Proposed EU Space Act threatens global space commerce

A version of the following public comment letter was submitted to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Office of Space Commerce and the Department of State’s Office of State Affairs on August 4, 2025.

On behalf of Reason Foundation, I respectfully submit these comments in response to the request for stakeholder feedback on the European Union (EU) Space Act from the NOAA Office of Space Commerce and the Department of State Office of Space Affairs.

Reason Foundation is a national 501(c)(3) public policy research and education organization with expertise across a range of policy areas. Reason Foundation has published research on the economics of space, space traffic management, orbital debris policy, and lunar space transportation.

Upon our review, we find several aspects of the EU Space Act concerning and worthy of attention by the U.S. government. Our comments develop the following points:

1. Differing registration regimes disadvantage non-EU space operators;
2. The U.S. Government should not consent to on-site inspections by EU personnel of non-EU space-operator facilities; and
3. Satellite constellation size is a poor proxy for collision risk and debris hazards, and the EU Space Act’s compliance thresholds uniquely disadvantage U.S. firms.

1. Differing registration regimes disadvantage non-EU space operators

The EU Space Act provides that registrations of EU-based space operators are to be obtained through the designated competent authorities of individual member states (Articles 6, 7, and 9). Member states also have the power to determine the means by which technical assessments are carried out (Article 8). While these member state authorities must adopt common standards prescribed by the Act, they have significant flexibility in their implementation of these requirements.

In contrast, registrations of third-country space operators are obtained through the EU Agency for the Space Programme (EUSPA) (Article 17). This includes a special assessment process through EUSPA’s Compliance Board (Article 43, points 1.c and 2.c), which requires a consensus vote of approval—or a decision made by qualified majority voting if consensus cannot be reached (Article 45, paragraph 4).

As a result, the licensing process for third-country space operators is significantly more onerous than that for EU-based space operators. To avoid undue bias against international commerce and competition, we believe a dual-track, origin-based registration regime should be opposed.

2. The U.S. government should not consent to on-site inspections by EU personnel of non-EU space-operator facilities

The EU Space Act provides expansive investigative and enforcement powers, including authorizing EU personnel to conduct inspections of the facilities of third-country space operators located outside the EU (Article 48, paragraph 4). For third-country inspection authorizations to be granted, an international agreement specified in Article 106, paragraph 1 must be concluded. Following the conclusion of the international agreement, before inspection of the facilities of a third-country space operator can take place, the third-country space operator must consent (Article 52, paragraph 1, point a), and the relevant third-country government authority has been notified by the EU and does not object (Article 52, paragraph 1, point b).

U.S. space operators are by far the most advanced in the world, and trade-secret theft represents a significant risk from extraterritorial inspections. This risk is underscored by the EU Space Act’s general bias in favor of EU-based space operators. Further, many U.S. space providers develop and make use of dual-use civilian/military technologies. This raises significant national security concerns as well as potential conflicts with special compliance obligations on dual-use technologies and entails heightened liability risks. The U.S. government should make clear to the EU that it will not permit EU personnel to inspect the facilities of U.S. space operators or their partners.

3. Satellite constellation size is a poor proxy for collision risk and debris hazards, and the EU Space Act’s compliance thresholds uniquely disadvantage U.S. firms

The EU Space Act would create regulatory distinctions based on the size of satellite constellations managed in orbit by space operators. For instance, Article 5, paragraph 4 defines a “mega-constellation” as a satellite constellation consisting of at least 100 operational spacecraft but not more than 999. A constellation with 1,000 or more operational spacecraft is defined at Article 5, paragraph 5 as a “giga-constellation.”

The Act would impose special and prescriptive requirements on mega- and giga-constellations (Article 73, paragraphs 1 through 3). This purportedly is justified because of the heightened risk posed by large constellations. While it is true that debris and spacecraft collision risk is in part a function of the volume of spacecraft in orbit, hazards arise from specific spacecraft and the accumulation of material in orbit over time.

Constellation size—i.e., some number of operational spacecraft “working together for a common mission, subject to a predefined orbital deployment plan” (Article 5, paragraph 3)—is a poor proxy for these risks. This is in part because of the nature of the risks described above, but also because space operators with the largest constellations operate the most advanced technology and lead the development of global best practices.

In addition, the creation of a “giga-constellation” category subject to the highest compliance burden would at present and for the near future apply to only two firms worldwide, both of which are leading U.S. space operators. This raises understandable suspicions that the satellite constellation regulatory thresholds proposed in the EU Space Act are designed to uniquely disadvantage U.S. firms.

Conclusion

Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback on the proposed EU Space Act. We are optimistic about the long-term prospects of space commerce but remain concerned that several elements of the EU Space Act would unduly harm international competition, stray into extraterritorial enforcement, fail to adopt a risk-based approach, and uniquely disadvantage U.S. firms.

We urge the U.S. government to challenge these provisions in the interests of continued development and growth of this sector of the economy.

The post Proposed EU Space Act threatens global space commerce appeared first on Reason Foundation.

Source: https://reason.org/testimony/proposed-eu-space-act-threatens-global-space-commerce/