. Debate over drilling in the refuge — home to polar bears, musk ox, birds and other wildlife — has long been a flashpoint. Indigenous Gwich'in leaders consider the coastal plain sacred land, noting its importance to a caribou herd they rely upon. Many North Slope Iñupiat leaders who support drilling in the refuge felt their voices were not heard during the Biden era. During the Trump officials' visit, they also hope to make a case for additional development in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska, which Trump has advocated, and for being included in planning decisions. Nagruk Harcharek, president of Voice of the Arctic Iñupiat, an advocacy group whose members include leaders from the region, called the officials' visit 'a step in the right direction.' For years, the state has sought to develop its stores of North Slope natural gas as a way to provide affordable energy to more residents and bolster revenues via exports. But cost concerns, shifts in direction, competition from other projects and questions about economic feasibility have stymied progress. Oil companies have long reinjected gas that occurs with oil deposits on the slope to produce more oil, which remains Alaska's economic lifeblood. The latest gas proposal calls for a roughly 810-mile (1,300-kilometer) pipeline that would carry gas from the North Slope to port and a facility that would process and export liquefied natural gas to Asian countries. In a March speech to Congress, Trump touted his ongoing support of the 'gigantic natural gas pipeline." He said countries like Japan and South Korea 'want to be our partner, with investments of trillions of dollars each.' No firm commitments from countries have been made. The company advancing the project — in partnership with a state corporation — is in a stage of refining cost estimates, previously pegged at around $44 billion for the pipeline and related infrastructure, before final decisions are made on whether to move forward with the project. While Dunleavy has likened Trump's friendly approach to energy development as 'Christmas every day,' Alaska's fortunes remain tightly linked to the volatility of oil prices, which are down sharply from a year ago, squeezing state revenues. State lawmakers across party lines overwhelmingly passed a resolution urging Congress to provide Alaska with 90% of royalty revenues for oil and gas leases in the Arctic refuge, arguing the U.S. government reneged on past promises for such a share. The resolution also asked for that to be extended to the petroleum reserve. Alaska's tax structure allows companies like ConocoPhillips Alaska — which is pursuing a massive oil project known as Willow in the reserve — to write off a portion of their development costs against production taxes they incur elsewhere on the North Slope. While lawmakers widely support Willow, they also have argued a change in federal royalty share would address a hit to state revenues created by production in the reserve. © Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.
