Trump’s unconventional NASA pick signals Mars intentions in confirmation hearing

NASA does not have any concrete plans to send humans to the red planet. The agency has said it views lunar exploration as an important precursor to Mars missions. However, Isaacman said he will “prioritize sending American astronauts to Mars.”

Editor's note: Sign up for CNN’s Wonder Theory science newsletter. Explore the universe with news on fascinating discoveries, scientific advancements and more.

(CNN) — President Donald Trump’s pick to run NASA, Jared Isaacman, made waves Wednesday by signaling his intention to create a new focus on Mars exploration.

A confirmation hearing for Isaacman — the billionaire CEO of payments platform company Shift4 who has twice paid to fly aboard SpaceX capsules — kicked off before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation at 10 a.m. ET. The committee is not expected to vote on Isaacman’s confirmation until after lawmakers reconvene from a two-week break that ends April 28.

During the hearing, Isaacman faced wide-ranging questions about how NASA’s priorities might change under his leadership.

For months, the space agency and its commercial and international partners have faced uncertainty about how the Trump administration may seek to realign NASA’s missions to focus on Mars, rather than the moon.

If such a shift plays out, it could lead to changes for NASA’s Artemis program, which was announced during Trump’s first term and marked a renewed focus on lunar exploration. The Artemis I mission, for example, sent a crew-worthy spacecraft on a test flight around the moon in 2022. Artemis ultimately aims to return astronauts to the lunar surface and eventually create a permanent human settlement on the moon.

Notably, however, Mars has long been the destination of choice touted by Elon Musk, the founder and CEO of SpaceX who over the past year has become a close confidant of Trump and invested at least $260 million in his presidential campaign.

Currently, NASA does not have any concrete plans to send humans to the red planet, though the agency has routinely said it views lunar exploration as an important precursor to Mars missions.

However, Isaacman told the committee he will “prioritize sending American astronauts to Mars.”

“Along the way, we will inevitably have the capabilities to return to the Moon and determine the scientific, economic, and national security benefits of maintaining a presence on the lunar surface,” according to Isaacman’s prepared opening statement.

Moon vs. Mars

Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have been wary of a potential shift in focus and possible changes to NASA’s Artemis moon program.

Sen. Ted Cruz, a Republican from Texas, has publicly emphasized his view that NASA must continue focusing on lunar exploration.

On Monday, for example, he shared on social media platform X a photograph of himself and Isaacman shaking hands in Washington, DC.

“During our meeting, Mr. Isaacman committed to having American astronauts return to the lunar surface ASAP so we can develop the technologies needed to go on to Mars,” Cruz’s post read.

“The moon mission MUST happen in President Trump’s term or else China will beat us there and build the first moonbase.”

Those remarks stand in contrast to Musk’s emphasis on Mars. The SpaceX CEO said in a social media post on X last week, for example, that “stopping at the Moon simply slows down getting to Mars.”

Exactly how Isaacman will balance appeasing moon and Mars advocates — and how the changes he may implement will shift contract dollars — remains to be seen.

Cruz sought to get at the issue with his first question to Isaacman, saying he saw “a bit of tension between the commitment you made in my office and your testimony.”

Isaacman responded with a conciliatory tone, replying “we don’t have to make a binary decision of Moon versus Mars.”

“I don’t think we have to make any tough trades here,” he added.

When pressed about whether the agency would be able to pursue moon and Mars exploration — as well as keep up with its science priorities — under its current budget, Isaacman said, “I sure hope so; NASA was built to do the near impossible.”

What’s certain is that Isaacman, if confirmed, would bring a unique background to the role of NASA administrator. The position is typically occupied by civil servants, engineers, scientists or, more recently, politicians.

Isaacman also acknowledged his unconventional credentials to the committee members.

“I am not a typical nominee for this position. I have been relatively apolitical; I am not a scientist and I never worked at NASA,” Issacman plans to tell the committee, according to his prepared remarks. “I do not think these are weaknesses. In fact, I believe President Trump found them to be strengths. And if confirmed, I will bring all my experience to the greatest adventure in human history — the quest to discover the secrets of the universe.”

If confirmed, Isaacman would be only the fourth of 15 NASA administrators to have actually traveled to space.

Isaacman’s reception

Isaacman’s nomination has been met with some skepticism, as well as widespread optimism and enthusiasm from space industry leaders.

A group of high-profile former astronauts, for example, cosigned a letter to Senate Commerce committee leadership advocating for Isaacman’s approval.

“We believe that Jared Isaacman is uniquely qualified to lead NASA at this critical juncture,” the letter states. “Jared will be able to apply his vision and business acumen to make NASA a continued leader and fulfill its mission of exploration, inspiration, and discovery while expanding commercial opportunities that benefit all Americans.”

RIFs and reorganization

Isaacman, however, also faced questions about potential conflicts of interest, as he has invested millions of dollars into SpaceX, and was pursuing a multimission development program with the company. (According to a document outlining his plan to comply with ethics laws, Isaacman said he will resign as CEO of Shift4 Payments but will retain his financial interest in the company — which holds SpaceX stock — if confirmed for the NASA post.)

Isaacman also has a close relationship with Musk, who is heading the recently established Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE.

The initiative has been working to implement sweeping spending cuts and workforce reductions across the federal government. Democratic lawmakers have cried foul over DOGE’s interactions with NASA, saying that Musk could use his role at DOGE to curry favor for SpaceX.

The company holds billions of dollars’ worth of contracts with NASA and is set to compete for more lucrative deals with the agency in the coming years.

DOGE and NASA also assembled a “Tiger Team” that worked to pinpoint how the agency might cut spending and downsize its staff. Already, the space agency has shuttered two of its top policy offices and scrubbed references to gender and racial diversity from its websites and communications in response to Trump’s executive order to abandon diversity, equity and inclusion programs.

The changes have rankled some high-ranking staff and career professionals at NASA.

“There’s a massive concern across the agency that, among other issues, we’re going to have significant brain drain that will affect not only current missions but engineering and science for generations to come,” one NASA employee told CNN in March.

Isaacman said Wednesday that he has not exchanged communications with Musk regarding his plans to run NASA. And when asked by Sen. Gary Peters, a Democrat from Michigan, how he would ensure Musk does not have “undue influence” over the agency — Isaacman said, “I absolutely want to be clear, my loyalty is to this nation, the space agency and their world changing mission.”

Isaacman, however, declined repeatedly to say whether Musk was in the room when Trump offered Isaacman the role of NASA chief or detail his interactions with the SpaceX CEO at Mar-a-Lago.

Cuts to science

Isaacman would helm NASA as its workforce is bracing for potentially drastic cuts to the space agency’s science initiatives.

While NASA is perhaps best known for its human spaceflight endeavors, it’s also responsible for carrying out billions of dollars’ worth of scientific research — including climate studies and space telescope projects that aim to investigate the origins of the universe.

Some NASA staffers have told CNN they are bracing for workforce reductions and budget cuts to the tune of 50%.

Cuts of that size would “have devastating consequences for both the country and for NASA,” said George Whitesides, the vice ranking member of the House science committee during a hearing on April 1.

It is not certain at this point, however, that NASA will be expected to make such drastic cuts. The Trump administration has not yet released its budget request, and NASA has not revealed the contents of an agency reorganization plan that leadership — including acting NASA Administrator Janet Petro — hashed out alongside DOGE in March.

Isaacman named science as one of his top priorities during opening remarks Wednesday.

“We will leverage NASA’s scientific talent and capabilities to enable academic institutions and industry to increase the rate of world-changing discoveries,” he said. “We will launch more telescopes, more probes, more rovers and endeavor to better understand our planet and the universe beyond.”

The future of the ISS and SLS

It’s also unclear whether Isaacman may seek to implement changes to plans involving other NASA programs, such as the International Space Station or Gateway, a space station NASA intends to put in orbit around the moon.

The football field-size International Space Statoin has continually hosted rotating crews of astronauts for nearly 25 years. NASA has insisted that it must have alternative space stations in orbit around Earth before the agency winds down ISS operations, which cost about $3 billion per year.

But Musk made waves in February when he publicly asserted that the space station has “served its purpose” and should be disposed of in the next couple of years — far faster than NASA’s current timeline to continue the orbiting laboratory’s operations through at least 2030.

When asked about the topic Wednesday, Isaacman said he doesn’t “know of any reason why we should be bringing (the space station) down before what’s currently scheduled” — indicating he may not work to expedite its demise.

Isaacman, however, hedged when asked whether he might seek to cancel the Gateway program. “I have no intention — as of now — to say that I would cancel any program,” he said. “If I can get in the job and understand where things are at, I want to assure you and this committee that I want to see America win.”

Other issues on the table Wednesday included speculation that the Trump administration may move to cancel NASA’s Space Launch System (SLS) rocket.

When asked about SLS on Wednesday, Isaacman said on that he understands NASA’s current plan is to use the rocket to send astronauts to the moon.

“I do believe (SLS) is the best and fastest way to get there,” Isaacman said.

But, he added, “I don’t think it’s the long-term way to get to and from the moon and to Mars with great frequency.”

The-CNN-Wire™ & © 2025 Cable News Network, Inc., a Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All rights reserved.

Report a Typo