How space policy may change under Trump

In partnership with

Advertisement: Authory

Start 2025 with a new, auto-updating portfolio

A new year is the perfect time for a fresh start. Authory helps you hit the ground running with a portfolio that updates itself every time you publish an article, no matter where.

No more tedious updates or worrying about losing your work due to site shutdowns.

Show off your writing with confidence, knowing everything is backed up and ready to share.

Make 2025 the year you automate your workflow, and shine as a writer.

Get started with your free portfolio today

Things are going to change. That much is clear, from just these first few days of the second Trump administration. (From the tone of recent press conference, it’s also clear that NASA is expecting dramatic changes to the agency.)

How that will affect space policy, the goals of NASA, regulation, and private space companies (especially SpaceX) is yet unclear, but here’s what I can say based on words and actions so far.

The bottom line is I think we’ll see more money for space across military and commercial sectors, and NASA’s budget might increase. But the places it will increase (and where it will likely be cut: Earth science programs, outreach, STEM education) may not be in line with what’s best for sustainable, long-term spaceflight and science goals. Change needs to happen across NASA and the regulation of commercial space, but what’s coming is, I think, not going to fix the things that need fixing.

Jared Isaacman, NASA administrator

Billionaire space tourist Jared Isaacman is Trump’s pick for NASA administrator. While Isaacman has shown that he’s a competent businessman (he’s the founder and CEO of Shift4 payments, a position he’s leaving to serve in the new administration), it’s unclear how that will translate to an agency like NASA.

When the pick was announced, I parsed the ins and outs of what Isaacman might do at the agency, based on his past statements and actions. I want to flag that NASA is a huge bureaucratic organization, across multiple states, employing over 15,000 people. Managing it is a monumental task, and the drastic changes that Trump has already made to the federal workforce won’t make Isaacman’s job any easier once he’s confirmed.

Not only that, but Isaacman has zero experience with civil space (he does have experience with military space from a previous company). Being the leader of NASA means negotiating with Congress and standing up for what the agency needs. It is unclear whether he has the experience to navigate the delicate politics around budgets and funding within House and Senate committees. His public criticism of SLS, NASA’s boondoggle rocket that’s a darling of the Senate, is certainly notable.

The incoming administrator also has close ties to SpaceX, which raises the question about whether that company will receive preferential treatment from NASA. Whether he does or not, commercial space will likely play a larger role at the agency than it has in the past.

My opinion here is that Isaacman is an interesting pick. Frankly, I was not optimistic about who would be in this position under the new administration. Isaacman, at least, has a demonstrated interest in, knowledge of, and experience with space (he’s been vocal about wanting to save both Chandra and Hubble), and he has made statements in the past that indicate he believes in human-caused climate change. Change would be good for NASA, as the agency has become weighed down under its own bureaucracy, but it remains to be seen whether Isaacman will bring the kind of leadership it needs.

Trump wants to plant a flag on Mars

The biggest piece of space news to come out of the inaugural address is the proclamation that U.S. astronauts would basically plant flags on Mars. It’s important to note that no time frame was given for this during the speech, though Trump has said at other times that he wants it to happen during his administration.

I have issues with this for many reasons, including that while the goal of planting a flag on the moon was the reason we made it to the moon so quickly in the 1960s, it’s also why we haven’t been back since 1972. NASA is building a sustainable human presence on the moon with Artemis, and you can criticize that program all you want (I certainly have!) but at least science and exploration are integral to the reasons to go, versus just planting a flag. Setting a goal of getting to Mars, without plans to actually do anything there, is the recipe for getting there and then not going back for 50+ years. We can do better.

(I’m not even going to get into the idea of “manifest destiny in the stars.” We should explore space. That doesn’t mean it’s ours to claim.)

There’s also the question of how you’d do it — the president has previously stated that SpaceX’s Starship (first uncrewed and later crewed) would be the vehicle to take astronauts to Mars. Right now, Starship can’t even get into space, so I think that’s overstating what’s actually possible at this moment. My worry here is that the administration moves forward in a reckless way to try and see this goal come to fruition, which will likely end up costing lives.

But still, it’s clear that going to Mars is important to Trump. He didn’t mention the moon at all, so that leaves the fate of the Artemis program unclear.

Jim Free Janet Petro, acting NASA administrator

NASA administrator Bill Nelson resigned on Monday, which is normal for political appointees. In the interim, until Jared Isaacman is confirmed, it was the new administration’s job to appoint an acting NASA administrator from the civil service.

That would usually be the associate administrator of NASA, who is the highest ranking civil servant at the agency, which in this case is Jim Free. For awhile after the transition of power, the NASA website listed Jim Free as the acting administrator because that’s who everyone assumed would be in charge.

Well, after the inauguration, the new administration announced Janet Petro, the center director for Kennedy Space Center in Florida, would be the NASA administrator, bypassing Jim Free entirely. Jim Free is one of the big faces of the Artemis program, so this could be an indication that the new administration does not support Artemis and seeks to fundamentally change (if not altogether cancel) NASA’s program to return to the moon. That’s especially interesting because Artemis was a centerpiece of space policy during Trump’s first administration.

National Space Council shutdown? Doesn’t really matter

There are reports that the president will also disband the National Space Council. This absolutely doesn’t matter but it also matters a whole lot. Let me break down why.

The National Space Council was established in 1989 and is chaired by the Vice President. It basically handles space policy development. However, the office didn’t operate between 1993 and 2017. President Trump revived it during his first administration, and now he’s disbanding it. It’s not a huge deal.

Why I do think it matters is because it’s yet another indication of the shift towards commercial space. I have not personally confirmed this, but reports indicate that the shutdown is the direct result of SpaceX lobbying. If true, this is another indication that SpaceX will play a big role in the next few years of space, and the company’s CEO may be the one who determines space policy for NASA, as we know he has a big role in this current administration.

Regulation is a mess and it will get worse

This is an administration that had made clear they want to dismantle much of the regulatory apparatus of the United States government. How does this translate to space? Well, the FAA oversees commercial space, which is probably about to get a lot bigger and more robust. The agency issues launch licenses, ensures that crewed and uncrewed rockets are safe and operate as intended, performs environmental studies to determine the impact of rocket launches, making sure launch plans don’t involve debris falling on populated areas — that sort of thing.

Dealing with the FAA can be very cumbersome, but the agency performs an important function in ensuring that spaceflight is as at least mostly safe for humans, both those on the ground and those atop the rockets. They could be doing better in a lot of respects: for example, the agency has come under criticism for allowing SpaceX to, essentially, investigate itself in response to problems with both their Falcon 9 and Starship launches. (The counterargument here is that SpaceX obviously knows its own hardware well, and can diagnose and come up with a fix for a problem a lot more quickly, easily, cheaply, and more effectively than the FAA could. There is merit to both of these arguments.)

There are also accusations that government agencies aren’t doing enough to regulate and mitigate harm to the environment when it comes to space-related activities. Back in November, the FAA cleared SpaceX to launch up to 25 Starship flights per year from their launch site in Boca Chica, Texas, despite repeated accusations (and evidence) that these flights are harming the local environment.

The FCC is in charge regulating satellite constellations, and they do so from a standpoint of communications, which makes sense given the agency. But that also means there is little consideration when it comes to the environmental impacts of regulation (how many satellites is too many in orbit, considering space junk issues? Are dark skies and lack of satellite pollution a right people have?)

These are just a few examples of the myriad regulatory problems when it comes to commercial space. There isn’t enough regulation, and yet at the same time, what is in place can often feel stifling and outdated because it wasn’t really built for this level of activity. But that doesn’t mean that dismantling it all is a good thing.

Besides broader past statements about deregulation, there are a few other reasons I think that we’re in for significantly less regulation for commercial space. First, SpaceX’s CEO has been vocal about his battles with the FAA, and it’s clear he will influence over policy (the FAA issued fines to SpaceX over launch license violations for two missions in 2024).

Second, there is a bill to move the Office of Commercial Space Transportation (AST) out from under the FAA and directly under the Secretary of Transportation as its own agency. SpaceX has publicly supported this bill.

What’s more, Trump’s nominee for Transportation Secretary, Sean Duffy, said that he would review both fines against SpaceX as well as the entire regulatory framework at the FAA for commercial space.

One thing that is clear: We’re in for a lot of change over the next few years.

Enjoyed this newsletter? I’d love your support on Patreon. It helps me keep Ad Astra free of charge.