NASA on Thursday pushed back against comments from U.S. celebrity Kim Kardashian suggesting that the 1969 moon landing was faked. During an episode of The Kardashians TV series that aired Thursday, the Skims founder questioned whether the space mission ever took place, and noted her fascination with conspiracy theories. “There’s no gravity on the moon. Why is the flag blowing?” Kardashian said. “The shoes that they have in the museum that they wore on the moon is a different print in the photos. Why are there no stars?” she continued. “They’re gonna say I’m crazy no matter what, but like, go to TikTok. See for yourself … ” Hours after the episode aired, acting NASA administrator Sean Duffy responded to Kardashian in a post including a clip of her remarks. “Yes, we’ve been to the Moon before … six times!” Duffy wrote. “And even better: NASA Artemis is going back under the leadership of POTUS [U.S. President Donald Trump]. We won the last space race and we will win this one too.” Kardashian has said her doubts stem from alleged past comments by Buzz Aldrin, the second man to walk on the moon after Neil Armstrong, which have long circulated online in edited or misleading form, and that those videos led her to question the official account of the landing. (Aldrin, for his part, once punched a man who questioned whether the moon landings were real or not.) After Duffy’s post, Kardashian replied with a change of subject: “Wait … what’s the tea on 3I Atlas?!?!!!!!!!?????,” referencing an interstellar comet recently spotted passing through the solar system. Duffy, who was selected by Trump in July as acting boss of the space agency, responded that it was a “Great question!” said NASA’s current observations show that this is the third interstellar comet to pass through our solar system. “No aliens. No threat to life here on Earth,” he said, adding that he appreciated Kardashian’s excitement about the Artemis moon mission and invited her to attend the upcoming Artemis launch at Kennedy Space Center. The exchange comes amid growing tension between NASA and the Trump administration, which has proposed deep budget cuts and agency restructuring even as it touts a renewed focus on lunar exploration. Conspiracy theories claiming the moon landing was staged have circulated for decades. According to the Institute of Physics, “every single argument claiming that NASA faked the Moon landings has been discredited.” The institute points to photographic, radiation and physical evidence, including 382 kilograms of lunar rock brought back by Apollo astronauts, all of which have been independently verified by laboratories worldwide.

LONDON — Ideally, science and politics — like oil and water — should not mix. But in the world’s premier climate science institution, oil is fighting to gain the upper hand. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is embroiled in a series of behind-closed-door controversies, stoked by fossil fuel-producing countries and the withdrawal of the United States as an active participant. One fight set to boil over in the coming weeks centers on selecting the leading authors for a section of the next major IPCC report, which will recommend policies for governments to cut down fossil fuel emissions. The IPCC’s findings are the foundation of human understanding of climate change, guiding governments and investors on future decisions. As such, they face intense scientific and political scrutiny. According to a note circulated within the committee that selects the authors, seen by POLITICO, Sudanese economist Mustafa Babiker — a long-term employee of the Saudi Aramco oil company — was proposed as one of three coordinating lead authors for the chapter.  Babiker is a qualified academic with a long history of contributions to IPCC publications, including leading a chapter of its last major report. No final decision has been made.  But observers and some scientists worry that commissioning an 18-year veteran of the world’s largest oil company to lead such key work could harm the IPCC’s credibility as the world’s arbiter of climate science. “It damages the reputation of the IPCC,” said one person with inside knowledge of the discussions. “And this may well be deliberate.” Tzeporah Berman, founder of the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty NGO, agreed that Babiker’s potential role created reputational risk for the body. She described the nomination as “one of the most blatant examples of political capture by the oil industry of climate policy that I have ever seen.” POLITICO tried to contact Babiker through his Saudi Aramco email address and his various university affiliations, but he could not be reached for comment. Aramco did not respond to a request for comment.   “Saudi Arabia holds the work of the IPCC in the highest regard and is committed to upholding the scientific integrity and independence of its processes,” said an official spokesperson for the Saudi delegation to the U.N. climate bodies. “We firmly reject the notion that the nomination of Dr. Mustafa Babiker compromises the IPCC’s credibility. On the contrary, his extensive academic and professional experience … make him exceptionally qualified to serve in this role.” POTENTIAL DELAYS The imbroglio points to a broader conflict: growing efforts by major fossil fuel-producing countries to intervene in the global climate science body. That is an expected and manageable response to the increasing bite of climate policies aimed at stamping out fossil fuels and the spiraling impacts of climate change, said IPCC Vice-Chair Diana Urge-Vorsatz.  Observers and some scientists worry that commissioning an 18-year veteran of the world’s largest oil company to lead such key work could harm the IPCC’s credibility as the world’s arbiter of climate science. | CFOTO/Future Publishing via Getty Images “What we are witnessing is that simply the whole climate field is much more politicized and financialized, so … the IPCC is ever more important,” she said. “On every side, the stakes are much higher. So there is a much more intensive participation.”  The IPCC produces reports every six to seven years that are used by investors and decision-makers to determine the state of the planet and the need, or otherwise, to act. It is a U.N. body. While its scientific work is fiercely defended as independent, its activities are subject to approval by the world’s governments.  That political involvement adds weight to the body’s final findings, Urge-Vorsatz argued. While it inevitably introduces competing interests, it is also “the strength of the IPCC,” she said.  The IPCC secretariat did not respond to a request for comment. The report Babiker may help lead is expected by 2028, in time to inform the next round of global emissions plans set by governments.  But scientists said that timeline is in jeopardy — thanks in part to difficulties reaching agreement in its preparation. The next chance to thrash out these disagreements comes when the panel meets again in Geneva, starting June 30.  THE TRUMP WITHDRAWAL Most of the turmoil involves the coordinating body of what is known as Working Group III, the group of scientists and officials focused on the global response to climate change. (Other groups are charged with describing the physical effects and impacts of the climate crisis.) And the divisions are emerging just as a key international player, the U.S., steps back from the IPCC. In February, the Trump administration intervened at the last minute to block American Working Group Co-Chair Katherine Calvin from attending a meeting in Hangzhou, China. That came after Trump ordered a review of all U.S. participation in global environmental bodies. A comparison of staffing lists showed the White House also appeared to have cut six of nine staffers from the research unit supporting the report’s production, further undermining Calvin’s work. Calvin was NASA’s chief scientist at the time, but left the role in April, according to a note on the agency’s website.  The IPCC’s findings are the foundation of human understanding of climate change, guiding governments and investors on future decisions. | Patricia De Melo Moreira/AFP via Getty Images Despite this, she remains active in her voluntary chairing role and co-signed the note proposing the new authors this week. In addition to its two chairs, the group has seven vice-chairs. Three are from countries that are part of the OPEC+ group of oil-producing nations. Two others are from countries in the Gas Exporting Countries Forum. One is from Norway, Europe’s largest oil producer, and Calvin is from the largest oil and gas exporting country in the world. The officers are mostly academics, and there is no evidence they are politically motivated.  But one vice-chair is Malak Al-Nory, a senior adviser in the Saudi energy ministry. According to the person with inside knowledge of the discussions, it was Al-Nory who communicated Saudi Arabia’s nomination of Babiker to lead the report chapter. “Our ability to assess their skills is imperfect at best,” co-chairs of the selection panel, Calvin and Malaysia’s Joy Jacqueline Pereira, wrote in the first note. But they said all their choices, including Babiker, “received support” from the panel. “Saudi Arabia, like all other member states, engages constructively to ensure that the outputs of the IPCC reflect rigorous science,” said the Saudi spokesperson. No critics of Babiker’s appointment, speaking publicly or privately, raised specific issues relating to his professional or scientific integrity. He has a long-term association with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, degrees from the universities of Colorado and Khartoum, and specializes in modeling the economic impact of climate policies. But his almost two-decade association with Aramco, which is majority-owned by the Saudi government, demonstrated how “oil companies’ infiltration of policy reports and negotiations is holding the world hostage to the systems of the past that benefit polluters at the expense of lives and livelihoods,” Berman said. Urge-Vorsatz would not comment on Babiker’s potential appointment. But in general, she said, having many voices at the table could be “beneficial,” as long as they were “balanced” and represented a diversity of industries. PASSED OVER As the chairs’ note shows, in proposing Babiker, dozens of other highly qualified nominees were passed over. According to the document, they included Jan Minx, a researcher at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research who specializes in analyzing climate policy outcomes. Some governments don’t want this type of after-the-fact analysis to be included in the IPCC report. Saudi diplomats repeatedly opposed the move at the February meeting, according to the Earth Negotiations Bulletin, which publishes readouts from the meetings. Minx declined to comment. The chapter Babiker may lead is of key interest to Saudi Arabia, which aims to be a major exporter of fossil fuels for decades to come.  At the February meeting, Saudi Arabia, along with India, China and Russia, fought to alter the title and scope of the chapter. Other nations, including Sweden, pushed back. “Suggestions made by member states during chapter development are part of the IPCC’s open review process,” said the Saudi climate delegation’s spokesperson. “Saudi Arabia has always contributed through formal mechanisms and in accordance with IPCC guidelines and rules. It is misleading to characterize this as political interference.” Eventually, though, concessions were made to appease Saudi concerns. This article has been amended to clarify the role of Malak al-Nory

In a Washington full of big money and bigger personalities, it’s shaping up to be the breakup of the decade. And it’s happening for all the world to see. President Donald Trump and Elon Musk, his onetime close adviser and top political benefactor, on Thursday began sparring in a bitter, public feud that could have lasting implications for the world’s richest man, the president and the entire Republican Party. Almost nothing seemed off limits as the two parried — Musk suggested the president should be impeached, Trump threatened Musk’s companies, and Musk even threw out allegations related to Jeffrey Epstein. The blowup — which many had long predicted was inevitable — comes less than a week after the two stood side by side in the Oval Office highlighting their bond and fawning over each other’s efforts and talent. But the GOP megabill, Trump’s signature legislation, which could undermine Musk’s businesses by withdrawing extremely valuable subsidies, shattered what many had always assumed was an alliance of convenience. And it rocketed from a relatively civil policy disagreement to a blowup threatening to derail the president’s agenda and Musk’s personal fortune. Musk had spent three days criticizing the bill, which he called a “disgusting abomination,” and the Republicans in the House who voted for it, but Trump had largely held his tongue, though he and close aides were privately frustrated. But by Thursday morning Trump had clearly had enough. “Elon and I had a great relationship,” Trump told reporters during an Oval Office meeting with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz. “I don’t know if we will anymore.” He later said he was “very disappointed in Elon” and suggested Musk was suffering from “Trump derangement syndrome.” Boom. Musk, who had shattered fundraising records when he spent nearly $300 million to help sweep Trump into the White House, swiftly hit back, saying minutes later on his social media platform X: “Without me, Trump would have lost the election, Dems would control the House and Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate.” He added: “Such ingratitude.” The explosion mushroomed from there. Trump — who had given Musk broad powers with little oversight as part of the Department of Government Efficiency to slash through the federal government, rooting out so-called waste, fraud and abuse — said on Truth Social, “The easiest way to save money in our Budget, Billions and Billions of Dollars, is to terminate Elon’s Governmental Subsidies and Contracts,” which are reportedly worth $38 billion. In response to Trump’s threat, Musk said his rocket company, SpaceX, would “begin decommissioning its Dragon spacecraft immediately.” The U.S. government uses Dragon to transport astronauts and cargo to the International Space Station. The stock price for Tesla, which has been bolstered by billions of dollars in government subsidies, fell over 14 percent Thursday afternoon. The automaker, the source of much of Musk’s wealth, has suffered a series of financial blows during Musk’s time in the White House. Ahead of his exit, Musk attributed his departure from Washington to needing to focus on nurturing the beleaguered company. Trump also alleged that Musk had been “wearing thin” during his time in the White House, and that he’d “asked him to leave.” Musk retorted with a barrage of X posts of his own. “Such an obvious lie. So sad,” he said of the allegation. Then he dropped what he called “the really big bomb.” Trump “is in the Epstein files,” he said, referring to the records of the investigation into the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. “That is the real reason they have not been made public,” Musk said, adding: “Mark this post for the future. The truth will come out.” In February, the Department of Justice released what it called the “first phase” of documents related to the Epstein investigation, which has been a fixation of some of the president’s supporters. It has long been public that Trump — along with other prominent figures, like Bill Clinton — are referenced in documents released in court cases surrounding Epstein. But Trump is not accused of any wrongdoing linked to Epstein. The White House blamed Musk’s comments on Thursday on his disapproval of the GOP megabill. “This is an unfortunate episode from Elon, who is unhappy with the One Big Beautiful Bill because it does not include the policies he wanted,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a statement. “The President is focused on passing this historic piece of legislation and making our country great again.” Trump and Musk have been at odds over policy before — Musk, for example, slammed Trump’s sweeping tariff regime, which would damage his businesses — but the contention over the megabill laid bare a broader rupture between the two former allies. In the White House on Thursday, Trump claimed that Musk had known “the inner workings of this bill better than almost anybody” and “he had no problem with it.” But, Trump said, Musk had been “disturbed” by a part of the bill that would cut subsidies for electric vehicles, which would undermine Tesla. Trump also said Musk had been disappointed when the White House last week pulled the nomination for Jared Isaacman to lead NASA. Musk had pushed Isaacman for the role, Trump said, but the president had decided to select a different nominee because Isaacman “happened to be a Democrat, like totally Democrat.” “Suddenly [Musk] had a problem, and he only developed the problem when he found out we’re going to cut the EV mandate that’s billions and billions of dollars,” Trump said. Musk denied Trump’s claim that he knew the “inner workings” of the bill, writing in another post that it “was never shown to me even once.” “Keep the EV/solar incentive cuts in the bill, even though no oil & gas subsidies are touched (very unfair!!), but ditch the MOUNTAIN of DISGUSTING PORK in the bill,” Musk said. Aaron Pellish contributed to this report.

The White House is planning to withdraw the nomination of Jared Isaacman to be the administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, a White House official confirmed to POLITICO. The sudden move comes days before the Senate was slated to vote on his nomination to lead NASA. Isaacman, a commercial astronaut and billionaire CEO of the payment processing company Shift4, has a long-standing relationship with Elon Musk, who this week left his post as a senior adviser to President Donald Trump and chief of the Department of Government Efficiency. It’s not yet clear what the White House’s reasoning is for the personnel change. Semafor was first to report on the plan. The White House official was granted anonymity to discuss not-yet-announced personnel moves. Senate Democrats for months have been critical of Isaacman’s relationship with Musk, in light of his close ties to the White House and his role as CEO of SpaceX, one of NASA’s largest contractors.  In March, The Wall Street Journal reported that Musk personally asked Isaacman to lead the agency, which Democrats honed in on during his confirmation hearing last month.

For all of the fretting about Elon Musk on the national political stage, perhaps no part of America operates in his shadow more directly than the space industry. Musk’s influence, even before he became President Donald Trump’s trusted advisor, was already vast. SpaceX, the company he founded, accounted for 95 percent of all rocket launches from the United States last year, while its constellation of 7,000 Starlink satellites accounts for the vast majority of active satellites in space. Now, with a direct line to President Donald Trump and a new job with tendrils reaching everywhere in government, the billionaire has even more levers with which to push forward his own ideas of what America’s space policy should be. Should the industry be anxious, or excited? Interviews with a series of officials suggest a potent mix of both — a familiar feeling for many executives, as they watch his one-man war on whatever he perceives as an obstacle to his will. On paper, the billionaire founder of SpaceX and Trump confidant has no official responsibility for space, and has said he must recuse himself from NASA budget decisions. But Musk — so unable to restrain himself on social media that he bought a whole platform — has stirred controversy with a string of pronouncements on space since Trump’s election, calling NASA’s moon mission a “distraction,” promising a crewed mission to Mars and claiming the Biden administration stranded two astronauts on the International Space Station. Musk has also advocated for de-orbiting the International Space Station early — a job that, as it happens, will fall to his own company. (This was shortly after being called a liar by a former ISS astronaut for his claims against the Biden administration.) At the 40th Space Symposium event last week in Colorado, DFD put this directly to a number of space-industry executives. Their reactions were varied — and hinted at the perils of getting crosswise with someone who’s both a rival and a gatekeeper for your future. Musk’s lack of an official position is enough for Tim Crain, chief technology officer of Intuitive Machines, which builds moon landers as part of a NASA-funded program. “I don’t whipsaw on everything Elon Musk posts and publishes,” he said, to DFD. “What actual policy comes out of that?” Instead, Crain said he was waiting for NASA administrator nominee Jared Isaacman to take his place as the agency’s leader. Others have more open reservations about Musk’s influence, though they’re hesitant to put them on the record in public. Isaacman has close connections with SpaceX, including partnering with the company on a spacewalk that Isaacman performed. “It remains to be seen” to what degree Isaacman will distance himself from Musk, said one space industry official, granted anonymity to discuss Musk. Executives at companies that directly compete with Musk seem particularly watchful for any signs that the owner of the world’s top space company is influencing the awarding of contracts. “There’s a lot of eyes on him, so he’ll have to play by the rules. Otherwise, people will be pretty quick to call foul,” said Peter Beck, CEO of SpaceX competitor Rocket Lab, speaking at Space Symposium, when asked if he was concerned about Musk’s influence. The CEO of rocket maker ULA, SpaceX’s main competitor for national-security launches, Tory Bruno, offered a similar answer to a similar question, speaking in March in Washington: “Our expectation is that the procurement process continues to be fair and balanced and truly values competition,” he said. “I wouldn’t want to see it trend towards any kind of monopoly positions for any one provider or the other.” There’s one big counterweight to all the anxiety: Musk loves space. Getting humanity off the Earth, and dedicating immense resources to that goal, have been constant threads when he talks about his ambitions in business and policy. So even as some space leaders feel trepidation about Musk throwing his weight around, others would eagerly welcome an American space policy in line with Musk’s goals. (Many, arguably, feel both at once.) A Mars mission, for example, could benefit any number of space companies — like those already building private space stations, which would help give humans the extensive time in space they’d need to train up. A crewed Mars mission “will create a lot of new opportunities for companies like us” said Max Haot, CEO of space station company Vast, speaking last week at Space Symposium. “If you’re going to send hundreds of people to Mars, the first trip to space they should make is not to Mars. They should spend time in space.” Of course, Musk, the richest man on Earth, may not need NASA and its yearly budget of $25 billion to accomplish his dreams at all — meaning that, when it comes to ambitions like going to Mars, Musk could turn out to be a one-man space agency. “There is a scenario that even without government support, they’re going,” said Haot, theoretically propelling profits forward for a host of Mars-related space industries.

LONDON — When Octopus Energy boss Greg Jackson appeared on Desert Island Discs in 2023 — one of the U.K.’s longest-running, most-loved BBC radio shows — his first song choice was a 1980s banger: Yazz’s “The Only Way Is Up.” The optimism was on-brand for Jackson, one of the energy industry’s most polished lobbyists with half of Westminster on speed dial. Octopus, the clean energy start-up he founded in 2015, this year became the single largest provider to U.K. households. The multibillion pound firm has its tentacles firmly around the corridors of power, selling politicians on its vision of homes aided by smart meters, solar panels and other green tech. Within days of Labour’s sweeping general election victory in July, Jackson was in the Treasury, a poster boy for new Chancellor Rachel Reeves’ promise to hook clean energy ambitions to economic growth. And he wasn’t just courting Reeves.  Jackson and his colleagues met new Labour energy ministers 10 times in the 12 weeks after the election, according to official records. They were picking up where they left off — transparency data shows the firm had dozens of meetings with Conservative ministers in their final full year in charge of the country. Jackson has always brought “interesting and novel” ideas to Whitehall, one energy policy veteran said admiringly. He is a “likable” guy, said a former senior Westminster official also lobbied by Jackson, and a “key voice” in the green debate, according to Wera Hobhouse, a Lib Dem MP who has seen Jackson up close from her seat on parliament’s Energy Security and Net Zero Committee. Now the Octopus boss has his lobbying sights set on an obscure technical change to the energy system, which comes with huge potential consequences. He is trying to persuade ministers to overhaul completely how electricity prices are set — precisely the sort of reform which would hand a newer, tech-driven business an advantage over its rivals. And he might just win. MY FRIENDS ED AND RISHI Those Whitehall meetings included four chats with Energy Secretary Ed Miliband. (“My friend,” as Miliband cheerfully called Jackson when the two shared a stage at an Octopus-backed event last November.)   Jackson has an unerring habit of getting access to the very top.  Octopus, this year became the single largest provider to U.K. households. | Leon Neal/Getty Images When the Conservative government announced plans in fall 2023 to water down a series of net zero policies, then Prime Minister Rishi Sunak found time that morning to call the Octopus boss with a quick heads-up.  These days, Jackson sits on the board advising Labour on its industrial strategy, where he rubs shoulders with former Energy Secretary Greg Clark and Shriti Vadera, once Gordon Brown’s right-hand-woman in the Treasury. The board’s inaugural meeting was hosted by Reeves and Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds. Jackson’s business success helps explain why ministers, desperate both to breathe life into a flagging economy and to honor a promise to clean up the energy grid by 2030, want him around. Financial backers have coughed up hundreds of millions of pounds for stakes in his company. (Jackson still has a four percent share). The massive Canada Pension Plan Investment Board has put in cash. Generation Investment Management, co-founded and chaired by former U.S. Vice-President Al Gore, struck a $600 million deal in September 2021. Now Octopus has a net asset value of over £7 billion, operating across 32 countries. Its sprawling high-tech central London office is all a bit Silicon Valley — open plan, floor-to-ceiling windows, fridges filled with beers. There are enough screens to grace a NASA mission control room. Informal around the office, the boss favors a quarter-zip fleece and jeans. “I’ve worn a suit, I think, to Buckingham Palace,” Jackson told POLITICO in February, referring to a visit to see King Charles III two years ago. Presumably unused to formal attire, Jackson split his trousers in the car on the way, forcing a last-minute dash to the tailor. Jackson paints these connections — with prime ministers and vice presidents, kings and government ministers — as a natural extension of his work. Not everything is rosy (Octopus lost money each year until 2023 and this year its earnings slid nearly 60 percent), but Jackson is bullish. “We’re the biggest energy retailer so, with seven-and-a-half-million customers, we’ve got very strong views on what’s needed to drive prices down and improve standards,” he said. ON THE INSIDE Those views have found a receptive audience in the corridors of power. Octopus are very effective lobbyists, said Adam Bell, an ex-official who spent eight years immersed in energy policy at the old Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy.  “Octopus, unlike other retailers at the time, tended to bring forward regulatory asks that were interesting and novel — things intended to give them freedom to experiment with new consumer offers,” he said. The firm “became quite popular in the department.”  Jackson is “one of the best communicators around on the consumer and technology trends driving the energy transition,” agreed another former Whitehall official, granted anonymity to discuss lobbying. He “has a really useful role to play in communicating this agenda to the public,” said a further Westminster figure. Those Whitehall meetings included four chats with Energy Secretary Ed Miliband. | Carl Court/Getty Images Not everyone is a fan, mind. Some industry figures suggested Jackson enjoyed access to the new government mainly because ministers doubt he will rock the boat. “Labour see him as the ‘no-new-friends strategy,’” said one. “As in: They knew him beforehand, and kind of see him as on the inside. Is he using that to his personal benefit?” Another industry figure shrugged: “He tells people what they want to hear. If you only tell people what they want to hear, then they tend to listen to you.” Like any seasoned lobbyist, Jackson insists he will work with politicians of any stripe. But the Labour links are undeniably there — he was once head of the left-wing pressure group Labour List.  “I mean, briefly, yeah,” he admitted. Companies House data shows he was a director at the group for over six years. Jackson insisted that was just “to keep the lights on until they got a management team.” “I’ve been in the room more with the previous government than this one,” he said. The Westminster hobnobbing is certainly relentless. Octopus met Conservative ministers 41 times in 2023, out-lobbied in the energy sector only by industry giants EDF and BP, according to Global Witness data. Jackson shrugs off the criticism. Rivals “find it easier to grab your shirt to try and drag you back than to improve their own performance,” he said. THE NEXT FIGHT Octopus has plenty of experience fighting (and winning) lobbying and legal battles. It repelled attempts by larger firms in 2022 to tighten rules on financial reserves. A year later it prevailed in a protracted legal battle with British Gas over the takeover of collapsed provider Bulb. Now Jackson’s eyes are firmly set on another big prize: electricity market reform. Now the Octopus boss has his lobbying sights set on an obscure technical change to the energy system, which comes with huge potential consequences. | Pool Photo by Leon Neal via Getty Images It would be the most seismic change to the market since privatization, replacing a single national electricity price with hundreds — possibly thousands — of prices across the U.K., determined by local supply and demand. It comes down to an obscure government consultation process opened nearly three years ago and still unresolved: the Review of Electricity Market Arrangements (REMA.) Advocates for locational pricing say it would bring down bills for consumers everywhere. It would certainly boost firms like Octopus which rely on tech and a much more flexible electricity grid. The offer of cheaper bills is not a purely altruistic lobbying move, of course, given the chance it would also help Jackson gobble up even more U.K. market share from his rivals. Many big developers are just as staunchly opposed and are lobbying ministers just as fiercely. They argue it could make electricity pricing unpredictable and deter investment essential to the U.K.’s green goals. Trade bodies like Renewable UK, Solar Energy UK and Steel UK are lined up against it, too. The lobbying spat will continue until a REMA decision arrives, expected in the summer. The government says only that an update will come “in due course.” The second industry figure quoted above was scathing. “He doesn’t build anything,” they said of Octopus’s contribution, adding: “His argument means not building any new infrastructure, but this network needs investment.” Chris O’Shea, boss of British Gas owner Centrica, is critical, too, even if he avoided mentioning Jackson by name. “I think we [should] listen to companies that are actually putting their hands in their pockets. I think we should be dubious about companies that have not put their hands in their pockets,” O’Shea said. “It’s not true to say we don’t build stuff,” parried Jackson, pointing to the renewables assets operated by Octopus’s energy generation arm.  He batted away the broader criticism. “I think companies are typically acting in what they think [is the] public interest,” he said — before suggesting it involved a dose of special pleading from developers, too. “It is notable that the companies that earn money from building wind farms, whether they’re turned on or not, are also the ones that earn money from building grid, right?” Octopus has allies in its fight.  Ofgem, the energy regulator, backs reform. “[W]e do see the attractions … in something that begins to separate the country into different zones and allows prices to settle more organically where they are,” Chief Executive Jonathan Brearley told POLITICO in December.  Tech firms, also a highly influential lobbying voice, reckon local pricing would help them power energy-hungry data centers. Small retail suppliers like Good Energy back the reforms, too. “It’s the needs of 30 million households and businesses that should come first,” Jackson said on X in February, pressing the case for reform. On his Desert Island Discs playlist, Jackson also chose “The Gambler” by Kenny Rogers. In public, and in the closed-off rooms of Westminster, he has laid his latest bet.

BERLIN — Donald Trump’s victory in the U.S. presidential election bolsters the case for serious investment in space programs across the Continent, the director general of the European Space Agency (ESA), Josef Aschbacher, said Tuesday. “Space has hit the top of the agenda in the U.S.,” Aschbacher told POLITICO during a visit to Berlin, adding it was clear from Trump’s victory speech — during which the president-elect glowingly recalled watching SpaceX’s latest Starship test flight — that space would be a “priority” for the incoming administration. Trump certainly seems to have a strong interest in space. During his first term, he launched NASA’s Artemis program to return astronauts to the moon and founded the U.S. Space Force as a dedicated military wing to protect assets in orbit. SpaceX boss Elon Musk has also been a major part of the campaign for Trump’s return to the White House. While it remains unclear how Trump will define NASA’s mission plan and incorporate Musk’s commercial interests through SpaceX, his return to the White House will come just as European policymakers consider how to calibrate their own long-term investment. The EU and ESA are already funding their own version of Musk’s Starlink internet satellite network called IRIS² to provide a European alternative to SpaceX when it comes to encrypted communication services. Aschbacher said the aim is to close out contracts to build and operate the system by the end of the year. The space agency chief will then ask ESA’s 22 member states for long-term cash commitments at a summit in Bremen late next year, while the EU is set to start seriously discussing its new long-term budget for 2028 onwards. Donald Trump certainly seems to have a strong interest in space. | Mandel Ngan/Getty Images For ESA, increasing attention on space programs such as commercial satellite constellations, human spaceflight initiatives, start-up rocket companies and a future successor to the International Space Station is all good for business. Trump’s victory “gives space more visibility, more prominence,” said Aschbacher. “This supports the case for space in Europe … It reminds everyone that [space is] an important domain.”