Amending Executive Order 13803Reviving the National Space Council

Background

Before its revocation, President Donald Trump's 2020 executive amendment to the existing order on the National Space Council had a significant effect on the governance and coordination of the U.S. space policy framework. It expanded the membership of the National Space Council to include key members of the Cabinet and other senior officials, reflecting an approach that emphasized intertwining national security, economic policy, and technological development with space exploration and defense. This inclusiveness ensured that the policy decisions concerning space were made with comprehensive input from various sectors of government, potentially streamlining interagency cooperation and ensuring that space-related initiatives were aligned with broader national priorities.

Operational adjustments arising from the amendments included increased collaborative initiatives between agencies such as NASA, the Department of Defense, and the Department of Commerce. For example, the enhanced participation of the Secretary of Commerce suggested an elevated emphasis on commercial space affairs, promoting the U.S. commercial space sector and ensuring its competitiveness. Additionally, by including the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Council was positioned to better synchronize civilian and military aspects of space policy, thereby enhancing the nation's ability to protect its assets in space and maintain superiority in space-based defense systems.

Socially, the amendments sought to reinforce U.S. leadership in space, sending a strong message to both domestic and international stakeholders. By bolstering executive involvement in space governance, the order aimed at ensuring accountability and fostering an environment where the stakes of exploration and national security were transparently managed at the highest levels. This high-profile focus on space reflected, at least in part, a response to increasing competition from countries like China and Russia, positioning the U.S. as a committed leader in space diplomacy and innovation.

Reason for Revocation

President Joseph R. Biden Jr.'s decision to revoke the executive order was part of a broader repositioning of U.S. priorities in space policy and governance structure. The Biden administration has displayed an inclination toward depoliticizing space programs and encouraging broader collaborative frameworks that include international partnerships as well as private sector engagement. By dismantling the previous administration's framework, the new policy direction underlines an ideological commitment to multilateralism and the integration of scientific and environmental concerns into space policy.

Importantly, the revocation aligns with the Biden administration’s overarching theme of prioritizing climate change, science-based decision-making, and diplomatic efforts over unilateral approaches. The administration may have viewed the previous Executive Order's alignment with a defense-heavy composition as contrary to their vision of utilizing space policy as a tool for international collaboration on shared challenges, such as planetary climate monitoring and sustainable development goals.

The removal of specific reporting requirements, initially established for more frequent oversight, might represent a strategic pivot intended to alleviate bureaucratic pressures and encourage a more dynamic and streamlined communication channel. Instead of a rigid hierarchical structure, the current administration seems to prioritize adaptive mechanisms for interagency coordination, inviting external input from academic and scientific communities to drive policy advancements.

The ideological shift underscores the move from a predominantly nationalistic agenda to one where space is depicted as a shared frontier, demanding collective responsibility. This philosophical transition reflects a concerted aim to prevent militarization of outer space, which contrasts with the prior administration's emphasis on securing dominance and defense-centric strategies.

Winners

The revocation of Trump's executive amendment primarily benefits international space agencies and organizations advocating for cooperative and shared initiatives in outer space. These organizations are now likely to witness an increase in U.S. support for collaborative projects, such as the Artemis Accords for lunar exploration, which emphasize peaceful cooperation. Such shifts not only bolster the prospects of jointly-funded missions but also encourage shared scientific exploration and data exchange.

Furthermore, the private space sector stands to gain considerably, as the redefined governance model may facilitate a more open and competitive environment. By fostering ties with private entities, the administration could stimulate innovation and entrepreneurship. Companies like SpaceX and Blue Origin are poised to capitalize on this landscape, leveraging government contracts that promote public-private partnerships and the expansion of commercial markets.

This policy realignment also favors environmental and scientific research institutions that focus on leveraging space technologies for climate monitoring and earth observation. The Biden administration appears committed to utilizing orbital assets for gathering vital climate data, benefiting universities and research organizations engaged in studying global environmental changes.

Losers

The defense sector and entities heavily invested in military space operations might perceive the move as a setback. Companies specializing in defense technologies, such as Northrop Grumman and Lockheed Martin, may experience decreased emphasis on projects primarily aimed at bolstering space-based defense systems under the auspices of the National Space Council. This could potentially affect contracts and funding directed towards such initiatives.

Additionally, government bodies with entrenched interests in maintaining a security-focused space policy, such as components within the Department of Defense, may face challenges as the shifted emphasis impacts their operational objectives. The strategic reorientation might reduce the priority of certain defense-driven agendas, altering the landscape of power and influence within interagency dealings.

Lastly, stakeholders opposed to increased international cooperation may view the revocation as a diminishment of national autonomy. Individuals or groups that perceive space as a domain for demonstrating national prowess and independence might see this shift as compromising U.S. leadership, especially in regions where space exploration is a matter of national pride and competitive edge.