NASA’s Artemis program faces delays as Administrator Jared Isaacman scraps the March 6 launch for Artemis II due to unresolved helium leaks, rolling back the rocket to the VAB for repairs while shifting Artemis III to a 2027 LEO rendezvous with landers—avoiding risky lunar landings until Artemis IV. With historic funding from the Working Family Tax Cut Act and support from Congress and President Trump, NASA prioritizes safety, standardized SLS configurations, and faster launch cadence (every 10 months) to rebuild expertise lost from low flight rates. Artemis II’s crewed moon mission remains critical, but the overhaul signals a pragmatic shift: incremental testing over rushed ambition, ensuring long-term sustainability for lunar bases and Mars goals. [Automatically generated summary]
Today, on C-SPAN's Ceasefire, in the wake of this week's State of the Union address, former New Orleans Mayor and Biden Infrastructure Coordinator Mitch Landrew and former Trump White House Director of Strategic Communications Mercedes Schlapp will join our host Dasha Burns for a bipartisan conversation breaking down President Trump's speech, the president's messaging on the economy and immigration, to the growing questions surrounding potential U.S. military action against Iran.
Bridging the divide in American politics.
Watch Ceasefire today at 7 p.m. and 10 p.m. Eastern and Pacific, only on C-SPAN.
In a divided media world, one place brings Americans together.
According to a new MAGA research report, nearly 90 million Americans turn to C-SPAN, and they're almost perfectly balanced.
28% conservative, 27% liberal or progressive, 41% moderate.
Republicans watching Democrats, Democrats watching Republicans, moderates watching all sides.
Because C-SPAN viewers want the facts straight from the source.
No commentary, no agenda, just democracy.
Unfiltered every day on the C-SPAN networks.
NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman announced an overhaul of the Artemis program during a news conference with top officials from Kennedy Space Center.
He addresses recent setbacks in the program, confirming that the targeted launch date of March 6th will not be met, with a rescheduled date to be set for early April.
Here are the remarks: Welcome to NASA's Kennedy Space Center.
I'm George Alderman, NASA's Deputy Press Secretary, and I'll be moderating today's news conference.
I'm joined by NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman, Associate Administrator Amit Shithria, and Moon to Mars Program Manager Laurie Glaze.
Today, we'll be taking questions both in person and through our phone bridge.
So, media interested in asking a question, please press star one to enter the queue.
And now, we'll begin with opening remarks from Administrator Isaacman.
Thank you very much, George.
Good morning, everyone.
Good morning.
Appreciate everyone coming out.
We're seeing each other a lot lately.
Lots of updates.
Expect more of it.
First, I just want to give a lot of credit to the NASA workforce and our partners that have been working really tirelessly through the Artemis campaign.
It's really especially impressive work, and I know they're all feeling it after we had what was a near-flawless Wetdress 2 performance that Artemis II is now back in the vehicle assembly building, which is imperfect.
So, we want to give you two sets of updates.
So, Lori is going to speak with you about what we're learning about Artemis II now that it is back in the VAB and what our path is back out to the pad and to launch this historic mission.
But before that, I'd like to talk a little bit about the overall Artemis program, how we're going to achieve the president's objective to return American astronauts to the moon, to build an enduring presence, and ideally not wind up in some of the situations that we've seen recently.
So, let's talk about, let's talk about the situation.
Artemis 1 launched more than three years ago.
We had helium leaks with Artemis 1.
I'm sorry, we had hydrogen leaks with Artemis 1, we had helium flow issues with Artemis 1.
Artemis II went out to the pad.
Wetrus 1, we had helium leak, or we had hydrogen leaks.
And then, after a second Wetrus 2, where we made a lot of great progress, we wound up with helium flow issues, a lot of similarities between the two.
And why is that essentially the case?
Look, three-plus-year launch cadence.
I mean, Artemis III right now, as it's currently designed, won't fly for approximately another three years.
So launching a rocket as important and as complex as SLS every three years is not a path to success.
A component of that is when you are launching every three years, your skills atrophy.
You lose muscle memory.
We've got a lot of really talented folks that have been working hard on the Artemis II campaign.
And whether they're going to want to stick around for three more years after this mission is complete is a question mark.
This is just not the right pathway forward.
And I'd say also when you are experiencing some of the same issues between launches, you've probably got to take a close look at your process for remediation.
Are you truly getting to technical root cause or are you getting close to it?
So we've got issues with low flight rate.
And I would say a great way to exasperate that problem further is to start making changes to vehicle configuration.
SLS is a very impressive vehicle.
We don't want to turn every one of them into a work of art.
And then I would also say that having very big objectives, a wide objective gap between missions is also not a pathway to success.
So we didn't go right to Apollo 11.
We had a whole Mercury program, Gemini, Apollo, lots of Apollo missions before we ultimately landed.
Right now, our program is essentially set up with an Apollo 8 and then going right to the moon.
And that is, again, not a pathway to success.
So what is the right way forward here?
So first, today we're announcing a standardization of the SLS fleet to what we'll call essentially a near-block one configuration.
So the idea is we want to reduce complexity to the greatest extent possible.
We want to accelerate manufacturing, pull in the hardware, and increase launch rate, which obviously has a direct safety consideration to it as well.
You get into a good rhythm, launching great frequency, you get that muscle memory.
In order to do that, we need to rebuild and strengthen the workforce here at NASA.
Now, this is directly in line with a workforce directive that I released several weeks ago.
We have to rebuild core competencies.
The ability to turn around our launch pads and launch with frequency greater than every three years is imperative.
Now, some people ask me questions on that already as we've talked about this.
And it's like, how are we going to do that?
How are we going to go from three years to something significantly less to what I think should actually be inside of one year?
And I'll point you to our history.
We have a nice infographic that's coming out from Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, through the shuttle program.
I don't think it would surprise many of the folks in the room that our average launch cadence was closer to three months throughout all those programs, not three years.
In fact, if you want a history tidbit, you look at the time when Apollo 7 splashed down to when Apollo 8 launched, you're approximately two months apart.
We need to start getting back to basics and moving in this direction.
So rebuilding the civil servant workforce and restoring core capabilities.
Again, that will directly contribute to NASA's launch cadence, where we're going to endeavor to get our launches inside of a year, specifically down to potentially 10 months.
And then we are going to add missions.
In fact, we're essentially going to pull in Artemis III to launch in 2027 with a revised mission profile.
So instead of going directly to a lunar landing, we will endeavor to rendezvous in low Earth orbit with one or both of our lunar landers, test out integrated operations between Orion and the landers, ECLIS systems,
even to the extent possible, if we can get development components of our X EVA suits to test out vehicle interfaces, even just getting an astronaut in a suit and microgravity, we can learn a lot with the idea that we should be learning and take this information back to inform hardware development, whether it's in the landers or in the suits before Artemis IV, where we will attempt to land on the moon.
We are also, as a component of the strategy, endeavoring to preserve up to two landing attempts in 2028.
So if we get inside of the 10-month turnaround time that we would like to see, Artemis II will launch on its historic mission in the weeks ahead.
Artemis III will have its opportunity, if we can, by mid-2027, which sets us up for an early 28 and a late 28 opportunity.
So that is the approach that we are taking at a very high level.
I will tell you, we're not surprising our industry or our stakeholders at this press conference right now.
We've been having these discussions for a long time.
In fact, I give a lot of credit to NASA and its team.
No one at NASA forgot their history books.
They knew how to do this.
They've had plans like this for a long time.
Now we're putting it in action.
We had a chance to have these discussions across all of our industry partners, all the prime contractors on the SLS vehicle, both of our HLS landing providers.
Everybody agrees this is the only way forward.
And I'll say had similar conversations with all our stakeholders in Congress, and they're fully behind NASA in this approach.
They know this is how NASA changed the world, and this is how NASA is going to do it again.
With that, I'll hand it over to Ahmed.
Thank you, sir.
Let's see.
The path forward that the administrator laid out, I think, is pretty clear.
It reduces risk.
It strengthens our ability to execute these missions and the campaign ahead of us.
It reflects the adjustments that we need to keep our schedule credible, and our team is focused on what matters most, which is safe and achievable missions.
And also, I think it's important that we talk a little bit about the Artemis II crew.
This is for them also.
When they get on top of that rocket, they need to know that they're doing it as part of a step, as part of a plan that's going to work.
They have said many times they're doing this mission so that their teammates can walk on the moon.
They need to know that they're going to get on top of that rocket so that we, and we're going to give them a plan for the rest of the team that's going to be assigned that's going to go do this work to actually get to the moon.
So our update today reinforces that commitment to them.
And when we ask them to take that risk, when we take that risk together, that they're doing it for a reason.
So we're going to build that program grounded in safety, incremental learnings, technical excellence, and long-term sustainability.
So I think it's, you know, our commitment to flight readiness, this is not about slowing down momentum.
This is about increasing it, about making sure that we are focused on the right things in terms of how we execute the program.
We need to get back to doing the workforce initiative that the administrator has directed us to implement is the absolute key ingredient to this.
We need to get our teams working side by side with our partners outside and get this work done.
So it's challenging, it's ambitious, but with this course correction, we are on a more stable foundation, a more realistic path to the milestones we have ahead.
And we are so grateful to the teams across the NASA centers, across all of industry that's helping us.
We have the entire force of American industry now helping us with the Artemis campaign.
We are grateful to them for their support.
They have been relentless in driving progress, and we need them to be even more relentless to achieve these missions.
And this plan that we're laying out today makes that possible.
So with that, I'll hand it over to Dr. Glaze to talk about Artemis II.
Thank you, Ahmed.
I'd like to start by thanking the administrator for taking this incredibly bold step and moving quickly to assure that we have support and resources that are needed in order to launch Artemis astronauts to the moon every year.
I want to thank our team as well within the Moon to Mars program on Artemis and all of our Artemis mission planning.
Our teams continue to work tirelessly to enable mission success.
I know to people outside of NASA, sometimes we make it look easy.
What we are doing is anything but easy, and we've seen that with the challenges that we've encountered.
I've said time and time again that our team rises to challenges and they meet any bar that is set.
This will be a challenge and I know that we will continue to relentlessly pursue excellence at every step.
And that includes not just our NASA team, but it includes, again, our contractor workforce and all of the suppliers that contribute at every level to the success of the Artemis space program.
So first things first, I'm going to talk about Artemis II.
We were here just a week ago.
We were all very excited last Friday after the successful wet dress rehearsal.
We were in a great place at that time and looking at a launch in early March.
Things changed pretty quickly last Friday evening where we discovered the issue with the flow of helium to the ICPS, the upper stage of the SLS.
That occurred as we were doing the reconfiguration of the SLS as we transitioned from the wet dress into the launch configuration.
So that was disappointing, but that's where we were.
And the response of our team was exactly what we should be doing.
We allowed the data to talk to us and tell us what we needed to do.
And allowed those findings, the operational findings, to guide us in what decisions that we needed to make.
And the data were pretty clear that we were no-go.
We were in a no-go situation without the ability to flow the helium to the RL-10 engines of the upper stage.
So while we have the ability to access the boosters and the core stage out at the pad, we were in preparations already for being able to do the work that needed to be done out at the pad, we do not have the ability to access the interior of the upper stage at the pad.
So that's what the requirement to roll back to the vehicle assembly building.
Our team has been working very quickly to transition from preparations for launch to preparations for rollback.
And they did that extremely quickly.
We were able to roll back within a couple of days.
At the same time, the team has worked to streamline a plan for the work inside the VAB to give us the very best possible chance at a launch in the early April launch period.
We got back to the VAB about 8 p.m. Wednesday night.
The platforms within the VAB have already been extended.
You can see them there in the live graphic.
And the work has already begun, an incredible amount of work already going on.
The suspected system components for the helium flow will be removed and they're going to go undergo detailed inspections and assess the cause of the issue.
We hope to get down to the root cause of that and make changes not just to the hardware but to our operational procedures so that we don't encounter the same issue again when we roll back out to the pad.
In addition to determining the cause of the helium flow issue, the teams are also going to do a number of other things while we're in the VAB.
We will replace the batteries in the flight termination system and conduct another end-to-end test to meet the Eastern Range safety requirements.
We'll give the closeout crew another shot, another chance at closing out the Orion capsule, get them a little bit more practice in closing out the Orion crew module.
And then also the seal on the tail service mast umbilical that supplies the liquid oxygen to the rocket before liftoff.
That is also going to be replaced to ensure a tight configuration.
As you recall, of course, the twin seal that supplies that goes to the liquid hydrogen was replaced out at the pad.
So we've already replaced that one, so now we're going to replace the oxygen seal as well.
And at the same time, we're also going to be reviewing the items that are already stowed in the Orion crew module.
There's some of those time out and we need to replace them, so we'll be doing a little bit of that as well.
Prop Transfer Challenges00:15:41
We will continue to provide updates, regular updates of how we're progressing within the VAB and our plans once they solidify and when we roll back out, we will definitely let everybody know.
And just again, to return to Administrator Isaacman's statements beyond Artemis II, I know that our team is up for this challenge.
We are ready and we are ready to get started on that.
Thank you.
Thank you.
We'll now take your questions.
Please ask one question at a time so that we can get it to as many of you as possible.
We'll circle back if we have time.
We'll start with a question here in the room, but if you're joining us via the phone bridge, please press star one to enter the queue.
I'll take our first question.
Will.
Hi, thanks.
Will Robinson-Smith with Spaceflight Now.
Thank you all for taking the time this morning.
To the administrator or associate administrator, the plan for the revamped Artemis III to rendezvous with one or both of the HLS providers, can you speak to the importance of that component of doing Artemis III in low Earth orbit?
And I guess how soon, given where both of those HLS vehicles are, how feasible that might be to dock with them as opposed to just sort of rendezvousing and getting in proximity with them in low Earth orbit.
Thank you.
So I'll begin and welcome Ahmed's additional inputs on this.
I think one of the challenges, but is also one of the greatest opportunities that comes from both our HLS providers is the ability to return America to the moon, not just again for the flag and the rocks, but to be able to actually build out that enduring presence.
So what they're taking on is technically very challenging, but a lot of that involves whether it's on-orbit prop transfer, prop transfer, or rapid reusability because it necessitates lots of launches.
We don't find ourselves in that situation for a low-Earth orbit rendezvous.
So this is an opportunity to test out the vehicle we know they're capable of doing is not as much the technical process.
The most demanding process is how to get that vehicle to the moon.
So it's a perfect opportunity for us to test the interface out between Orion and that vehicle to actually get humans in the vehicle, start looking at the eclipse systems.
This is all going to help take down risk for a subsequent landing.
Yeah, I think for Artemis II, we're doing on-orbit handling of the vehicle to test out rendezvous techniques.
A low-Earth orbit rendezvous is a bit more challenging than a LEO rendezvous just because the external environment, the external torques are different.
But as the administrator said, I mean, this was in the plan.
We have to be able to mate with these vehicles.
We have to talk, we have to ingress, we have to do those things anyway.
But the point of the sequence is to really recognize the production risk in the enterprise and the development risk.
The production risk is the flight rate on the Earth ascend systems, SLS Orion.
The development risk is prop transfer.
So the way to burn a common target there, if you will, is to conduct a mission that accepts those risks as real, but still make as much progress as we can to challenge both the production side and the development side at the same time.
Take our next question.
Yes.
Thanks.
Irene Klotz with Aviation Week.
For anyone who wants to take this, does the revised Artemis III architecture require or would you like for any of the HLSs to demonstrate the on-orbit refueling component or does that fall off for Artemis IV?
And for Artemis IV, if you're looking to fly in early-ish 2028 and you need a new upper stage, presumably it still locks an LH, what's available on that short notice?
Yeah, I think, you know, first, we're not going to get into any specific manufacturer's name or the associated contracting process beyond that.
As I mentioned, we've been discussing with industry this strategy for several weeks right now.
Everyone acknowledges it's the right path forward.
So we obviously have confidence in our ability to source and integrate a more standardized second stage to fulfill missions beyond Artemis III.
In terms of our HLS providers, they've both, I think, very publicly submitted proposals for their acceleration strategy that does take down some of the technical risk associated with the proposal.
And we've said publicly that we support both in this regard.
I don't think that what you're referring to, like on-orbit prop transfer, is necessarily going to be required for the demonstration that we are imagining for Artemis III.
But we haven't fully, you know, we are very early in mission design here.
We all have arrived at the point that this is really the only pathway in order to achieve success with a lunar landing within the timeframes that we are targeting.
But I think part of the reason to do this in low Earth orbit is it does not necessarily require what both HLS providers will eventually necessitate, which is either lots of launches or on-orbit prop transfer to get their vehicles to the moon.
Our next question from over here.
Thank you.
Ken Kramer, space up close.
I think this is fantastic, what you've proposed here.
It's exactly what's needed.
So can you talk about these landers a little bit?
They're going to, I would, I guess, have to be vastly simplified from what was proposed with those prop transfers in order to accomplish this so quickly.
I know they're working on updates.
Can you let us know at all, and where does the gateway fit in all this?
Thanks.
To be clear, both HLS providers have offered solutions to accelerate their plans without compromising on the grander objective, which is we need to build out an enduring presence so when we return to the moon, we have the capability to stay.
So while their proposals, again, do take down some of the technical risks that would have existed before, we are not foregoing the capabilities that I think are absolutely necessary for America's future in space.
So to be clear on that point specifically.
And the gateway?
I think at this point, we really want to focus the meeting to the greatest extent.
Because to be honest, this can be somewhat of the problem.
The hardest thing right now is returning American astronauts to the surface of the moon.
We obviously haven't done that in more than 53 years.
I think by focusing a lot of time, energy, and resources across lots of grand endeavors is why you wind up in a situation where you're launching an incredibly important but complex vehicle every three plus years.
So I say that not to make a statement towards Gateway because we are doing this to get back to the moon and have the capability to stay, certainly to build a moon base which is going to be ideal, which is going to be an ideal learning environment for us to test out the operations, in situ resource manufacturing, refining, all the capabilities that are going to be necessary for the next giant leap to Mars and beyond.
But I say with focus for this conference specifically, we got to keep the attention on standardization and flight rate as our path to get back to the moon.
Our next question will come from Marcia Dunn with the Associated Press.
Marcia Dunn.
Isaacman, how much did the recent problems with Artemis II, especially mimicking Artemis 1, how much did that play into your decision to shake up the Artemis mission profile?
And how disappointing are you to have to wait perhaps even longer to land astronauts on the moon?
Thanks.
Well, first, I'm not disappointed at all.
I'm excited because I think we have a path here to actually get the job done within the timeframes that we have targeted right now.
I also just want to point out that this is something that NASA has known.
As I mentioned before, no one here at NASA forgot their history books.
The plans to do this the right way have existed for a long time.
We are in a fortunate position right now where you have a presidential national space policy which aligns whole of government on what's necessary.
You have congressional support through appropriation.
And you have President Trump's one big beautiful bill, the Work Now Working Family Tax Cut Act, that gave us the plus-up and resources within our exploration budget to undertake this endeavor right now.
So I would tell you that we would have been delivering this exact same message to you today had this been FRR.
That was the plan.
But I think we have to put even more urgency around it because this is not the FR that we initially intended.
You know, the American public deserves the update on Artemis II and the historic mission that's ahead, but you also have to know how we're going to achieve the vision that presidents have called for for more than 35 years.
Our next question will come from Josh Dinner with Space.com.
Hi, thanks so much for doing this, Josh DinnerSpace.com.
For Administrator Isaacman, you're standardizing SLS, pushing toward a 10-month launch cadence and revising Artemis III to an on-orbit rendezvous next year with up to two 2028 landings, which all sounds kind of fairly accelerated for a deceleration of the program.
What specific risk are you buying down with that LEO rendezvous?
And are you anticipating demonstrations with multiple HLS vehicles on that mission?
And how are you ensuring that schedule itself doesn't erode margins?
The safety advisory panel has already warned our thin for Artemis III.
Yeah, so actually, I think what we're doing is directly in line with what ASAP asked us to do.
I mean, look, just zooming out here, I think it should be incredibly obvious.
You don't go from one uncrewed launch of Orion and SLS, wait three years, go around the moon, wait three years, and land on it.
That's what our ASAP committee took issue with.
That's what we've acknowledged inside the leadership of NASA.
NASA's been working on these plans knowing this is not the right approach.
There has to be a better way in line with our history on it.
Again, we did not just jump right to Apollo 11.
We did it through Mercury, Gemini, and lots of Apollo missions with a launch cadence every three months.
We shouldn't be comfortable with the current cadence.
We should be getting back to basics and doing what we know works.
So, how are we going to buy down risk on it?
I would certainly much rather have the astronauts testing out the ECLIS systems, the integrated systems of the lander and Orion in low Earth orbit than on the moon.
Like them to get in the suits for the first time, even inside the vehicles, doesn't necessarily have to be in EVA before they actually walk on the moon in them.
So, everything about this mission, and even though it's beyond conceptual, we've obviously coordinated with our partners on this, but the full mission design objectives will be revealed shortly.
I'll just say it's certainly in the direction of buying down risk before we put our astronauts on the surface.
Our next question will come from Richard Trabue with the Orlando Sentinel.
Hi, thanks.
Calling for the cars.
I hope you can hear me well.
About the increase in workforce, the civilian workforce, what does that mean for like personnel at Exploration Ground Systems or specifically Kennedy Space Center or the agency overall?
And is there a concern about the flow of hardware from Orion or SLS?
Potentially, are you going to have an Orion capsule for a potential Artemis 5 in 2028 at this pace?
Thank you.
I'll kind of work backwards from there.
As I mentioned before, we're not here today to surprise industry and our stakeholders.
We've been having these conversations for weeks now.
I've spoken to the leadership at every one of the prime contractors that contributed to the SLS program.
Everyone's behind us, and they've all said the exact same thing.
This is the only way to get the job done.
So there's a lot of work we have to do here at NASA to prepare.
Part of that goes to the second component of your question, which is we've got to rebuild our core competencies.
Now, is this mean the overall workforce count increases at KSC?
I don't know the answer to that specifically.
I would say that there's a lot of contractors which do fantastic work that should be civil servants.
That's kind of the heart of the workforce directive right now.
75% of our workforce right now is contractors.
I think a lot of them should be civil servants.
I think we should have those capabilities in-house.
We should have the ability to make changes and adjustments as we see fit because we are NASA.
We did all this the first time.
We know an awful lot.
And this is going to be our kind of pathway back to the moon.
So lots of collaboration with industry.
They understand what the ask is.
They know we're going to need to pull in hardware.
That's why we're standardizing the configuration.
You're not going to be able to do that if every rocket is a work of art.
You're going to inevitably learn the same lessons and over again.
So standardize, increase production, pull everything in, which allows you then to increase your launch rate.
And yes, we need to rebuild a lot of our workforce here to bring them in as civil servants and get back that muscle memory to turn the pad in less than a year because we've done it before and we can do it again.
And our next question will come from Eben Brown with Fox News.
Hi, good morning.
Thanks for doing this.
I think this question is probably best for the administrator.
When President Trump first announced the Artemis project back in 2017, he wanted to see a lunar landing by 2024.
That was obviously not missed.
This, despite perhaps being an integration of better practices, does once again push that goal a little further into the future.
The president hasn't said much about this really at all, I don't think, but what's the overall attitude coming out of the administration here?
I mean, are they happy with this, not happy with this, or how does the agency itself react to that pressure that may or may not be there coming from the administration to keep this on track as much as possible and make sure that there aren't unnecessary slips in timelines?
So, to be clear, President Trump loves space.
President Trump created the Artemis program.
We obviously resumed operational flight for our astronauts to and from space during the president's first term.
He created the Space Force.
He signed a national space policy on my first day on the job in the Oval Office that not only recommitted American astronauts to the moon, but to build out a lunar base and not only that, to start making investments in the next giant leap capabilities like nuclear power and propulsion so we can eventually have American astronauts put the stars and stripes on Mars.
I've spoken with him numerous times leading up to my second nomination for this position about our strategy, the importance of the lunar base.
He checks in with great frequency.
The Artemis II astronauts were at the State of the Union.
I was as well.
This is a priority for the administration.
Artemis II Launch Plans00:14:29
I think that there are certainly questions of why we didn't make some of these decisions like we are today in terms of standardization, increasing flight rate in the years past.
I think President Trump wants to correct that now, and he's given us all the ingredients to do it.
National space policy, congressional funding, and the plus-up from the one big beautiful bill is what enables us to undertake this course right now of standardization and acceleration for an achievable path to get American astronauts back on the moon before the end of his term.
I know he's fully supportive.
We'll take the next question now.
In the back of the page, please.
Do you think that some of the budget cuts that we've had recently have contributed to that low flight rate?
And would you say that we have the resources and funding to increase that flight rate?
And sorry, I just have a logistics question.
So can you just clarify the Artemis III timeline here?
You mentioned mid-2027 and 2028, and I just want to clarify: are those two landing attempts?
And then would you be launching in 2028?
I'm just trying to wrap my head around that.
Sure.
I mean, let me just address the there were no budget cuts to NASA.
We actually had historic funding last year between the consistent funding through the continuing resolution plus the plus-up from the One Big Beautiful Biller, the Working Family Tax Cut Act.
NASA had historic funding last year, which is the only reason why we are capable of undertaking this right now.
So I just pause on that point.
In terms of, again, to be very clear, because I know we're moving around here a little bit, Artemis II is going to launch in the weeks ahead, 10-day mission, historic mission to go around the moon.
It's going to allow us to test out the Orion spacecraft.
Artemis III will launch, ideally, by mid-2027.
So this is now getting us back in the rhythm here of increasing launch cadence with SLS and the Orion spacecraft.
Our objective there, and we've spoken with both our landing providers on this, is to rendezvous with one or both landers.
That's an opportunity for us to test out integrated operations between Orion and the lander, which is important.
That will be a crew-rated vehicle someday.
There's ECLA systems we're going to want to test out.
It's another opportunity for us maybe to get our suits up there before the astronauts actually have to wear them on the surface of the moon.
If we can't make that timeline with suits, we have other opportunities to get them up to International Space Station, but we do consider that a priority, which then sets up for Artemis 4 and 5 potentially in 2028.
We're not necessarily committing to launching two missions in 2028.
We want to have the opportunity to be able to do that.
Take the next question.
And second row in the gray.
Thanks.
Bill Harwood with CVS News.
I have about 10 questions.
No, I'm kidding.
I've got two questions.
For Jared, you mentioned the ASAP earlier.
Their report came out this weekend.
Could you add anything about what input they had in your decision making?
Because it seems like you're addressing most of their primary concerns, at least.
And then for Lori, I guess, I know you guys are focused on these near-term flights.
We're not talking gateway today or whatever, but will you continue work on Mobile Launcher 2 or does the work stop now?
And what about the lunar terrain vehicle, which originally was part of, I guess, Artemis 5?
I mean, is it the same philosophy that's covering that?
We're going to stop worrying about that stuff right now and focus on the near term.
Yeah.
Sorry.
So with respect to the ASAP committee, I would say that it is interesting that a lot of the things that we are addressing directly go to the points they raised in their reports.
I can't say we actually collaborate on it because I generally think these were all pretty obvious observations.
So yes, ASAP was rightful to call out some of the shortcomings, and we should be addressing them.
It just happened to be in parallel.
So in any of my recent conversations with the committee, I said, look, we are completely aligned.
I agree with every one of the points that you raised, and we have to address it.
It just so happened to be, I mean, even our Starliner report came out in advance of theirs.
They didn't know that was happening.
It was just the right thing to do, just as our revised architecture and approach to achieving a lunar landing is the right thing to do.
And I'll just say, I mean, to, I know you addressed it to Lori, but maybe make it easier on her a little bit in some of these questions about specific procurement strategies.
We are building a moon base.
You're going to build a moon base, you're going to need rovers.
You're going to need lots of rovers on the surface.
You're going to need comms.
You're going to need navigation.
You're going to need power.
This is not lost on us.
This is a high priority.
This is what's so important in the national space policy: don't just go back, go back to stay, right?
I would just say, let's keep this conversation to the great extent focused on the hardest part, what we haven't been able to do in the last 53 years, which is getting a good launch cadence and sending American astronauts to and from the moon.
But I can assure you, all those things you asked about are going to be a component to the how we stay conversation.
Our next question will come from Philip Sloss.
Thanks.
The question is: does this mean that NASA is canceling the exploration upper stage?
And if you're going to fly Artemis 3 in 2027, when is a crew going to be named for that mission?
Thanks.
I feel like I'm taking all the airtime here.
Yeah, we're not going to talk about contractual issues.
I mean, I think you understand the intent of what we're discussing, which is, you know, making sure we head towards reliability and standardization of it.
We're going to work with our partners and make sure we handle that in the right way.
The second part was the crew.
Yeah, again, same way.
We're not here to do mission design, right?
We're not here to talk about that.
I think what's important is what we've said at the end, right?
The whole plan is we need to chunk it into achievable objectives.
The whole plan we've attempted, it's been augmented by the vision and the space policy that was released.
That whole plan needs to be discretized and chunked into the right way, so we're taking incremental risk in the right ways as we continue to fly.
As we increase production, that increases reliability, it increases safety, and we're going to do all that together while we increase our training rates and everything else.
So that's all part of the integrated plan.
We're not going to do a whiteboard session on mission design here, but I can assure you that we've thought through the top-level objectives, how they devolve into lower-level objectives, and how we're going to put them into these missions.
Our next question will come from Leonard David with Inside Outer Space.
Hi, thanks for pulling this all together, and it's very exciting.
I think for the administrator, when you had your back-to-back confirmation hearings, there was a lot of pressure of trying to beat China to get back to the moon.
To what extent does that play a role here?
Are we accelerating our plans?
What's your thinking about China today?
Because they probably are going to go maybe in the same kind of timeframe.
Well, as I said during my hearing, I think competition is good.
I think it's a great way to motivate our workforce and our partners again to achieve the near impossible.
This worked, competition worked very well for us in the 1960s.
Turned out in hindsight, we had near endless schedule margin there.
No humans have been back since Apollo 17.
That is certainly not the case today.
I'd say this is very, very close from a timeline perspective.
All that said, and again, I think competition is good.
We're here talking to you about what is a common sense approach to achieve the objective, whether we had a great rival in the running or not.
If we're committed to going back to the moon, we have the resources to do it.
Again, we have a presidential mandate to get the job done.
What is an achievable strategy regardless of the competition?
And I can tell you, launching every three plus years is not the right approach.
You asked about the crew for Artemis III.
Ahmed is totally correct.
We've got Artemis II ahead of ourselves right now.
We still have to get through mission design.
You assign a crew that gives you the best chance of success.
But I'll tell you, you've all had an opportunity to really get to know our Artemis II astronauts over the last couple years.
It's actually not the desired approach.
We'd like to announce a mission, tell you the objectives, hear the crew, and then fly it inside of a year, and then you start getting to know the next crew.
It's kind of how it worked in the 1960s.
We're going to try and get back to that now.
Our next question will come from Eric Berger with Ars Technica.
Hi, thanks very much for doing this.
Someone earlier mentioned the speech or the original first Trump administration, and back in 2018, Vice President Mike Pence talked about going to the moon in 2024.
At the time, he said something that really struck with me.
It said, you know, if our current contractors can't do this, we'll find new contractors.
And I think that was kind of the most sweeping vision change since then.
And obviously, the contractors, you know, both traditional and commercial space have had challenges since then.
So I'm just wondering kind of what NASA can do to ensure its commercial partners can successfully deliver on these really aggressive timelines.
Thanks.
I would just say that similar to a recent conversation we had with all of you, this is largely about NASA.
We talk about why we've struggled, our shortcomings, I look internal first.
What could we have done differently?
That's why we're having this conversation right now.
I didn't have a conversation with any of the prime contractors, any of the partners, as it relates to this acceleration plan where they said it couldn't be done.
They just didn't have the conversation really up until now on this.
And I'm sure there's a lot of reasons for it, and I've said some of it before.
We had a pretty, I won't say singular focus in the 1960s of getting to the moon because we did a lot of great science and exploration at that time.
But we generally were focusing on a couple key needle-moving objectives, which I talked a lot about during my hearing.
Over the years, since President Trump during his first term started the Artemis program, we've taken on a lot of interesting projects.
Some people have asked questions about them here in this room.
Tell you, the more multi-billion dollar projects you have, the more resources and attention it captures, the less you launch lunar missions.
So we're taking ownership of this.
We're taking responsibility of the objective, the critical national objective that's been entrusted to NASA.
And how do you do it?
You talk to your partners and you tell them we're going to have to start making some decisions.
We're going to standardize.
We're not going to turn every rocket into a work of art.
We're going to increase launch rate.
We're going to do it in a logical, evolutionary way.
We're not going right to Apollo 11.
That makes no sense.
What can we build up to gain confidence so that when we do embark on the true landing, we have the highest probability of success.
That's what we're doing right now.
So I'll tell you, today, this is a NASA story.
Not saying we don't come back to you in a year and say that we have to make some adjustments here or the vendor, but right now, this is something that we need to own.
And that's what we're sharing with you.
Next question will come from Ken Chang with the New York Times.
All right.
Thank you.
So with this revision, you're using up through Artemis V, you're using up the SLS reviant as mandated in the big beautiful bill.
So I was wondering, Mr. Aichman, are you thinking about the follow-up architecture that you've talked about after that?
Well, I think I've been, well, I'd say certainly number one focus is what Lori spoke to you about previously, which is Artemis II.
That's our near-term, I mean, most important human spaceflight mission in more than a half century.
We owe you an update on how we're going to get to the moon so we don't wind up in a situation where our vehicles are going back and forth to the assembly building.
And we've got enough in front of us on that.
But that said, I mean, I said it at the initial rollout conference.
I've said it many times since.
President Trump created a program, programmed to return to the moon to build out a moon base that's going to require lots of missions to and from the moon, crew and cargo, in a again, in a very affordable, repeatable way.
This architecture will naturally evolve just as it is today.
I can't tell you exactly what Artemis 10 looks like.
I bet it's going to look very different than what Artemis 5 is going to look like, as I'm sure it will be for Artemis 50.
That's the idea when you say you're going to go back to the moon and be able to stay.
We'll take our next question from the room.
Up front in the yellow.
Gene Wright, space up close.
I'd like to know what the altitude will be, the lunar landing rendezvous.
Would that be low Earth orbit or distance from the Earth?
Just curious.
Thank you.
Don't know.
Let's figure it out.
Yes, ideally, you know, we want to put as much, every time we take the SNE risk with a crew, right, we want to make sure we get as much done, right?
And so we're going to, we'll get into an orbit that's achievable for as many docking and mating operations as possible, as much environmental similarity to what we would experience, you know, during the landing mission.
So we're going to take all those objectives and pour it into the design, but I can't tell you the orbit yet.
Our next question will come from Kristen Fisher with the Endless Void.
Hi there.
So I think my question is for the administrator.
You know, we've talked a lot about the Artemis II crew, but how about the rest of NASA's astronauts?
I mean, they've now got this kind of exciting bonus mission that they could be assigned to.
How did you all inform them about these changes?
And how soon after Artemis II returns do you all anticipate naming the Artemis III crew?
Thanks.
So I've obviously shared this program change, this direction change for achieving the lunar landing with the Artemis II crew.
Exciting Bonus Missions00:09:38
I've also had a chance to speak with leadership from the astronaut office.
I don't think anyone was surprised.
Like I said, there's no one who comes to work at NASA that forgot their history book.
They know how we got there before.
I'd also say generally astronauts prefer to be in space as often as possible.
So this is probably welcome news.
You know, so yeah, I think everybody is pretty supportive in this direction.
In terms of the Artemis III astronauts, like I said, we're not going to get ahead of ourselves on this.
Artemis II is coming up first.
We're going to use this time to kind of go through mission design with our HLS providers.
What do we think is achievable?
What are the most pressing objectives?
I think obviously high-level, we know what will help buy down risk for the landing.
And then you assign a crew that gives you the best chance of success based on those objectives.
I hope you get to know them well, cheer them on, support them, and then meet the next crew shortly thereafter.
Our next question will come from Joey Roulette with Reuters News.
Hey, thanks.
Question for Ahmed and Jared, whoever wants to answer.
Just real quick, is the exploration upper stage canceled?
And if so, do you expect to compete or sole source its replacement?
And then, kind of more broadly, you know, this new test mission and a new SLS upper stage and doing on-orbit refueling and all that seems like a lot of work to do in the next two years before a moon landing.
And so I think that begs a lot of questions, but mainly, what is the acceleration plans from SpaceX and Blue Origin, and when will that be baked into this architecture?
Thanks.
So I'll go back to, we're not talking about contractual issues.
We're not going to talk about that.
We have the full support of our industry partners to make sure we standardize the configuration and do the right thing.
So that's just that's we'll just leave it at that.
How are we going to do this, you know, in terms of the hardware we have available?
I think it's also important to recognize, I mean, this is, we didn't just decide to do this today without making sure we assess the inventory of the hardware that we have available and the program.
We've been talking about this, as the boss said, in the program for a while, just to make sure, because we understand the risk, the risk profile, we have a unique confluence of support and vision and leadership that enables us to do it now, which is why we're doing it now.
But to be clear, we rolled out a V3 starship just yesterday.
CSM3 is in the factory already.
It's about to be mated together.
The heat shield's ready to go.
We're going to make both of them together.
CSM4 is also being populated with hardware.
ESM4 has been delivered from Brayman.
The core stage, the top four fits, the core stage number three is at Michoud, ready to be shipped here in a couple months.
The engine section for Artemis III is already here.
You know, the barrels for the Artemis IV core stage are being rolled.
We have all the tools available there.
ML2 is 90% complete.
It can be configured however we need to.
All of that hardware is flowing towards the Cape.
We just need to get on with it.
We have to get our workforce side by side with the teams out in the field, put this out there and start working on the hardware, start focusing on the right things and do it.
We can do it.
We need the energy, we need the vision, and we need the plan to make sure we go do it, and that's what we're going to go work on.
Next question will come from Jeff Faust with Space News.
Good morning.
Question for the administrator.
Over the next few years, do you think these changes will result in sort of a net cost savings by standardizing SLS and not developing the Block 1B version, or additional costs by accelerating the pace of missions?
And then maybe just a quick question for Lori on Artemis 2: when do you need to roll back out to the pad to be able to support a launch in that early April launch window?
Thank you.
Yeah, so I'm not going to get into the PL here.
As you mentioned, there's obviously some puts and takes.
If you standardize the vehicle and not every one of them, again, is a work of art, you're going to save costs.
This is what all of our manufacturers have been asking for.
It's why everyone got around this program so quickly.
No one likes to do lots of one-offs.
Same as applicable for how we want to approach our lunar landing.
Like, let's define some criteria and template this out.
I'm sorry, this is respect to the moon base.
And then you can forecast lots of demand to industry so they can get good at what you need them to do.
To everyone, I'd say, is pretty aligned on that.
Now, at the same time, we're also asking people to work faster.
We're talking about hiring and bringing in workforce.
So there are areas where we expect savings as a result of this approach.
There are areas we expect to spend more.
We do believe that we have the resources available to achieve this.
I guess leave it at that.
And as far as the rollout question, we are working diligently to make the changes that I mentioned at the beginning, the work that needs to be done within the VAB.
We will need at least a week and a half or so-ish out at the pad to prepare for launch.
I'll certainly provide an estimated rollout date when we have that available.
Next question will come from Micah Maidenberg with the Wall Street Journal.
Hey, good morning.
Maybe for the administrator, could you explain a little bit how the new Artemis plan was put together?
Was this something that was on the shelf when you started or brought in with you or came up after starting?
Is there a person who's like kind of the brainchild for this plan?
Thanks.
Yeah, I'd say that this was, we gravitated towards this very quickly.
And, you know, when, look, obviously, again, it's a huge team effort, but when Ahmed and I started discussing this subject, he said we have a plan.
So again, there's a lot of people here at NASA, didn't lose their history books, understand the right way to go about achieving an incredibly challenging objective like this.
Now, if there is, as Ahmed has also pointed out, we are in a situation now where between a national space policy that aligns whole of government, congressional appropriations, and the plus-ups from the One Big Beautiful Bill, we can act on a plan that gives us the highest probability of success.
We'll take our next question up here in the front row.
Hi, Cameron Schwartz with the Launch Patent Network.
Thank you for your time and all the updates today.
I don't want to get ahead of myself, but I did want to ask about the increased cadence and what sort of mission profiles that unlocks for you guys.
And do you expect SLS to kind of be a big part of building the moon base?
Yeah, so I think, like the boss said, we're going to use all the hardware we have to achieve these missions.
We put the objectives together as we've decided, you know, it's pretty clear, you know, we have to be able to demonstrate in-space activity, the launch cadence, you know, reliable Earth ascent, reliable lunar descent, reliable lunar ascent, surface operations, all that has to be demonstrated, right?
So we're going to put those objectives into the plan.
We have scoped that out already because that was the kind of end state here.
But what we're trying to do is put them into manageable chunks so we can actually fly quick more quickly because that pace, that cadence is what really will lead to reliability and safety.
And that's what we need to do.
Now, we have the hardware we have.
We're going to work.
We're going to do everything we can to utilize it to the maximum extent.
And then, as we said, we have all of industry supporting this.
And so whatever hardware we have going forward, we're going to take advantage of to provide that regular cadence.
Next question will come from Marcia Smith with Space Policy Online.
Thanks so much.
I'm assuming that you have briefed this to the relevant people in Congress.
I'm wondering what the reaction is, especially to your decision to eliminate the Block 1B and the Block 2 of SLS, which was part of the 2010 NASA Authorization Act.
So is Congress behind this as well?
As I mentioned, we try to maintain a no-surprises policy here at NASA.
To do the near impossible takes the contributions from everyone.
We want to be very aligned before we go public on a matter like this.
So we've spoken to industry.
Can you meet the demand?
The answer is yes.
We've certainly spoken to all of our stakeholders on the Hill.
They all understand that this is the path forward.
And I would say, I don't think I heard a single objection on these subjects.
Like, everyone understands what's at stake here.
I mentioned before, we don't have a lot of scheduled margin here.
You know, the implications of coming up short go well beyond space.
I mean, this does, you know, this is, you know, America in the 1960s, you get to the moon, you do what no one thought was possible.
It sends a message.
I wonder what else they're capable of doing.
You come up short, it sends the opposite message of where else could something be broken.
I think everyone understands that.
The fact that industry got behind this, I think, makes it very easy for our very supportive partners in Congress to get behind it.
And honestly, they helped enable us in this regard through the Working Family Tax Cut Act, through the One Big Beautiful Bill.
That is giving us the resources to be able to undertake this.
And I will just say again, all the national security implications of actually meeting an objective as important as getting to the moon and building a base aside and the competition associated with it.
There is simply a right and wrong way to go about doing this.
Launching every three years and changing the massive changes in the configuration of the vehicle is not a recipe for success.
And again, I think all our stakeholders and all our partners understand that.
Next question.
National Security and Lunar Missions00:04:18
In the back in the green.
Good morning, Melanie Holt, WFTV.
And really, I'm looking for a clarification.
You've made a lot of major announcements in terms of these Artemis updates.
Artemis III specifically, is the goal still a lunar landing, or has that mission profile somehow changed?
Artemis III will be a rendezvous with one or both landers in low Earth orbit in 2027.
So we're basically pulling in Artemis III and recognizing just the reality that going right from a free return around the moon to landing on it is too big of a gap.
And we cannot accept the flight rate of a vehicle this important and complicated every three years.
So we're going to launch in a year from now, in 2027.
Again, start taking down risk for the eventual landing.
So Artemis III will be a rendezvous in low Earth orbit, one or both landers.
And then Artemis IV and Artemis 5 will, we will endeavor to have two opportunities in 2028 to attempt a landing.
Just to maybe help, because I know folks are trying to process.
The Artemis campaign is a test program, okay?
And we talk a lot about these all-up tests of SLS Orion and the missions where we put the crew on it.
We are doing tests at the component level, at the assembly level, all over the country all the time.
And I want you guys to start thinking about that aspect of it.
That's what we're doing.
So these are very important tests, these flights, but every single one of these tests is important.
We're going to do an uncurved demonstration with the landing missions.
Right now, we have a Mark I Blue Origin lander in the chamber at Johnson.
We're doing, you know, even in the loop testing with the Axiom suits right now.
That is also contributing to this end state, right?
So when you guys think about this, how we're doing it, we're not going to over-specify at each junction what goes in each particular flight.
What we're trying to tell you is we are thinking about this now as an integrated test plan.
Those test objectives have to be achieved as incrementally and as successfully as possible at every step, build on that learning at each subsequent step to eventually lead to the ultimate objectives, which are set out in the policy and the direction we've been given.
We'll just say we do have a couple infographics that are going to come out and help because we do recognize this is a little bit of a change.
So you can at least visualize what we imagine an Artemis III and IV and 5 mission will look like.
We have time for one more question.
It'll be from you in the white there.
Yes, Bert Dick from the National Space Society.
This is all very exciting.
As the administrator mentioned about the loss of muscle memory after a launch every three years, I see the same impact on public perception because a lot of the public wasn't even aware of what's going on here.
Do you see this as a byproduct, a good opportunity to enhance the public awareness and public engagement and public enthusiasm about the Artemis program?
Well, for sure.
I mean, we have no doubt.
You know, it's mentioned many times that it's a different environment than the 1960s.
There's more than three channels on the TV.
So, you know, capturing people's attention at times can be challenging.
I have no doubt when Artemis II takes flight, the world will take notice to that.
And it is.
It's going to be an exciting.
It's going to be the most historic mission, human spaceflight mission in more than a half century.
But yes, how do you maintain that momentum?
How do you keep the public engaged on it?
Well, certainly flying every three years isn't the right approach to that.
Nor is it, as I mentioned before, even technically the right strategy to achieve something as extraordinary as a lunar landing.
I am certainly hopeful for all the operational technical benefits that come with this new approach, but I do believe it helps keep the public engaged, which again, that's fundamental to what we do.
We want to see a lot more kids dressing up as astronauts on Halloween, inspiring the next generation to take us a lot farther than the moon is part of the plan.
That'll conclude today's news conference.
Thank you to all the media who joined us and for your continued coverage of America's Return to the Moon.
As a reminder, you can follow along with the mission at nasa.gov/slash Artemis.
Thank you, and we'll see you next time.
Former President Biden in South Carolina00:02:08
Former President Joe Biden speaks today in Columbia, South Carolina.
The 46th president is being honored by the state's Democratic Party on the sixth anniversary of his 2020 South Carolina Democratic Presidential Primary win.
Watch live at 7 p.m. Eastern on C-SPAN 2, on C-SPAN Now, our free video app, and online at c-span.org.
Watch America's Book Club, C-SPAN's bold original series.
Sunday, with our guest three-time Pulitzer Prize-winning author Rick Atkinson, author of In-Depth Revolutionary War and World War II trilogies.
and whose other books include The Long Gray Line, Crusade, and In the Company of Soldiers.
He joins our host, renowned author and civic leader David Rubenstein.
Wasn't one book enough?
Because when you say you're going to write a trilogy, if you're tired of the subject after the first book, you got to write the second and the third.
So, did you ever think maybe you should have just said, I'm going to do one at a time?
I had two small epiphanies.
One was that the great events in American history are bottomless.
And the other epiphany was that you could tell the story as a triptych, three panels.
It's the liberation of Europe starts in North Africa, and then it evolves 100 miles across the Mediterranean to Sicily and Italy.
And then at Normandy, you have the final panel.
Watch America's Book Club with Rick Atkinson, Sunday at 6 p.m. and 9 p.m. Eastern and Pacific, only on C-SPAN.
C-SPAN, official media partner of America 250, commemorating 250 years of American democracy.
America 250 is traveling the country to honor the voices that define our nation: stories of identity, service, and community.
Here's one of them: Coming from a religious black background, my mom always told us: put God first, whatever you do, and he'll direct your path.
Meeting with the President00:14:21
We hand fire songs in the top ten.
Show some love with my man Superman.
And that's what's going on now.
That's why I'm here today.
Let's do this.
Let's do this.
Go-go music is the sound of Washington, D.C. Period.
When you go to New York, you expect to hear a lot of hip-hop and rap.
You go to New Orleans, you're going to hear a lot of jazz.
So when you come to Washington, D.C., or the DMV, as we call it, you're going to hear a lot of Go-Go music.
This is our home.
This is our capital.
It's homegrown in Washington, D.C.
It's a party of great party source of music, call and response.
You automatically become a part of it, but you got to see it live.
Hearing a recorded version of a Go-Go song, it don't really do nothing for you.
But if you see it live, then you can automatically embrace it.
Because Go-Go Music is a live field.
You're right there with it.
You're right here with it.
You can't stay still.
Especially when I look around the world by me traveling so many places, I can see that living in America has been a blessing to me.
People living in poverty, people are poor.
People don't have water.
They don't have clothes.
They don't have food and shelter.
I'm free, so this means a lot to me.
Whatever your dream is, go get it.
Nobody can stop you but you.
Believe in yourself, apply yourself, and be the best you can be.
This is Sugar Bear.
This is our American story.
And now remarks by New York City Mayor Zorhan Mamdani to reporters during a community center dedication in Brooklyn, where he addressed a recent closed-door meeting with President Trump.
Good morning, everyone.
It is truly a pleasure to be here.
And I want to say thank you so much for your introductory remarks.
Before we speak about the Weeksville Heritage Center, I want to share a few words about my recent visit to the White House.
Yesterday, I did something that I am truly reluctant to do.
I left New York City.
I traveled down to Washington, D.C. to meet with President Trump in the Oval Office.
I have said time and again that our city faces an immense affordability crisis.
It is felt by residents here in Weeksville, across Brooklyn, and across the five boroughs of the city that we all love and call home.
And it is felt whenever New Yorkers try to find a place to live, go grocery shopping, put their kids in child care, or even take public transit.
Addressing this crisis was the focus of my meeting with the president.
I proposed working together to build more than 12,000 new homes in our city, which would be the single largest housing development New York City has seen since 1973.
The president was interested in the idea, and I look forward to the ensuing conversations about how to build more housing in a city that doesn't have enough of it.
We also discussed the immigration cases I know are front of mind for so many New Yorkers.
I shared my concern with the president about ICE's detention of Columbia student Elmina Agaieva yesterday morning, as well as the detention of four additional New Yorkers in relation to the university: Mahmoud Khalil, Mohsen Mahadawi, Yunseo Chung, and Nikah Cordia.
I asked that their cases be dropped.
I'm grateful that shortly after our meeting, the President called me to inform me that Elmina would be imminently released, and indeed she was.
We're going to take some questions now.
Let's please try to keep it to one question if possible.
And we have a microphone right here from Audra.
So we're going to start with NJ at Channel 7.
Thank you.
Mayor, welcome back.
Thank you.
You described your meeting with President Trump as productive.
In what sense was it productive?
And I also want to ask you whether naming the finished product actually came up.
It was a productive meeting in the sense that after our first meeting in the Oval Office, one of the topics of conversation that we focused on was housing.
Housing, not only because it was the foremost and continues to be the foremost crisis in New York City, but also because it's a place of immense interest in this moment across the political spectrum.
And I knew that leaving that meeting, it was my responsibility to return with tangible proposals for what a partnership could look like in building exactly that in New York City.
I'd stood with the president looking at a portrait of FDR the last time I was in the Oval Office, and I had shared the fact that who I believe to be the greatest mayor in New York City history, Fiorella LaGuardia, so much of his success was tied to his partnership with the federal government and how that could continue to be a model in the years to come.
And so, in working with my team, we sought to answer the question of what could it look like to bring that kind of partnership back to New York City at a scale that's needed to address this crisis.
And so, we put forward a proposal to build more housing in a single project than the city has seen since 1973.
More housing than you would get combining Hudson Yards and Battery Park City together.
And not just housing, but also parks, also child care, also hospitals, an entire new neighborhood.
And I was heartened by the fact that the president was interested in this proposal, and I anticipate it will be the subject of conversations to continue.
What about you?
Thank you, Randy.
Sorry, I've got to move on.
Ayana, go ahead.
Hi, good afternoon, Mayor.
Who initiated the meeting with the President yesterday?
Did he invite you?
Did your office reach out about how long was the conversation?
And did any other topics come up aside from housing and the detained students?
Did you guys discuss ICE enforcement in New York City, the funding, federal funding to help potentially close the budget gap here in New York City?
So this meeting took place in part of a larger context of the last meeting that I had with the President, where we left that meeting knowing that we would continue to be in conversation and to have meetings, always bringing it back to how we can serve this city.
And I've said that time and again that I will speak to anyone to ensure that we can advance the agenda of keeping New Yorkers in New York.
And the focus of the conversation came back to what it would look like to partner with the city to create this scale of housing, what it would look like to create the largest rail deck in the world, larger than that of Paris, than that of Hong Kong.
We spoke about the detention of the Columbia student that morning, and I shared my concerns as part of my long-standing belief that ICE raids are not only cruel, they also do nothing to advance the cause of public safety.
And I care very deeply about public safety in our city, and we have continued to focus on delivering exactly that.
And I shared with the President that I thought that these continued detentions, as well as cases of those who are out of detention but face the prospect of having to be forced back into detention, do nothing to advance that cause.
And I asked for those cases to be dropped.
Thank you.
Melissa, go ahead.
Hi, Mr. Mayor.
Hi, Melissa.
In the latest Department of Homeland Security press release last night or statement, they seem to imply that the intention was not to detain Ellie Yagayeva, that they just released her because she's been placed into removal proceedings.
And I'm just wondering, during your advocacy with President Trump, what do you think the winning argument was?
And did they reverse course?
All I can tell you is what happened, which is that I shared directly with the President a list of names of Columbia students and those who've also been detained because of their activity on Columbia campus, and that these actions do nothing to advance the cause of public safety.
And I asked that these cases be dropped, and the president said that he would look into it.
Soon after the meeting, I received a phone call from the president saying that he was going to imminently release her.
Thank you.
A few of them are Columbia students.
One of them was detained on the basis of her being present on Columbia campus at a protest.
Thanks.
We'll go to Henry and then we'll go to Sahale.
Thank you, Audrey.
Hi, Mayor.
Welcome back.
Back to the housing proposal.
Yes.
What assurances did the President give you that he would follow through, especially given that he has worked to actually defund some of the major infrastructure projects of the tri-state area?
And why bring this one forward when it's so cost-intensive to cover the rail yard?
Could billions not be used better to build more housing elsewhere?
So the President shared his interest in the proposal.
And I am encouraged by the fact that we will continue to talk about this proposal.
It is going to be a long process.
We are speaking about an idea that had its first beginnings in the 60s and 70s and 80s.
It's a long-standing proposal.
The reason to focus on this one specifically is in a city where we know that land is so precious and so finite, here lies an opportunity to create more of it by creating the largest rail deck the world has ever seen.
And then on top of that rail deck, building more housing than we've seen since the construction of co-op houses and co-op city.
And that presents within it an opportunity to deal with a housing crisis where right now we know there are far too few homes in New York City, even for those who already call New York City home, let alone for those who want to join us in this city.
Thank you.
He said that he was interested and that the conversation would continue.
Thank you.
We'll go to Haley and then Joe right next.
Hi, Mr. Mayor.
Hi, Saley.
Did you speak to any local Thank you.
I wanted to ask about the Southyside Yard Project as well.
Did you speak to any local electeds in that area about the project in advance to your meeting with President Trump?
And if not, what conversations are you planning to have in the near future?
You know, we've had a few conversations across elected officials, labor organizers.
Those conversations will continue because this is a long-standing project that will also require a long-standing commitment, and we're just at the very beginning of it.
And I broached this with the President because of the fact that this is one of the busiest rail yards in the entire, on the entire continent, frankly.
And the city cannot build on these rail yards without the approval and direction of the federal government.
It will also require the federal government shifting a few policies as it pertains to bond caps and risk sharing, all of which are impossible for the city to do on its own.
Thanks.
Joe, go ahead, and then we'll go to Inside Audition.
Hey, Mr. Mayor, how are you doing?
How's it going?
Sorry.
I was looking for you.
I'm here, not on the floor.
Thank you, Chair.
Could you tell me how the meeting came about, who approached who and when?
And I was also wondering if you can explain a little more broadly.
You know, on the campaign trail, you had a very different posture saying you would be kind of the president's worst nightmare.
Since taking office, you really have gone to great lengths, I think, to not criticize him and foster this relationship.
It's very different than most Democrats in the country.
Can you tell us why you're taking this tag?
So I said over the course of the campaign that I will always be honest and direct with New Yorkers about my views.
The President and I have many disagreements, which we share publicly and we share privately.
And I also said on that same campaign trail that I would be willing to work with anyone, no matter disagreements, so long as it was to the benefit of the city that we love.
That is what it comes back to.
Every conversation has to be advancing the agenda of working New Yorkers.
And when we think about 12,000 new homes for working and middle-class New Yorkers, we see the possibility of so many more people being able to put roots down here in this city.
And this was a meeting that was scheduled as part of following conversations from the prior meeting, which was in November.
There was always a sense that that would continue.
It's, as you know, not the first meeting I've had with the President.
It won't be the last.
And we will also continue to advocate for anything and everything that can help New Yorkers continue to remain in New York.
Thanks.
Go ahead.
I think this came in the aftermath of the prior meeting.
I would say that finalizing the dates, I'm not sure exactly when it was, but it's just part of a long-standing conversation.
Thanks, Joan.
If we could pass the microphone right over here to Inside Edition, then we've got time for a few more.
We'll go to Dana now.
Hi, Mayor.
Thank you for taking my question.
What is your reaction to the downgraded charge for the suspect arrested in the snowball pelting?
And what do you say to police officers who are very upset about that and very upset about the incident?
You know, I will say first and foremost that I believe that our police officers should be treated with respect.
They are at the heart of delivering exactly that public safety that I was speaking about earlier.
And they've also been at the heart of responding to the city's first blizzard since 2016, because police officers were not just out there continuing to do the jobs that they always do, but they also have a tow truck task force, which is one that was chiefly responsible for digging New Yorkers' cars out of the snow, of digging out ambulances, MTA buses, keeping the city moving in that manner.
And for that work and everything that they do, I'm deeply appreciative.
And what I've said in regards to the snowball fight is that it's a snowball fight that got out of hand, and I don't really have much more to say to it.
The charge.
Do you have a reaction to that?
Commissioner's Commitment00:05:39
Thank you.
We'll go to Sam and then Dana.
Right to your left.
See the microphone?
Sam right there.
Thank you.
Hi, Mayor.
How's it going?
How are you?
I have a couple questions.
One is that work requirements for SNAP go into effect on Sunday.
And I'm wondering if you're confident that HRA has the staff and the capacity needed to deal with that paperwork and the requirements.
Do you think the governor should step in with payments to help out?
My second question is: if the city council staffer who had been detained by ICE also came up in your conversations with Trump.
So I'll say that I'm incredibly appreciative of the governor's partnership for advancing the needs of our city.
And she also stepped in the last time around.
We saw providing additional funding in SNAP benefits to ensure that so many New Yorkers would continue to be able to put food on the table.
I actually recall during Veterans Day, I sat with a number of veterans and one pulled me aside to say that that infusion from the governor was critical in him being able to continue to eat that week.
And so I think what the governor has done in the past has been truly significant and helpful.
And I am confident in HRA and I also know that the tasks in front of HRA and city agencies only continue to increase.
I always believe in their ability to meet the moment, but also our city administration's commitment to helping them in doing so.
And the names that we spoke about specifically were the ones in the context around students who were being detained on or around campus.
However, it was within a conversation where I made clear and I will always make clear that I believe that ICE raids at large are ones that are cruel and do nothing to advance public safety.
Thank you.
Dana, go ahead.
Hi, Mr. Mayor.
Hi, Dana.
When you say that the President expressed interest in the proposal, what precisely do you mean?
I think that the President was interested in the idea of working together to build 12,000 homes and that this was a long-standing idea that has not yet come to fruition.
And within that lies an opportunity to deliver a new scale of development in this city and one that resolves, starts to resolve an issue that you will find on the tips of the tongue of any New Yorker across the city, which is housing and how New Yorkers can afford to live in this city.
And also, a critical part of this proposal is that half of the homes would be Mitchell Lama homes, which have been considered time and again by so many, including by the president, as being critical to the stability of middle-class New Yorkers and their ability to lay down roots in the city they call home.
Thanks.
Josie, go ahead.
And then we'll go to Heather.
Hi, Mayor.
How are you?
Hi, Josie.
On the campaign trail, you talked about how you and the NYPD would be in lockstep because you're the mayor and your commissioner is below you as your commissioner.
That kind of hasn't panned out lately.
I'm wondering if you can respond to that as well as the hiring of Fred Kriezman.
Was he on the list your admin presented to the outgoing Adams administration to like clear house before you took office?
So I don't know the specifics on the second question.
I can tell you on the first is that I appreciate the work of my police commissioner, Commissioner Tisch, who has been doing the work to ensure that we're delivering public safety.
And that's work that we do in tandem.
That's work that we do also by being in constant communication with each other.
And I think what New Yorkers are focused on is are they safe in the city that they call home?
And that's the work that she's leading on.
Thank you.
We've got time for two more.
Okay, we're going to go Heather right here and then Catherine.
Hi, Mayor.
How are you?
How's it going?
If you secure this federal funding, realistically, what is the timeline of actually getting shovels in the ground and bringing these homes online for people to be moving?
I think this will take many, many years.
However, we are not daunted by the length of the project.
We also know that it's one that has been decades in the making.
And so many of us, we aspire to help to build a city that can build in the same manner that it used to.
You know, earlier we were thanking a number of elected officials, and one of them is State Senator Zelnor Myri.
And I recall he would share again and again that the Empire State Building was built in 13 months.
Today, that sounds as if it is an idea of fantasy.
And it is critically important that we do not fear the scale of these kinds of projects or think that they are impossible to deliver on.
We actually have to do everything we can to bring them to fulfillment.
Thanks, Sarah.
If you could pass the microphone just right here to Catherine.
Last question.
Thank you.
Hi, Mayor.
You said that conversations with President Trump will be an ongoing conversation.
Did you schedule a meeting for future or when do you plan to go back?
Does he have plans to come here to meet with you?
How is that going?
I can't give you the specifics of when exactly we'll meet again.
I will tell you, however, that as the mayor of our city, I will always look to keep an open line of communication with the president of our country and to do so always with the interests of New Yorkers in mind.
And that means making clear where there is disagreement, making clear where there is prospect for partnership, and always at the core of it asking, how can we make it easier for New Yorkers to live in the most expensive city in the United States of America?
How can we make it easier for them to live here, for them to be safe here, and for them to dream here?
Thank you so much.
Thank you, everyone.
Thank you.
Just go this way.
Just go this way.
I'm so sorry.
Coming up later today, we'll hear from President Trump in Corpus Christi, Texas.
President Trump in Corpus Christi00:02:16
He'll be receiving a briefing on energy production efforts from officials there.
We'll have that live a little after 4 p.m. Eastern.
And following that, the president will deliver remarks on energy policy.
That'll get underway at 4.35 p.m.
You can watch both of these events on C-SPAN.
Also on C-SPAN now, our free mobile video app, and online at c-span.org.
Today, on C-SPAN's CeaseFire, in the wake of this week's State of the Union address, former New Orleans Mayor and Biden Infrastructure Coordinator Mitch Landrew and former Trump White House Director of Strategic Communications Mercedes Schlapp will join our host Dasha Burns for a bipartisan conversation breaking down President Trump's speech.
The president's messaging on the economy and immigration to the growing questions surrounding potential U.S. military action against Iran.
Bridging the divide in American politics.
Watch C Spire today at 7 p.m. and 10 p.m. Eastern and Pacific, only on C-SPAN.
American History TV, Saturdays on C-SPAN 2, exploring the people and events that tell the American story.
As the nation celebrates the 250th anniversary of its founding, join American History TV for our series America 250 and discover the ideas and defining moments of the American story.
Historians gather in Washington, D.C. for discussions on fighting and dying in the Revolutionary War, the role of religion in the conflict, and how the American Revolution influenced the Civil War.
At 7.30 p.m. Eastern, a look at John and Abigail Adams with Harvard University's Danielle Allen and historian Joseph Ellis discussing the founding couple in essays for the In Pursuit Project, highlighting the leadership qualities of presidents and first ladies.
Then at 8 p.m. Eastern on Lectures and History, University of Alabama professor Lawrence Capello analyzes Supreme Court decisions that addressed Americans' right to privacy, focusing on cases involving police searches and phone wiretaps.
And later at 9.30 p.m. Eastern in our weekly look at the presidency, a discussion from the George H.W. Bush Presidential Library in Texas on the 35th anniversary of the end of the 1991 Gulf War.