The U.S. Space Strategy and Its Impacts on International Security:

Based on the Space Policy of Trump’s First Administration

Junyi Shi

School of International Relations and Public Affairs, Shanghai International Studies University, Shanghai, China

Keywords: Space Strategy, International Security, Trump.

Abstract: Since the twenty-first century, space power has been increasingly important. The U.S. also pays much

attention to it. As one of the powerful nations in the world, the U.S. space policy has profound impacts. This

article mainly does research on the U.S space strategy and uses the space policy of Trump’s first

Administration as a starting point, aiming at finding out what Trump’s space policy is and how it influences

international security. To solve such questions, the article makes elaborate analysis on the characters of the

U.S. space policy, reasons for these characters, impacts on international security, and measures to maintain

space security. To protect space security, the international community is suggested to shape cooperation to

draft better international laws in space, promote extensive resource sharing and call for sustainable and

peaceful use of space.

1 INTRODUCTION

On October 4, 1957, the former Soviet Union

launched the first artificial satellite in the world,

signaling that mankind entered the space age. With

rapid development of modern space technology, an

increasing number of satellites, rockets and

spaceships have been launched into space. Space has

become the new arena for human activities and space

security has become one of the areas of non-

traditional security. During the Cold War, a fierce

space race happened between the U.S. and Soviet

Union, which influenced the international situation at

that time and reflected the growing impact of space

on international security. At present, the evolution of

the international system is accelerating, and the

international situation is volatile, thus the major

powers have entered a new round of strategic games.

Given that military development on land and at sea

has been relatively advanced，an increasing number

of countries have turned their sights to space,

elevating the strategic importance of space onto a new

level. The strategy of the U.S., as the traditional space

hegemon, profoundly shapes the international

security order. From the 1950s to the 1970s, it was the

initial stage of the U.S. space strategy. The federal

government included space exploration into its

national strategy and space started to become an area

of fierce arm race. From the 1980s to the beginning

of the 21st century, the U.S. space strategy witnessed

much development and turned into a relatively

complete strategic system. During Obama

administration, the U.S. space strategy entered a

phase of restructuring and transformation. Based on

America First, Trump made more prominent

adjustments regarding his space strategy, so it was

concerned a lot by other nations. Space

commercialization and space militarization are

increasingly obvious, bringing challenges to existing

international security. And this year Trump has

started his second term, studying his space policy of

his first administration is conducive to understanding

or predicting in the following four years.

2 U.S. SPACE POLICY IN

TRUMP’S FIRST TERM

Though the space policy of Trump Administration is

similar to that of previous administration to a certain

extent, it still presents some distinctive characters at

the same time.

Shi, J.

The U.S. Space Strategy and Its Impacts on Inter national Security: Based on the Space Policy of Trump’s First Administration.

DOI: 10.5220/0014294300004859

Paper published under CC license (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Politics, Law, and Social Science (ICPLSS 2025), pages 96-102

ISBN: 978-989-758-785-6

2.1 Promoting the Breadth and Depth

of Space Exploration

Space Policy issued by the Obama Administration in

2010, the Asteroid Redirect Mission (ARM) was the

major task, namely, to send astronauts to a near-earth

asteroid and collect rock sample, preparing for

human’s landing on Mars Mid-2030s (Reneau, 2020).

However, such plan was forced to cease after Trump

took office. During his election campaign, Trump

promised to liberate NASA from logistical activities

in near-Earth orbit and redirect its focus to the deep

space exploration. To fulfill his promise, on

December 22, 2017, Trump approved and issued

Space Policy Directive-1 Reinvigorating America’s

Human Space Exploration Program , accelerating the

pace of American space exploration. The core goal is

to lead an innovative and sustainable program to

enable human expansion across the solar system and

to bring back to Earth new knowledge and

opportunities (Trump, 2017). Unlike Obama’s focus

on asteroid, Trump regarded moon as the springboard

for Mars exploration. In the Artemis program he

approved, landing on the Moon is incorporated,

laying solid foundation for a manned mission to Mars

in the future. In the breadth of the space exploration,

Trump’s space strategy breaks through the traditional

geosynchronous orbit boundaries and expands the

radius of space activities to the entire domain of the

Earth-Moon space. While in the depth of exploration,

the U.S. space strategy has upgraded its paradigm

from arrival-type exploration to systematic

development. In addition to landing on the moon,

Trump also paid attention to other earth-moon space

activities, such as the establishment and application

of earth-moon as well as space orbital transport and

space-based positioning, navigation, and timing

(PNT) programs (Domotor, 2023). The United States

not only wants to plant the flag on the surface of the

Moon again, but also to realize a sustainable presence

on the Moon and long-term resource exploitation.

2.2 Promoting the Commercialization

of Space

According to Space Directive 2, it is conspicuous to

find that guaranteeing the U.S. leadership in space

commerce is placed in the central position of Trump’s

space policy, accelerating the progress of space

commercialization. Space activities shift from

government-led to market-driven. Firstly, emphasis

on the importance of private sectors. To promote the

participation of private space corporations, the

government endows more autonomy for them. The

government minimizes its intervention, like creating

transparent regulatory processes, simplifying

application procedures and lowering licensing

requirements. Trumps administration encourages

public private partnership in space area. Public

private partnership refers to a cooperative

relationship between the government and private

sector. Through franchise, service purchase and

equity cooperation, both sides (especially the

government) can share the benefits and risks, then

strengthening the service provision capacity. For

instance, the Defense Advanced Research Projects

Research Agency (DARPA) signed a contract with

Boeing in May 2017 to study the experimental Space

plane XS-1. On November 9, 2020, NASA selected

17 U.S. companies to form 20 partnerships, aiming at

advancing industry-developed space technologies for

the agency’s mission (MacDonald et at. , 2024). The

cooperation between space sectors and private space

corporations is beneficial to each other. Private space

corporations can obtain technical instruction and

make more innovation. Space sectors can introduce

new space techniques into the market, generating

considerable economic gains. Secondly,

commercialization of International Space Station

(ISS). The Trump Administration hopes that the U.S.

private enterprises but not the government take on the

operation of the International Space Station. Though

such a shift is impractical in the short term, NASA is

still taking certain measures. On June 7, 2019, NASA

announced that tourists were expected to visit the ISS

by 2020, and astronauts are allowed to be involved in

private missions for at most 30 days. However, in the

past NASA had made explicit prohibitions of any

commercial programs of the ISS. Thirdly,

transformation into space capitalism. Since 1980s, the

U.S. has always supported the privatization or

commercialization of space activities by giving

various supports to private companies. Trump’s

Administration has further deepened space

capitalism. The American Space Commerce Free

Enterprise Act published in 2017 declared that ‘space

is not a global commons', manifesting that the outer

space was quickly being recast as a private good

private property instead of being shared by all human

beings.

2.3 Promoting the Militarization of

Space

Previously, each American administration always

emphasized the peace use of space and avoided

setting connection between the space and war. So, the

policymakers directed the Defense Department to try

The U.S. Space Strategy and Its Impacts on International Security: Based on the Space Policy of Trump’s First Administration

to avoid public talk about space war." Whereas, after

Trump took his term, he stated to escalate the space

to the military level. He said in a speech in San Diego

that space is incorporated into a war-fighting domain,

just like the land, air and sea (Gannon, 2022). Due to

the ideology of achieving peace through strength, he

keeps emphasizing the necessity of reinforcing the

U.S. military space ability, then posing strategic

deterrence to other nations. Firstly, reviving

American National Space Council (NSC). In 1993,

National Space Council was abolished by President

Nixon. In March 2017, Trump signed NASA

Transition Authorization Act, indicating that the

revival of National Space Council was put on the

agenda. On June 30, 2017, President Trump signed an

executive order to reestablish the National Space

Council. The composition of NSC reflected a strong

space militarization dimension, whose chair was Vice

President Mike Pence and whose other members

included the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of

Homeland Security, the Director of National

Intelligence Assistant, the President for National

Security Affairs and so on. Also, it is designed to

directly serve national security objectives and

coordinate the civil space and military space policies.

The revival of NSC after the long-term of inactivity

since the Cold War is a clear signal that space has

gained importance, and that the U.S. are committed to

stay on top. Secondly, establishing the U.S. Space

Force. During the UN Conference on Disarmament in

2019, Trump Administration declined to endorse the

draft Treaty on Prevention of the Placement of

Weapons in Outer Space and of the Threat or Use of

Force against Outer Space Objects (PPWT), while

simultaneously announcing the formation of the U.S.

Space Force — a historic reorganization marking the

first addition to America’s military branch structure

since 1947. It is well worth mentioning that the U.S.

Space Force is independent of the Air Force and

becomes the sixth branch of the U.S. Armed Forces.

The motto of the new branch was Semper Supra, and

the force began to take shape when the Air Force

Space Command's 16,000 active-duty soldiers were

reassigned to the new service (Lantis, 2025). Thirdly,

accelerating the pace of inventing and deploying

weapons in the outer space, which Trump thinks is an

effective way to defuse any threats to national

security. For example, according to the 2019 Missile

Defense Review, the deployment of space-based

sensors facilitates the interception of missiles. Hence,

the Trump administration pursued the space-based

missile defense system as an anti-satellite weapon

system. Trump’s space policy focus on further space

exploration, space commercialization and space

militarization, all of which reflect his concern for

national interests and America First.

3 REASONS

The three characters of Trump’s space policy in his

first term are not merely the corollary of

technological advancement, but they are also the

choices for the U.S. to respond to the domestic and

international requirements. In the domestic level,

ideology and policy inertia is indispensable. In the

international level, economic and political pursuits

are two major aspects.

3.1 Continuing previous Ideology of

Space Exploration

As Trump is always regarded as a typically capricious

person, the specialty of his policy tends to be

amplified. Many people might take it for granted that

his policy is made in a flash of inspiration and lack

representativeness. Some of Trump’s space policy

has certain historical roots, which could be traced

back to the previous Administrations. Since the Cold

War, almost each U.S. President has held a long and

firm belief of Command of the Space Power because

of its considerable importance to national security.

Gradually, space control has been the U.S. political-

military creed. The aim of it is to seize the advantages

of cosmic space and assure that the U.S. has the

freedom of taking space actions and squeezes the one

of other nations. In the early 1960s, the U.S. President

J.F. Kennedy once declared that whoever controls

space controls the Earth; whoever controls space

controls the initiative in war. Different editions of

National Space Policy released by Clinton

Administration, the Bush Administration and Obama

Administration have laid great emphasis on the

assurance of space control capability. Continuing

such ideology, National Space Policy released by

Trump Administration in 2018 mentions space

deterrence, which is also a composition of space

control capability. Additionally, Strategic Defense

Initiative (Star Wars Program, SDI) proposed by

President Reagan has a profound impact on Trump.

Many scholars think that there are many similarities

between their space policy. For instance, Reagan

advocated the utilization of anti-satellite missiles and

killer satellites to defend against Soviet nuclear

strikes, of which the essence is space militarization.

Trump’s space policy keeps logic and has further

ICPLSS 2025 - International Conference on Politics, Law, and Social Science

derivation, emphasizing space’s significance for

active defense and offensive capabilities as a

battlefield. Based on the analysis, it is no surprise that

Trump encourages to extend the sphere of space

exploration to the Moon then the Mars and fortify the

military strength in the outer space.

3.2 Controlling the Government’s

Expenditure and Boosting the U.S.

Economy

Commercial spaceflight, an emerging field, is

increasingly becoming a new driver of high-quality

socio-economic development. Given that Trump

asked for increasing national defense expenditure,

whose cost was the budget of many public sectors was

undermined. Even though NASA’s budget didn’t

experience cut-off and witnesses increase each year,

with $20.7 billion in 2018, $21.5 billion in 2019,

$22.6 billion in 2020, $23.2 billion in 2021, such

growth is slight. It costs NASA about $3 billion a year

to maintain the operation of the International Space

Station, which accounts for 33.3% of its annual

human spaceflight budgets (Oughton et al., 2024). At

the same time, NASA also needs to take care of

Artemis program sending humans to the Moon then

to Mars. Limited budget constrains NASA’s ability to

implement its missions unless the government

allocates more budget. However, during Trump’s first

term, the debt scale keeps extending and the fiscal

deficit remains. Under such circumstances, it is

almost impossible to get additional funds.

Introducing private space companies into the U.S.

commercial space area will bring more investments,

not only lowering the operational cost of NASA, but

also being helpful to relieve the fiscal burden of the

federal government. Trump administration

emphasizes the commercialization of the space, also

aiming at activating the space economy to elevate the

overall U.S. economy. The U.S. National Security

Strategy, released in 2017, makes it clear that

economic prosperity has risen to the core strategic

level of national security and highlights the cutting-

edge technology industry, represented by space

science and technology, as a key engine for driving

sustained national economic growth. Through

developing space commercial activities, the U.S. has

achieved either direct economic effects or indirect

economic effects. Between 2006 and 2015, total

global commercial space activity grew significantly,

by approximately $100 billion, which shows that

economy in the U.S. has benefited a lot from

spaceflight area (Kulu, 2021). Plus, it can lead to the

development of relevant industry chains, including

spacecraft manufacturing, satellite applications and

aerospace materials. These industries involve

multiple segments, each requiring specialized

technicians, thus creating many job opportunities in

the U.S. The higher the employment rate is, the better

the economic situation will be.

3.3 America First and Sustaining the

U.S. Hegemony

The essence of U.S. space strategy is to maintain its

hegemony. For the U.S., pursuing hegemony always

permeates its domestic and foreign policies, Trump is

no exception. His governing doctrine is to “Make

America Great Again” and “America First”. After the

Cold War, the U.S. space technology once was far

ahead and almost no nation had the ability pose a

threat on its space security and national security.

Nowadays, though the U.S. is the only superpower in

the war, with the evolution of multi-polar pattern , it

is inevitable that its hegemonic status is gradually

undermined. In the context of multi-polar patterns,

Space Democratization has emerged. Based on the

public interests of all human beings and seeks the

sustainable development of space, Space

Democratization encourages the expansion of

international cooperation and multilateral governance

on space issues, to address common space challenges,

but that decentralizes the U.S. status. The U.S.

National Intelligence Agency noted in its National

Intelligence Strategy released in January 2019 that the

democratization of space poses a challenge to the

United States and that space is no longer exclusively

the domain of the United States (Pace, 2023). The

fast-growing space capability of China and Russia

was thought to challenge the U.S. hegemonic status.

The China threat theory has escalated markedly,

particularly prevailing during Trump Administration,

with Washington systematically amplifying its

rhetoric and policy actions as well as framing China's

technological advancements and lunar exploration

program as strategic challenges to U.S. space

dominance. For the sake of retrieving its hegemonic

status, Trump’s administration was devoted to the

commercialization and militarization of space. By

upholding such policies, the U.S. could seize more

space resources to bring potential economic

opportunities and squeeze others’ space survival area

to elevate deterrence effects. In fact, space policy of

Trump Administration is motivated by a continuation

of previous domestic space policy and ideologies, the

need to stimulate economic growth, and the

maintenance of U.S. hegemony.

The U.S. Space Strategy and Its Impacts on International Security: Based on the Space Policy of Trump’s First Administration

4 IMPACTS

The planning and implementation of Trump’s space

policy enhance the U.S. national security while

imposing detrimental impacts on specific nations or

regions and exacerbating international security.

4.1 Impacts on the Security of

Emerging Spacefaring Nations

In the case that the U.S. hopes to keep absolute

advantages in space, despite some cooperation, the

U.S. attaches importance to taking precautions

against emerging spacefaring nations by cutting down

their space capability and restraining their space

capability. Emerging spacefaring nations refer to

those countries with independent launching

capability from their territories, mostly located in

regions like Africa, the Asia-Pacific, and South

America (Harrison, 2023). China, as a typical

emerging spacefaring nation, would be taken as an

example here. The U.S. sees China-U.S. relationship

as a zero-sum game, so it seeks to continuously

suppress China in the space arena, posing a real threat

and a serious challenge to China's national security.

Trump’s Administration has been playing up the

China threat argument in the international society to

exert external pressure on the development on

China’s space capability through the international

public opinion. For a long time, the U.S. has excluded

China from participating in any ISS co-operation

projects. And, in Artemis Accords, though the U.S.

claims to promote the accord in the name of

international cooperation, NASA has never signed

relevant treaties with China about moon exploration.

Such exclusion is meant to isolate China and form

strategic suppression. Thus, the U.S. could enhance

the possibility to be dominant in space exploration.

The application of space militarization could curb

China's military advances in space. Meanwhile,

compared with China, the U.S. still plays a leading

role in space military strength. The incessant

deployment of space weapons and upgradation of the

supervision system are likely to increase the accuracy

and promptness for the U.S. to command military

information about China while adding obstacles for

China to camouflage and conceal its military target.

The exposure of strategic movement to the U.S.

menaces the space security of China.

4.2 Impacts on European Districts

Considering the ethnicity and history, the U.S. and

Europe have a natural geographic proximity,

especially with the western European countries, so

Trump’s space policy is not directing at smothering

their space development. But the U.S. aspiration in

space is more or less adverse to the security of the

European district. Trump’s space policy in his first

term is based on the principle of America First. Due

to the necessity of space militarization, in 2018

Trump Administration has identified space as an

operational frontier and spread the aggressive attitude

to a broader sphere. On December 4 in 2019, the 29

NATO heads of state on Wednesday jointly declared

space as a domain of operations, which served for the

U.S. ambition of pursuing hegemony in the space

field (Palombi, 2023). To economize on the cost,

Trump required the EU members to afford more

spending on space and coordinate with the U.S. space

actions. Several EU countries are not willing to be as

dominant as the U.S. in space, yet they need to pay

for the U.S. space ambition. Considering that their

security is greatly contingent upon NATO, if they

refuse to do so, their national security may not be

guaranteed. They need to make a hard and tricky

choice between autonomy and national security. In

response to the U.S. radical space policy, the EU

made some breakthroughs during 2017-2021 like

launching the CSO satellites and establishing the

European Union Space Surveillance and Tracking

Partnership (EU SST). But such breakthroughs are

limited, its space defense system still relies on the

NATO framework that the U.S. dominates.

4.3 Impacts on Global Security

Trump’s space policy has aggravated the Security

Dilemma. The Security Dilemma refers that states

often perceive the actions of other states as

threatening, even if they are defensive. In detail, the

international community is in a state of anarchy, when

a nation takes some measures to ensure its own safety,

other nations’ sense of security will be lowered and

take corresponding measures to enhance the defense

system. This kind of interplay between nations would

finally turn into a vicious cycle, which may result in

a series of issues. When noticing that the U.S. keeps

intensifying space strength, they would probably be

beset with anxiety for lack of trust. They might

assume that they need to resort to the same way to

prevent their survival space from being compressed.

Thus, despite unwillingness, other countries have no

alternatives but to employ a counterpart strategy

against the U.S., being harmful to harmonious

international relations. Additionally, Trump’s space

policies have slowed down the arms control and have

intensified arms race in outer space. Trump

ICPLSS 2025 - International Conference on Politics, Law, and Social Science

100

Administration rejects to joining in any international

treaties related to space arms control like the Treaty

on the Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space

(PAROS) and unilaterally pursues space

Transparency and Confidence-building Mechanisms

(TCBMs) that exclude the U.S. In other words, the

U.S. hopes to become the rule maker instead of the

rule observer. This has led to other nations’

reasonable suspicion that the U.S. might have a

motivation to launch a space war in the future.

Meanwhile, the U.S. continuous attempts at inventing

and deploying space weapons give many nations a

deeper sense of threat, so they sense that there is

increasing necessity to carry out a series of

expansively aggressive space strategies to promote

their power in the space field. In fact, besides China,

Russia and America, there are still more than 10

nations being capable of launching satellite with

military functions into space. In July 2009, France

created a space force and armed satellites in orbit with

machine guns and lasers, with full operational

capability planned for the 2030s (Baccelli et al.,

2024). In September 2019, the European Commission

established the European Policy Department for

Defense and the Space Industry, and in November of

the same year, launched 13 space projects, including

the Timely Warning and Interdiction Space-Based

Theater Surveillance (TWISTER) project, which

primarily aimed at improving NATO's space war

fighting capabilities. These aggressive and defensive

actions cause more obstacles to space governance.

Affected by Trump’s space policy, a sense of threat

lingers on in the international community, putting

international security on the verge of turbulence and

unrest.

5 MEASURES TO ENHANCE

SPACE SECURITY

Regarding security risks Trump Administration has

led to, the international community had better adopt

scientific and reasonable approaches to mitigate it,

which is helpful to create a favorable space

environment. From the institutional perspective, the

international community should make joint efforts to

improve the international law on space. The current

international space legal framework exists some

structural flaws. In terms that most of the

foundational space documents were published in the

20th century and the international situation has

witnessed tremendous changes, they are not suitable

to cope with problems and challenges arising in the

new era of space commercialization and

militarization. For instance, the Outer Space Treaty

was signed in 1960s under the background of the Cold

War, so partial treaties have already been outdated. At

present, what is urgent is that nations, especially those

spacefaring nations, are supposed to reach a new

consensus as soon as possible on the governance of

space security. The first priority is to promote the

substantive implementation of the Treaty on the

Prevention of Arms Race in Outer Space (PAROS),

expressly prohibiting space weapons from be

deployed in the orbit. Given that some treaties lack

effective enforcement mechanisms to ensure

compliance and resolve disputes, parties could add

new penalty clauses to the original contents and

increase the intensity of supervision (Wang, 2021).

To those who violate the relevant law, rigid measures

like economic sanction must be taken at once. Only

by constructing a more comprehensive multilateral

legal framework can the international society curb the

systematic erosion of space security by unilateralism.

From the capability perspective, the deep

technology gap between different nations could be

narrowed by enhancing space cooperation and space

resource sharing. Technological power imbalance is

one of the main threats to space security. Nowadays,

there is a universal phenomenon that a small number

of spacefaring nations implement monopoly,

commanding many orbital resources in space. It’s

pivotal to improve the fairness of space development

and achieve inclusive space capacity building. To

realize them, there is supposed to be a cooperative

mechanism of resource sharing technology transfer.

Because space is an important area of future human

activities and its valuable resources are the common

heritage of all humankind, each nation needs to

abandon the hegemonic mindset. When exploring and

utilizing space, all nations should adhere to the

principle of free space, which means that no nation

can monopolize space and that all nations have the

right to use and explore space for peaceful purposes.

For example, on July 23, 2023, China and Venezuela

co-signed a space cooperation agreement to help

Venezuela develop space science research, creating a

harmonious international environment. At the same

time, drawing on the experience of the World Health

Organization in vaccine technology transfer like

setting Medicines Patent Pool, the U.S., the EU,

China and Russia may open some non-sensitive

technology patents to those nations with weaker space

capabilities (Li and Yang, 2021).

From the ideological perspective, nations should

adhere to the concept of peaceful development and

build a community with a shared future for space. As

The U.S. Space Strategy and Its Impacts on International Security: Based on the Space Policy of Trump’s First Administration

101

globalization evolves continuously, nations have a

closer relationship with each other than ever and they

share common interests on a growing number of

issues, including the space arena. If confrontation in

space happens, the loss will be beyond the

imagination and no nation will be exempt from the

loss. Hence, nations should avoid setting a space

strategy with a militarized mindset, instead, being

open and inclusive is an excellent alternative. As one

of the most powerful nations in space, the U.S. is

expected to play a leading role in maintaining space

security. Faced with the potential challenges and

risks, the Cold War mentality is not feasible any

longer. The U.S. should work with other major

powers to optimize the space security environment.

When problems emerge, each party has the obligation

to insist on the basic principle of win-win cooperation

and establish robust diplomatic exchanges for

peaceful solutions. For example, to prevent

misunderstanding as well as confrontation, the United

States can improve the dialogue mechanism with

nations like China and Russia, discussing “bright

lines” in space, and mutual assurance measures

(Kello, 2022).

6 CONCLUSION

This article takes the space policy under the Trump

administration as the research object, focusing on the

deep logic of the U.S. space strategy and the real

impact on international security. Through the analysis

of policy texts, the space policy of Trump’s first

Administration has three characteristics: broader and

deeper space exploration, space commercialization

and space militarization. Such characters are driven

by multiple factors, including being consistent with

former U.S. space strategy, reviving U.S. economy,

and pursing hegemony in the space field. Then the

article further shows that Trump’s space policy

results in challenges to other nations and international

security. The U.S. is hostile to emerging spacefaring

nations, so their space capability is deliberately

suppressed. For the EU countries, cautious options

remain to be made between autonomy and national

security. In the worldwide, aggravation of Security

Dilemma and space arms race emerge. In terms of the

risk of a disordered space governance system,

international society is encouraged to make joint

efforts to improve the international law on space,

enhance international space cooperation and space

resource sharing, and adhere to the concept of

peaceful development and a shared future for space.

REFERENCES

Baccelli, F., Candel, S., Perrin, G. and Puget, J.L., 2024.

Large Satellite Constellations: Challenges and Impact.

Doctoral dissertation, Académie des sciences.

Domotor, A., Borowitz, M. and Palmer, R., 2023. Cislunar

positioning, navigation, and timing: International

relations and policy implications. New Space, 11(4),

pp.251-261.

Gannon, J.A., 2022. One if by land, and two if by sea: cross-

domain contests and the escalation of international

crises. International Studies Quarterly, 66(4),

p.sqac065.

Harrison, R.M., 2023. The Next Space Race.

Kello, L., 2022. Striking back: The end of peace in

cyberspace-And how to restore it. Yale University

Press.

Kulu, E., 2021, October. In-Space Economy in 2021–

Statistical overview and classification of commercial

entities. In 72nd International Astronautical Congress

(IAC 2021), Dubai, United Arab Emirates (pp. 25-29).

Li, H. and Yang, X., 2021. Co-governed Sovereignty

Network: Legal Basis and Its Prototype & Applications

with MIN Architecture (p. 257). Springer Nature.

MacDonald, A., Besha, P., Sotudeh, J., Beauchemin, A.,

Ferster, W. and Smith, P., 2024. Enabling America on

the Space Frontier: The Evolution of NASA’s

Commercial Space Development Toolkit (No. Winter

2024). National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

Oughton, E., Weir, E., Dobereiner, J., Wetherbee, P. and

Heckler, G., 2024. Assessing Commercialization

Strategies for Evolving Network Demand (ASCEND)

in the NASA Space Communications and Navigation

(SCaN) program. Available at SSRN 4903586.

Pace, S., 2023. US National security interests in space. The

Oxford Handbook of Space Security, p.275.

Palombi, E., 2023. NATO's Role in Space: How and Why

NATO Member States Should Expand Their Purpose

and Capabilities in Space. Journal of Indo-Pacific

Affairs, 6(4).

Reneau, A., 2020. Moon First and Mars Second: A Practical

Approach to Human Space Exploration. Springer

Nature.

S. Lantis, J., 2025. “Semper supra”? Trump administration

policy narratives and the creation of the space force.

Review of Policy Research.

Trump, D., 2017. Space policy directive 1: reinvigorating

America's human space exploration program. Feder.

Regist, 82, pp.59501-59502.

Wang, J.Y., 2021. The Best Data Plan Is to Have a Game

Plan: Obstacles and Solutions to Reaching International

Data Privacy Agreements. Mich. Tech. L. Rev., 28,

p.385.

ICPLSS 2025 - International Conference on Politics, Law, and Social Science

102