When NASA Went Woke: The Cost of Diversity over Competence in the Space Race

In 1969, Neil Armstrong took a single step that echoed across centuries. Today, NASA's Artemis program trudges forward with the bureaucratic gait of a midlevel HR department pushing a PowerPoint on pronouns. How did we get here? The answer, in brief: identity politics. Artemis, the ambitious initiative to return Americans to the Moon, has become less a scientific endeavor and more a case study in the consequences of subordinating competence to quotas.

To be clear, Artemis was not always thus. There was a moment, fleeting, but real, when hope reentered NASA's orbit. That moment bore the name Jared Isaacman. But that moment was reportedly snuffed out by Sergio Gor, the Director of the White House Presidential Personnel Office, whose personal vendetta against Elon Musk doomed Isaacman's confirmation. Gor's obstruction did more than kill a nomination, it delayed America's lunar ambitions by at least a year, perhaps more. What might have been a renaissance at NASA became another casualty of palace intrigue.

Isaacman, a self-made billionaire, ace pilot, and commander of private orbital missions, represented precisely the kind of energetic, capable, and forward-thinking leadership the Artemis program required. As the founder of Shift4 Payments and architect of the all-civilian Inspiration4 and Polaris Dawn missions, Isaacman had already accomplished feats NASA once deemed impossible. He cut through the red tape. He got Americans into space, efficiently, affordably, safely. He inspired the public. And unlike the ceremonial caretakers of the federal space bureaucracy, he had actually gone to space himself.

His nomination to lead NASA promised a return to merit, innovation, and clarity of purpose. During his confirmation hearings, Isaacman argued that Artemis should be completed "as fast as possible," advocating for near-term pragmatism (using SLS and Orion) but long-term sustainability through commercial partnerships and reusable launch systems. This was no utopian dream, it was the proven SpaceX model adapted to the public sector. Had Isaacman been confirmed, Artemis might have evolved from an aimless spectacle into a galvanizing national achievement. Instead, the Biden holdovers and bureaucratic inertia won. And what we are left with now is the Artemis experiment, not in lunar science, but in DEI.

The numbers tell the story. Over 60 percent of the Artemis astronaut cadre is composed of women, racial minorities, or LGBTQ-identifying individuals. This is not coincidental. NASA made it clear that the composition of Artemis crews and contractor teams would be evaluated, almost exclusively, on their diversity metrics. The result is that DEI has become a gravitational force within NASA, one powerful enough to bend even rocket science around its ideological pull.

This is not mere rhetoric. The Artemis program's largest infrastructure component, the Mobile Launcher-2, was budgeted at $383 million. It will now cost $1.8 billion and arrive years behind schedule. Orion's development has doubled in cost. The SLS rocket, once heralded as the Apollo program's spiritual heir, has become a symbol of congressional pork and performance failure. While every aerospace project is vulnerable to cost overruns, few have been this catastrophic. One cannot help but ask whether a fixation on demographic checkboxes displaced attention from engineering fundamentals.

Of course, correlation is not causation. But we can draw inferences. NASA's procurement guidelines required doing business exclusively with companies that staffed their leadership with women and minorities. Aerojet Rocketdyne, one of the main contractors, touts its female CEO, Eileen Drake, as a badge of progressive compliance. Charlie Blackwell-Thompson, Artemis's launch director, is likewise celebrated for her gender rather than her track record. These are not criticisms of individual talent. They are indictments of a system that has redefined "qualified" to mean "demographically preferred."

Gwynne Shotwell offers the clearest rebuttal to this madness. Shotwell, president of SpaceX, is a woman who has never needed DEI to justify her authority. She holds engineering degrees, decades of aerospace experience, and a resume that reads like a chronicle of modern rocketry. Under her leadership, SpaceX has launched over 500 rockets, pioneered reusable launch systems, and secured an 85 percent share of global payload contracts. When 60 Minutes profiled her, the story was about rockets, not race. About performance, not pronouns.

That is what meritocracy looks like. And that is precisely what Artemis lacks.

To see how far NASA has drifted, one need only look at its prior leadership. Before Trump's term the agency was headed by Bill Nelson, an octogenarian politician with no technical background who appears to view space exploration as a nostalgic pursuit of Cold War symbolism. Nelson's tenure was marked by indecision, ballooning budgets, and deference to legacy systems that should have been retired alongside dial-up internet.

Worse still, the Artemis program is now effectively stewarded by Sean Duffy, the sitting Secretary of Transportation. Duffy, a good-natured former congressman, rose to public attention not through aerospace achievements but by starring on MTV's The Real World in 1997. To be fair, Duffy is affable and politically capable. But reports now confirm that NASA will be without a full-time leader for at least nine months, an astonishing dereliction for an agency in the midst of its most ambitious mission in fifty years. Running NASA as a side gig while juggling transportation policy is not leadership. It is institutional neglect.

And delay is what we have. Artemis II, originally planned for 2024, has been pushed to 2026. Artemis III, the long-awaited return to the Moon's surface, may not launch until 2028. Meanwhile, China continues to build out its Tiangong space station and signals intent to plant its flag on the Moon, perhaps permanently, before the decade is out. In this context, DEI is not just a distraction. It is a national security risk.

The irony, of course, is that Artemis had the potential to be truly inclusive, not in the shallow sense of identity optics, but in the deep sense of uniting the nation. There is nothing more universal than the wonder of space, nothing more equalizing than the Moon's impartial gravity. But DEI turns inclusion into exclusion. It says that excellence is insufficient, that demographics matter more than ideas, and that America’s greatest missions should be measured not by what we do, but by who does it.

This is the great lie of equity masquerading as equality. It is the difference between a program that asks, "Who is best qualified to carry out this mission?" and one that demands, "Do we have the right mix of identities on the roster?" The former builds rockets. The latter builds resentment.

NASA has a choice. It can embrace the Isaacman model, entrepreneurial, empirical, results-driven. Or it can continue drifting under the Duffy-Nelson model, bureaucratic, theatrical, and trapped in the gravitational field of progressive orthodoxy. The choice is not merely organizational. It is civilizational. No nation ever ascended to the heavens by hiring according to quotas. We got to the Moon the first time by choosing the best. If we want to go back, the formula has not changed.

If you enjoy my work, please consider subscribing https://x.com/amuse.