The new space race is no longer a metaphor. President Donald Trump’s choice to lead NASA, billionaire private astronaut Jared Isaacman, is warning that if the United States lets China plant a lasting flag on the Moon first, Washington could lose a critical edge in space and on Earth for a generation. His message to lawmakers is blunt: in a contest where lunar bases translate into economic and military leverage, a single strategic misstep could leave America permanently behind.
Isaacman is not just promising to keep pace with Beijing, he is arguing that the United States must set the tempo, even if that means reshaping NASA’s priorities and accepting more risk. In his telling, the Moon is no longer a distant scientific prize but the front line of a “second space race” that will define who writes the rules for cislunar space, deep-space exploration and the technologies that flow back into everyday life.
Isaacman’s nomination and the rare second hearing
Jared Isaacman arrives in Washington as an unusual kind of NASA nominee, a billionaire entrepreneur and private astronaut who has already flown in orbit and now wants to run the agency that made those flights possible. President Donald Trump tapped him to be NASA administrator after Isaacman built his reputation funding and commanding private missions, positioning him as a bridge between government programs and the booming commercial space sector. That background is central to how he frames the Moon race, as both a geopolitical contest and a test of whether the United States can harness private capital and innovation faster than its rivals.
His path to the job has been anything but routine. During his second confirmation hearing, a rarity for a NASA chief, Isaacman faced questions that went beyond his resume and into the heart of how he would manage classified programs and public trust. Senators pressed him in the wake of the Project Athena leak, which exposed details of a Pentagon-linked concept to orbit the Moon without landing on it, and they probed whether his close ties to commercial operators could skew NASA’s agenda. The very fact that the Senate demanded a second round underscored how much is riding on the next administrator’s choices.
The Moon as a strategic high ground
Isaacman’s core argument is that the Moon is no longer just a destination for prestige missions, it is the strategic high ground of the twenty-first century. He has told senators that whoever establishes a sustained presence on the lunar surface will gain a commanding position over the orbits and resources that surround Earth, with direct implications for communications, navigation and national defense. In his view, the Moon’s poles, with their suspected water ice and favorable lighting, are the equivalent of prime real estate in a new geopolitical map, and ceding them to a rival would be a historic mistake.
That framing reflects a broader anxiety in Washington that the United States is no longer the uncontested leader in space. Lawmakers on Capitol Hill have been hearing for years that a “second space race” is underway, this time with China as the primary competitor rather than the Soviet Union. Isaacman has leaned into that language, warning that if Beijing is first to build a permanent base, it could shape norms around lunar resource extraction and traffic management in ways that disadvantage American companies and the U.S. military. His testimony has effectively turned the Moon into a proxy for a much larger struggle over technological and strategic dominance.
China’s lunar ambitions and Washington’s anxiety
Behind Isaacman’s urgency is a clear assessment of what China is doing. Beijing has invested heavily in a methodical lunar program, from robotic landers to sample-return missions, and Chinese officials have spoken openly about plans for a joint research station on the Moon’s surface. To Isaacman and his allies, those steps are not isolated science projects but milestones in a long-term strategy to secure resources, test dual-use technologies and demonstrate that China can match or surpass American achievements in space.
That is why Isaacman keeps returning to the idea that the United States must not allow China to be the first to establish a lasting foothold on the Moon in this new era. He has told senators that if Washington miscalculates and lets Beijing seize the initiative, “we may never catch up,” a warning that echoes across multiple hearings and interviews. That phrase is not just rhetorical flourish; it captures a fear that once China locks in supply chains, standards and partnerships around lunar infrastructure, the cost of dislodging it would be prohibitive. For a Congress already worried about Chinese advances in 5G, artificial intelligence and hypersonic weapons, the idea of falling behind on the Moon is particularly jarring.
“We may never catch up”: Isaacman’s warning to the Senate
In his public appearances, Isaacman has sharpened his message into a stark choice for lawmakers: either accelerate NASA’s lunar program or accept that the United States could become a permanent second mover in deep space. He has described the Moon race as a narrow window in which decisions on funding, contracting and risk tolerance will determine whether American astronauts are the ones building the first long-term habitats and power systems. If the country hesitates, he argues, it will not just lose a symbolic race, it will forfeit the chance to shape the rules of the road for decades.
That sense of urgency came through clearly when Isaacman told the Senate that if the United States makes a serious mistake in its lunar strategy, it “may never catch up” to its rival. He linked that warning to specific concerns about how NASA prioritizes missions, how quickly it can move hardware from design to launch and how willing it is to rely on commercial partners for critical systems. His comments were detailed enough that they have been cited in coverage of his nomination, with one report highlighting his insistence that the US must beat China to the Moon or risk a permanent disadvantage. For Isaacman, the phrase “never catch up” is not hyperbole but a reflection of how compounding advantages in space can lock in leadership.
Inside the rare second confirmation hearing
Isaacman’s second confirmation hearing became a stage for this broader debate about urgency and risk. Senators used the session to probe whether his rhetoric about beating China would translate into a willingness to cut corners on safety or oversight, especially in light of the Project Athena leak that had already raised questions about transparency. They asked how he would balance classified national security work with NASA’s traditional role as an open, civilian agency, and whether his background as a billionaire entrepreneur might make him too sympathetic to industry at the expense of public accountability.
In response, Isaacman tried to reassure the committee that he could be both aggressive and responsible. He argued that the agency could move faster without sacrificing safety by streamlining decision-making and leaning more heavily on proven commercial systems, rather than reinventing every component in-house. Coverage of the hearing noted that he was expected to “stress moon race urgency” in this second round, and he did exactly that, telling senators in WASHINGTON that delay would only help Beijing. The rare nature of the second hearing underscored how seriously Congress is taking both the Moon race and the ethical questions around how to run it.
Capitol Hill’s “second space race” mindset
Isaacman’s warnings are landing in a political environment already primed to see the Moon as part of a larger strategic contest. On Capitol Hill, lawmakers have been talking about a “second space race” for years, haunted by the idea that Beijing could replay the shock of Sputnik with a dramatic lunar milestone. That anxiety has only grown as Chinese missions have succeeded and as U.S. programs have faced delays and cost overruns. For many in Congress, the question is no longer whether there is a race, but whether Washington is running it with enough focus.
Reporting on Isaacman’s nomination has captured this mood, describing how a sense of urgency has “haunted” Capitol Hill as Beijing advances its own lunar plans. Isaacman has tapped into that sentiment by promising that the US will beat China back to the Moon, but he has also tried to channel it into specific policy choices, such as prioritizing certain missions and technologies over others. In his view, Congress cannot simply declare that there is a race; it has to fund and authorize NASA in ways that reflect that reality, even if that means difficult trade-offs.
Prioritizing the Moon over other NASA missions
One of Isaacman’s most consequential positions is his call for NASA to reorder its mission portfolio around the Moon race. He has argued that the agency must “prioritise” if it wants to win, which in practice means shifting resources and attention away from some long-planned projects and toward those that directly support a sustained lunar presence. That could affect everything from planetary science missions to upgrades of existing observatories, as NASA weighs what is essential to beating China against what is merely desirable.
In public comments, Isaacman has framed this as a matter of strategic clarity rather than neglect. He has said that the agency must be honest about what it can do within its budget and political constraints, and that trying to do everything at once risks doing nothing well. One report on his nomination quoted him saying that “the agency must prioritise” if it is to meet its goals, a line that has become shorthand for his approach. That same coverage noted that he vowed the US will beat China back to the Moon, tying his call for prioritization directly to the geopolitical stakes. For scientists and engineers across NASA, that raises immediate questions about which programs will be elevated and which might be slowed or shelved.
Commercial ties, Musk questions and the balance of power
Isaacman’s candidacy also sits at the intersection of NASA’s growing reliance on private companies and concerns about how much influence those firms should wield. As a billionaire private astronaut who has flown on rockets built by Elon Musk’s companies, he has deep ties to the commercial ecosystem that now launches cargo and crew to orbit. That experience is part of his appeal to President Donald Trump, who has championed public-private partnerships in space, but it also raises questions about conflicts of interest and the concentration of power in a handful of firms.
Those issues surfaced sharply in his Senate hearing, where Isaacman was pressed on his Musk ties and on how he would prevent any single contractor from gaining outsized sway over NASA’s agenda. Senators asked whether his own business interests might color decisions about which companies get key lunar contracts, and how he would ensure that the benefits of the Moon program are broadly shared rather than captured by a few billionaires. Isaacman responded by emphasizing transparency and competition, arguing that a diverse field of providers is essential to both innovation and resilience. Still, the line of questioning highlighted a central tension of the new space race: the same commercial dynamism that can help the United States move faster can also concentrate power in ways that worry policymakers.
Trump’s broader space agenda and the Moon race
Isaacman’s nomination fits neatly into President Donald Trump’s broader approach to space policy, which has emphasized competition with China, support for the private sector and a willingness to frame space achievements in explicitly geopolitical terms. From the creation of the Space Force to the push for new lunar programs, the Trump administration has treated space as a domain where national prestige and security are tightly intertwined. In that context, choosing a billionaire private astronaut who talks openly about beating China to the Moon is less a surprise than a logical extension of the president’s priorities.
Coverage of Isaacman’s hearings has noted that he is expected to echo the administration’s language about urgency and competition, and he has done so in ways that resonate with both the White House and key members of Congress. One report described how he told senators that “this Congress and specifically this committee understands the stakes” in the Moon race, a line that framed lawmakers as partners in a shared project rather than skeptics to be convinced. That same account highlighted how the Trump NASA nominee aims to beat China in a new Moon race, underscoring how central that goal has become to the administration’s narrative. For Trump, a successful lunar program led by Isaacman would be both a policy achievement and a powerful symbol of American resurgence.
What “never catching up” would actually mean
When Isaacman warns that the United States may “never catch up” if it loses the Moon race, he is pointing to a set of concrete consequences rather than an abstract fear. A Chinese-led lunar infrastructure could give Beijing early control over key landing sites, communications relays and resource extraction operations, which in turn could shape who gets access to water ice, rare earth elements and other materials. That control could translate into leverage over international partners and commercial actors, as well as advantages in testing technologies that have both civilian and military applications.
For the United States, falling behind would mean more than bruised pride. It could limit NASA’s ability to set scientific priorities, constrain American companies’ opportunities in a growing lunar economy and complicate the Pentagon’s efforts to secure cislunar space. Isaacman’s argument is that these are path-dependent processes: once one country establishes the first generation of infrastructure and norms, others are forced to adapt to that framework rather than define it. His insistence that a single strategic mistake could have irreversible effects is rooted in this understanding of how early moves in space can lock in advantages for decades. In that sense, his call for urgency is less about chasing headlines and more about shaping the underlying architecture of the next era of exploration.
More from MorningOverview