| Go-To Guide: |
|
On Dec. 18, 2025, President Donald Trump signed the EO, “Ensuring American Space Superiority.”
The administration is actively working on efforts directed in the EO, including an upcoming deadline of Feb. 16. 2026, for the delivery of guidance for the “National Initiative for American Space Nuclear Power.”
The order directs the administration’s space policy priorities, including a return of Americans to the moon by 2028, initial elements of a permanent lunar outpost by 2030, a commercial replacement of the ISS by 2030, developing and demonstrating prototype next generation missile defense technologies by 2028, attracting at least $50 billion of additional investment in American space markets by 2028, and enabling commercial launch services. The EO’s near-term legal and business significance is procedural and policy: reassigning space-policy coordination inside the White House, directing agencies to produce reports, signaling procurement preferences for commercial solutions, OTAs, Space Act Agreements, and exploring potential changes in spectrum and space traffic management policy.
Key deadlines (based on Dec. 18, 2025, signature date)
- By Feb. 16, 2026 (60 days): OSTP-led guidance for the “National Initiative for American Space Nuclear Power.”
- By March 18, 2026 (90 days): NASA plan for exploration objectives and a federal reporting package on programs and industrial base gaps (including missile defense-related supply chain issues).
- By April 17, 2026 (120 days): Commerce spectrum leadership review; NASA/State Department review of international civil space arrangements; and a proposal to revise the National Space Transportation Policy (revision to PPD-26 of Nov. 21, 2013).
- By June 16, 2026 (180 days): NASA and Commerce acquisition reforms; and national security space strategy/architecture steps.
What the EO Does
The EO is an overarching “execution order” that sets exploration and security priorities and requires agency deliverables on tight timelines. While the EO does not appropriate funding or rewrite statutes, it might still materially affect industry by driving agency planning, procurement approach, and interagency coordination.
A key structural move is the shift in the White House itself: the EO elevates the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) as a central coordinator and eliminates the National Space Council framework established under former President Biden.
On the national security side, the EO emphasizes commercial integration. Even without immediate new contracting authorities, these directives may lead to accelerated acquisition, higher demand for commercial offerings, and sharper scrutiny of cost and schedule performance.
Acquisition Reform and “Commercial-First” Procurement
A centerpiece of the EO is acquisition reform at NASA and the Department of Commerce. The EO instructs these agencies to adopt a first preference for commercial solutions and to rely more on streamlined instruments such as OTA arrangements and Space Act Agreements, along with “customary commercial terms” where appropriate. In practice, this might shift procurements away from traditional FAR-heavy designs and toward milestone-based performance structures, faster down selects, and more negotiated approaches on intellectual property, data rights, warranties, and allocation of risk.
For Commerce specifically, the EO contemplates building procurement capacity that does not require NASA acquisition support. If implemented, this might change the market for weather data and civil space domain awareness and related services by creating new buyers, new contract vehicles, and procurement organizations inside Commerce that can run their own competitive actions.
Spectrum: Commerce-Led Review with Reallocation and Sharing on the Table
The EO directs Commerce to coordinate with other agencies to complete a near-term “spectrum leadership” review that explicitly includes opportunities for reapportioning and sharing radiofrequency spectrum. For satellite operators, the EO comes at a time when spectrum demand is high and signals the administration may not think the FCC’s ongoing efforts to review spectrum sharing rules and modernize licensing go far enough. The EO may also point towards an increased reliance on interference mitigation strategies, flexible payload architectures, and dynamic spectrum-sharing capabilities.
Space Traffic Management and SSA: Removing the “Free” Policy Constraint
The EO amends SPD-3 by deleting language committing to providing certain basic space situational awareness and space traffic management services free of direct user fees. This change does not itself impose fees or create billing authority, but it removes a policy constraint that previously disfavored fee-based or cost-recovery models. Over time, this may support new business models for SSA/STM providers, while encouraging operators, particularly large constellations, to budget for the possibility that “free baseline” services may no longer be free of charge.
Conclusion
As the administration prepares to finalize and release the FY27 President’s Budget Request (PBR), EO 14369 has provided policy direction that may inform the FY27 as well as future budgets. The EO also provides insight on the administration’s intent on key U.S. government space programs, including Artemis, Golden Dome, and NOAA weather satellites.
The Greenberg Traurig team continues to monitor the execution of this EO and space policy developments in Washington D.C.