Today, TechFreedom submitted comments to the Department of Commerce’s Office of Commercial Space (OSC) on its framework to establish a “Mission Authorization” regulatory regime for innovative space activities. While the framework is sound, OSC lacks statutory authority to implement it.
“A mission authorization structure will help the U.S. lead in space,” said James E. Dunstan, TechFreedom’s Senior Counsel. “The success of America is a direct result of a society and government that values, promotes, and most importantly, protects, the concepts of innovation, invention, and entrepreneurship. The notion of ‘permissionless innovation’ runs deep in the American psyche and must serve as a critical starting point for how to regulate the activities of Americans in space. We’ve long supported a light-touch regulatory regime for space activities and applaud the fundamental structure of the Department of Commerce’s framework, which closely resembles the concepts of ‘Mission Registration’ or ‘Mission Certification’ we’ve long advocated”
“Unfortunately, there is no clear statutory framework under which Commerce can proceed,” warned Dunstan. “Congress has certainly provided a role for the Department of Commerce when it comes to space activities. What Congress did not bestow on the OSC, however, is actual rulemaking authority to create rules such as those contemplated in the OSC’s Draft Concept. The OSC may be operating under the assumption that Executive Order (EO) 14335 itself provides the necessary authority. Unfortunately, it does not. A failure to anchor a regulatory structure to clear statutory authority introduces grave risks in the inherently international realm of outer space.”
“The proposed framework is workable, but other significant issues exist,” Dunstan concluded. “Even with ‘firm deadlines,’ the approach to interagency review looks suspiciously like the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) regime—one of the true ‘four letter words’ of commercial space. American commercial space companies were subject to an interagency black-box process which defied transparency, timelines, or logic. Applicants waited and waited. Those that were denied lacked any sort of appeals process. A regulatory regime modeled after ITAR will not gain support in the commercial space community and will fail to keep America in the lead on the High Frontier.”
###
Find these comments on our website, and share them on Twitter and Bluesky. We can be reached for comment at media@techfreedom.org. Read our related work, including:
- Comments on the NPRM to modernize the FCC’s space and earth station licensing process (Jan. 20, 2026)
- Comments to the European Commission regarding the EU’s Draft Space Act (Nov. 7, 2025)
- Comments to the Dept of Commerce on the Draft EU Space Act (Aug. 15, 2025)
- We need a National Space Council to chart our future in outer space, SpaceNews (Jan. 23, 2025)
- Comments on the mitigation of orbital debris in the new space age, (June 27, 2024)
- Comments on NASA’s Lunar Non-Interference Questionnaire, (June 7, 2024)
- Comments to the FCC on In-Space Servicing, Assembly, and Manufacturing (ISAM) (Apr. 29, 2024)
- Do We Still Have the Right Stuff?, City Journal (Dec. 2023)
- SpaceX Makes Progress on Second Test of Starship, Reason (Nov. 18, 2023)
- Tech Policy Podcast #349: The State of Space Exploration (July 25, 2023)
- Regulating the space economy is vital for America’s continued global leadership, Washington Examiner (July 15, 2023)
- Written testimony before the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology on U.S. leadership in commercial space (July 13, 2023)
About TechFreedom: TechFreedom is a nonprofit, nonpartisan technology policy think tank. We work to chart a path forward for policymakers towards a bright future where technology enhances freedom, and freedom enhances technology.