Nice interview, maybe a bit too friendly and not critical at the right points.
First of all, both interviewer and interviewed seem to have so much faith in neoliberalism, Trump and the MAGA movement that they work hard to make sense of things, when they actually aren't or at least, counter the advertisement. That results in a lot of harmony (which can be good for the flow of the interview) but results in many questions not asked and thus some missed opportunities.
On the pro side, Isaacman appears very authentic in this interview, leaving no doubt that what he says and what he feels about it is in harmony. So, he really seems to be quite smart and extremely optimistic, but contrary to Elon Musk, has a social side as well and understands social structures and mechanics waaay better than he does.
On his views about the future of NASA and how to change things, I have a mixed opinion. I agree that NASA shouldn't do what industry can already do better. But when he talks so much about the support for rocket clubs as wasteful spending, I got to some strong disagreement over time. NASA isn't just a research provider or exploration agency, but also an important education organisation. The money spend for supporting such things is IMHO well-spend, since it actually produces tiny Isaacmans all the time. Like he himself described about his background. How many people work exclusively for that and how deep that support goes can be discussed. But I don't think its the biggest problem in the NASA budget. I also agree on nuclear electric having lots of advantages and the limited potential of nuclear thermal - and that NASA should (also) research it. About people resisting change... well, I see no difference between a government organisation or a similar sized (or bigger) company. Change is always painful, regardless how much you embrace it. Even change towards something you want always means you will leave a lot of things behind that you like.
I also disagree that cuts in science spending are making better science. Especially if only certain fields of science are involved and it tastes more like censorship. If you want science, you must let it ask and answer questions. Even questions you personally would like to not be asked. Science gets better, if you let it collaborate and compete, even on the same questions. Developing different answers to the same question eventually will get you to the right answer for each version of the question. And fear that somebody else discovers that answer before you or makes your research obsolete before you even finish it, is a powerful driving force. And politicians and businessmen can't decide, which answer is sufficiently answered. Only scientists can do that. They should fight for the budget. And less budget simply means less science then. Not more.
