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.

Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy will announce expedited plans this week to build a nuclear reactor on the moon, the first major action by the former Fox News host as the interim NASA administrator. NASA has discussed building a reactor on the lunar surface, but this would set a more definitive timeline — according to documents obtained by POLITICO — and come just as the agency faces a massive budget cut. The move also underscores how Duffy, who faced pushback from lawmakers about handling two jobs, wants to play a role in NASA policymaking. “It is about winning the second space race,” said a NASA senior official, granted anonymity to discuss the documents ahead of their wider release. President Donald Trump named Duffy as interim administrator in July after abruptly withdrawing the nomination of billionaire Jared Isaacman amid a spat with the nominee’s ally, Elon Musk. Duffy also offered a directive to more quickly replace the International Space Station, another NASA goal. The two moves could help accelerate U.S. efforts to reach the moon and Mars — a goal that China is also pursuing. The plans align with the Trump administration’s focus on crewed spaceflight. The White House has proposed a budget that would increase human spaceflight funds for 2026, even as it advocates for major slashes to other programs — including a nearly 50 percent cut for science missions. The reactor directive orders the agency to solicit industry proposals for a 100 kilowatt nuclear reactor to launch by 2030, a key consideration for astronauts’ return to the lunar surface. NASA previously funded research into a 40 kilowatt reactor for use on the moon, with plans to have a reactor ready for launch by the early 2030s. The first country to have a reactor could “declare a keep-out zone which would significantly inhibit the United States,” the directive states, a sign of the agency’s concern about a joint project China and Russia have launched. The directive also orders NASA to designate a leader for the effort and to get industry input within 60 days. The agency is seeking companies able to launch a reactor by 2030 since that’s around the time China intends to land its first astronaut on the moon. The nuclear initiative means that NASA will continue to have a hand in nuclear development even after the Pentagon’s recent cancellation of a joint program on nuclear-powered rocket engines. “While the budget did not prioritize nuclear propulsion, that wasn’t because nuclear propulsion is seen as a non-worthy technology,” the NASA official said. The space station directive aims to replace the aging, leaky International Space Station with commercially run ones by changing how the agency awards contracts. NASA plans to award at least two companies a contract within six months of the agency’s request for proposals. Officials hope to put a new station in space by 2030. Otherwise, only China would have a permanently crewed space station in orbit. Several companies have risen to meet the space station demand, including Axiom Space, Vast, and Blue Origin. But lawmakers have expressed concern in recent months that the agency is not moving fast enough to give them the funds they need.

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