With this project falling behind, and the reducing likelihood of delays in the Lunar Gateway/Artemis program, I think there's a good chance that NASA and the ESA will not have access to a space station following the ISS's decommission. It's not the only "public-private" partnership for an ISS successor, but I don't think the other candidates are making much progress either.
I also thought that this quote was pretty amusing, and highlights the futility of trying to privately fund commercial station projects:
To bring in some much-needed cash, Axiom Space started selling seats for trips to the ISS on board SpaceX's Crew Dragon spacecraft.
It was also awarded a NASA contract to fund a space suit for the first crewed mission to the lunar surface, Artemis III.
But the suit appears to have been a massive distraction — not to mention a major money pit — from its plans to build a space station. SpaceX trips to the existing orbital outpost were also not a sustainable solution to Axiom Space's woes.
"Turns out that there's not a lot of billionaires that want to set aside their life for 18 months to go train to be an astronaut for the ISS," a former Axiom executive told Forbes.
I stopped reading news about NASA after one too many "oh the comet interception has been canceled so
can get more money" and "oh the near-orbit solar probe project has been canceled so 
can get more money" moments. 
My favorite :agony-turbo: one of those is "we're not gonna put this lunar rover that we already built on a rocket that we're gonna launch anyway so :my-hero: can get more money"
Meanwhile China has I think three lunar rovers currently on the moon roving.
The bazinga car commercial in space moment was deeply demoralizing to me, and even on Hexbear there were some "I'm a leftist
" treat defenders trying to justify that aforementioned publicly-subsidized bazinga car commercial in space with bullshit excuses like "it was a payload test for the mission(tm) and they decided to have a little fun with the payload test, did you expect them to not have fun?" 
The answer is yes. I didn't ask to subsidize a fucking bazinga car commercial in space.
If the Apollo moon landing had a mandatory Coca-Cola sign installation moment "for fun" that'd have been crushing for me too.
I would support the use of a nuclear weapon in space if it was used to evaporate that car
They just couldn't think of a single better use for three thousand pounds of payload to solar orbit, right, sure.
The Falcon 9/heavy is the best amerikkkan launch system since Saturn but that's not a high bar.
Considering the Saturn rocket program was run pretty much entirely by paperclipped nazis, I'm gonna have to go ahead and say "nothing new under the sun."
I'd have accepted pretty much anything but an obnoxious flex from a private corporation and its products.
Call like any university and say "hey you got 3000 pounds of shit you want on a solar orbit? It might blow up, this is a test flight" And the answer will be "Yes, absolutely!"
I would have been fine with that. It may have actually promoted the bazinga corporation more than a narcissistic product flex, but this was