Trump Signs Executive Order to Boost Competition in Commercial Space: Key Highlights and Environmental Law Implications By Dr. Anne Uruegi Agi
On August 13, 2025, President Donald J. Trump issued a sweeping Executive Order on Enabling Competition in the Commercial Space Industry, [Link To Executive Order], marking the most ambitious deregulation of U.S. space policy since the Reagan era. The order seeks to ensure that America, not its adversaries, remains the hub for next-generation space launches, satellite operations, and frontier space activities.
Key Highlights
1. Deregulation of Launch & Reentry Licensing
The Department of Transportation (DOT) has been directed to eliminate or expedite environmental reviews that frequently delay rocket launches. The Federal Aviation Administration’s Part 450 rules (the core licensing framework for launches and re-entries) will be re-examined and potentially rescinded in part, with an emphasis on relaxing requirements for vehicles equipped with advanced safety systems.
2. Fast-Tracking Spaceport Development
The order instructs Federal Agencies (Departments of Defense, Commerce,Transportation, and NASA) to align and streamline spaceport approval processes.
Categorical exclusions under NEPA:
Significantly, the White House is pushing for the use of categorical exclusions under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to allow new spaceport projects to bypass lengthy environmental impact statements.
States that attempt to block spaceport expansion under local environmental or coastal laws could see their authority/approvals revoked.
3. Authorizing Novel Space Activities
Perhaps the most groundbreaking element of the order is its mandate that the Department of Commerce establish a mission authorization process for activities not clearly regulated under current U.S. law. This includes on-orbit servicing, manufacturing, asteroid mining, satellite servicing and other frontier space ventures. The process must be streamlined, time-bound, and provide legal certainty, closing a gap in U.S. compliance with Article VI of the Outer Space Treaty of 1967, which requires nations to authorize and continually supervise their nationals’ space activities.
Thus, for activities not clearly regulated, the Department of Commerce must create a fast-track mission authorization process within 150 days.
4. Elevating Regulatory Leadership
The order directs DOT to create a Commercial Space Deregulation Adviser and appoint a senior FAA executive as Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation. It also elevates the Office of Space Commerce into the Office of the Secretary of Commerce, increasing its institutional weight within the federal bureaucracy.
What’s New About This Order?
Unlike previous U.S. space directives that largely promoted coordination, this order is explicitly deregulatory and pro-competition. Three major innovations standout:
1. Environmental Exemptions: By pushing categorical exclusions and limiting NEPA oversight, the EO seeks to cut years off launch and spaceport approval timelines.
2. Legal Framework for Novel Activities: The creation of a streamlined process for missions not covered by existing law (e.g., space resource extraction)p provides clarity that U.S. companies have long demanded.
3. Institutional Elevation: For the first time, commercial space deregulation will have dedicated leadership both at the FAA and the Commerce Department.
Environmental Law Implications
The Executive Order represents one of the most direct attempts in U.S. history to circumvent environmental law in the name of space progress. By instructing agencies to adopt categorical exclusions under NEPA, the White House is effectively narrowing the scope of environmental review for both launches andspaceport construction.
Environmental lawyers have long argued that rocket launches and spaceport development can have significant ecological effects, including air and water pollution, habitat disruption, and risks to protected species. The EO goes further by suggesting agencies consider applying to the Endangered Species Committee (the so-called “God Squad”) to override environmental restrictions in the name of national security.
For environmental advocates, this represents a sharp shift: space is no longer treated as a neutral scientific frontier but as an industrial race where environmental concerns are subordinated to strategic imperatives. This could set a precedent for future administrations and other nations, to treat space activities as beyond or above conventional environmental law.
Why It Matters
The order reflects a philosophy of deregulation to outpace China and other rivals in the new space economy. For the private sector, it promises faster approvals, fewer legal uncertainties, and a more competitive launch cadence. For lawyers, it raises new questions about environmental law carve-outs, state-federal conflicts over land use, and U.S. compliance with international obligations under the Outer Space Treaty.
Inshort, Trump’s new executive order may well define the regulatory architecture of space commerce for the next decade, tilting the balance toward rapid industry growth, but also toward legal debates over the limits of deregulation.
Outer Space Treaty Concerns
The EO also raises questions of international law. Article VI of the Outer SpaceTreaty requires states to maintain authorization and continuous supervision over non-governmental space activities. For years, U.S. regulators have struggled with how to apply this to emerging ventures like space resource extraction. By creating a fast-track, individualized authorization process, the EO provides operators with legal certainty, but arguably waters down the spirit of “continuous supervision.”
The U.S. appears to be signaling that as long as a company receives Initial approval, its operations can proceed without ongoing oversight. This risks friction with treaty partners who may view such an approach as a bypass of Article VI obligations and a weakening of multilateral governance standards.
Should Other Nations and Environmental Lawyers Be Concerned?
Yes.The U.S. is the pace-setter in space law and policy. By deprioritizing environmental review and diluting treaty obligations, the EO may encourage a regulatory race to the bottom: other spacefaring powers could follow suit, adopting equally lax rules to avoid losing competitiveness.
For environmental lawyers globally, this is troubling. The lack of uniform standards for environmental protection in space and around launch sites could lead to fragmentation of environmental law and weaken emerging efforts to establish sustainability principles for outer space. The U.S. move may also fuel disputes in forums such as the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (UNCOPUOS).
Implications for Smaller Spacefaring Nations
For nations like Nigeria and other emerging space powers, the EO carries dual implications. On one hand, it sets a precedent that could lower the barriers to entry by legitimizing fast-track approvals and reducing the regulatory burden for commercial operators. This could empower smaller nations to model their laws on a deregulated framework and attract private investment.
On the other hand, smaller nations risk being sidelined. With the U.S. setting looser standards, large companies may cluster in America, depriving these small countries of investment in their own launch facilities. Furthermore, without strong oversight frameworks, smaller states may face greater liability exposure under the OST if companies registered with them cause harm in space.
Implications for Nigeria
The Artemis Accords Dimension
Nigeria, in particular, must tread carefully. As a signatory to the Artemis Accords (since 2022), it has committed to principles of responsibility, transparency, and sustainability in space exploration. If the U.S, as chief architect of the Accords, is perceived as diluting these standards at home, smaller partners like Nigeria may face difficult choices between following Washington’s deregulatory lead or asserting a stronger multilateralist rules-based position within the Artemis coalition.
The EO indirectly strengthens the U.S. position in the Artemis Accords, the U.S.-led framework for responsible lunar and deep space exploration. By creating rapid authorization processes and streamlining domestic regulation, Washington is signaling to its Artemis partners that it intends to remain the primary driver of commercial lunar and planetary activity.
However, the EO may also undermine trust among Artemis partners. Many signatories particularly in Europe and the Global South, emphasize environmental stewardship and strict treaty compliance. If U.S. practice is perceived as bending Article VI obligations or sidestepping environmental standards, it could create tensions within the Artemis coalition and weaken its claim to be the global gold standard for space governance.
Nigeria must decide whether to align itself with deregulation for short-term gains or carve out a distinctive role as a champion of sustainability and international law in space governance.
For Nigerian lawyers and policymakers, the Trump Executive Order offers both a warning and an opportunity.
1. The Liability Question.
Under the Outer Space Treaty and the Liability Convention, a state is internationally responsible for damage caused by its nationals’ space activities. If Nigeria were to emulate the U.S. model of fast-tracked approvals without continuous supervision, it could face outsized liability risks should private operators registered in Nigeria cause accidents in space.
2. Risk of Regulatory Marginalization.
By lowering environmental and oversight standards, the U.S. may draw most commercial operators to its jurisdiction. This risks sidelining smaller nations like Nigeria, whose space program (through NASRDA) is still developing regulatory capacity. Without clear competitive advantages, Nigeria could struggle to attract serious private investment in launch or satellite ventures.
3. The Strategic Response.
Nigeria may need to decide whether to:
- Align with the U.S. approach (by creating simplified authorization processes modeled on the EO) to attract operators who prefer lighter regulation; or
- Differentiate itself by emphasizing sustainability, treaty compliance, and environmental stewardship as unique selling points in a crowded market place.
Nigerian lawyers, therfore face the challenge of anticipating these tensions and helping to shape a national space law and regulatory framework that balances competitiveness with compliance and protects Nigeria’s interests while ensuring compliance with international obligations.
Conclusion
President Trump’s August 13, 2025, Executive Order represents a decisive shift in U.S.space policy, one that prioritizes speed, deregulation, and competition overenvironmental review and strict treaty adherence. While it promises to accelerate America’s launch cadence and give legal certainty to novel spaceventures, it also raises profound questions about the balance between economic growth, environmental protection, and international responsibility.
For smaller spacefaring nations like Nigeria, the EO is both a challenge and anopportunity. It highlights the risk of marginalization in a deregulated global market but also underscores the importance of developing a coherent national legal framework that can both attract investment and uphold international obligations.
For lawyers and policymakers, the EO is a reminder that space law is not static: itis being reshaped by national priorities, political philosophy, and globalcompetition.
The broader challenge for the international community will be whether to accommodate this U.S.-led deregulatory model or to push back with stronger multilateral standards that safeguard sustainability and ensure that space remains a domain governed by law rather than unilateral economic competition.
We appreciate you contacting us. Our support will get back in touch with you soon!
Have a great day!
Please note that your query will be processed only if we find it relevant. Rest all requests will be ignored. If you need help with the website, please login to your dashboard and connect to support