As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
Donald Trump’s first term as President of the United States (2017–2021) brought renewed attention to the American space sector and its potential to drive economic growth. The administration made a series of policy moves intended to position space exploration, commercial development, and national security concerns at the forefront of government priorities. While some of these moves were direct expansions of programs initiated during previous administrations, there were also attempts to chart new territory—particularly through the reestablishment of the National Space Council, the focus on public-private partnerships, and the heightened support for a return to the Moon. Another noteworthy achievement was the creation of the United States Space Force, an entirely new branch of the Armed Forces. Across multiple domains of the space economy, one can observe a range of legislative, executive, and budgetary measures that shaped research, exploration, defense, and private enterprise.
The term “space economy” can be defined as the broad set of activities that includes: research and development, satellite manufacturing, launch services, data analytics, tourism, resource extraction, and a host of downstream applications. Within this domain, the Trump administration often promoted a vision of American leadership that integrated commercial entities into the pursuit of new exploration goals and infrastructure development. Yet, opinions differ on the ultimate impact of these policies. While some stakeholders in industry and government saw significant opportunities, others pointed out potential obstacles such as changing program directives, delays in technology readiness, or budgetary constraints.
This article provides a detailed examination of how Trump’s first term influenced the space economy, highlighting legislative and financial developments that favored the industry, evaluating the support given to NASA and commercial enterprises, and analyzing whether the administration’s stated goals translated into tangible gains for the broader ecosystem of space-related activities. By exploring the administration’s interactions with private companies, regulatory reforms, and major programs like Artemis, this piece offers insights into a transformative yet sometimes polarizing era in U.S. space policy.
NASA Budget and Policy Directions
Under the Trump administration, NASA’s budget saw incremental increases compared to some prior years, reflecting a general commitment to returning astronauts to deep space destinations and supporting a vibrant low Earth orbit (LEO) commercial marketplace. While these budget increases did not represent a radical expansion, they signaled that space exploration and research were priorities. The administration often framed NASA’s role as both scientific and economic: NASA was to remain a leader in cutting-edge research, but it would also stimulate private-sector growth through contracting and partnership opportunities.
One of the earliest markers of the new administration’s approach came in the form of Space Policy Directive–1 (SPD-1), issued in December 2017. This directive placed an emphasis on returning humans to the Moon and laying the groundwork for human missions to Mars. Though reminiscent of plans from prior administrations, SPD-1 was used to rally resources around NASA’s eventual Artemis Program. The central theme was that America’s leadership in space should be advanced through collaboration with a commercial sector that had grown significantly in prior years. The language of SPD-1 implied an acceleration of planning and hardware development, suggesting a more urgent timeline.
Budgets proposed by the White House attempted to align with the deep space push, allocating more resources to crewed exploration programs and related R&D. However, there were also moments of controversy. For instance, some initial proposals called for reducing or eliminating certain Earth science programs at NASA in favor of focusing on human exploration. Members of Congress, scientists, and environmental researchers resisted certain proposed cuts, leading to budget negotiations that partially restored funding for specific Earth observation missions. In the end, while the Trump administration’s budgets gave NASA more funds overall, the distribution of those funds often reflected a prioritization of deep space initiatives over certain Earth science projects.
Another aspect that affected the space economy was the administration’s approach to NASA’s role in low Earth orbit. There was discussion—though never fully realized—of discontinuing federal funding for the International Space Station (ISS) by the mid-2020s, with the hope that commercial companies would fill the gap by operating their own stations or platforms. Critics argued that this plan was premature, as commercial space habitats were still under development and faced technical and financial risks. Proponents claimed that a bold approach would stimulate investment in commercial capabilities for LEO research and production.
Regardless, NASA continued awarding contracts for scientific research, space station cargo, and satellite servicing, helping maintain a robust pipeline of government-funded activities for commercial partners. These contract opportunities, combined with public support for NASA’s bigger exploration goals, positioned the agency as an important anchor customer in the domestic space economy.
Commercial Crew Program and Public-Private Partnerships
One of the most visible shifts in U.S. space policy during the Trump years was the blossoming of NASA’s Commercial Crew Program, an initiative originally conceived and funded during the Obama administration. The program was designed to end the country’s reliance on Russia’s Soyuz spacecraft to ferry astronauts to the ISS by nurturing commercial capsules built by American companies. Under Trump, the Commercial Crew Program saw milestone achievements with test flights and later the successful launch of astronauts aboard SpaceX’s Crew Dragon in 2020.
Although the Commercial Crew Program predated Trump, the administration fully embraced it as a symbol of American ingenuity and leadership. The success of the first crewed SpaceX missions validated the public-private partnership model for transporting humans to orbit. This outcome had implications for the space economy that extended beyond NASA missions. With reusability and modular design, private spacecraft lowered launch costs and expanded the feasibility of sending more payloads—including research, industry experiments, and tourism—to orbit.
Additionally, other companies such as Boeing received continued funding for their Starliner capsule under the Commercial Crew Program. While Starliner encountered multiple delays, NASA maintained its commitment to a multi-provider approach, believing that competition would yield better pricing and redundancies. This strategy underscored the administration’s broader outlook that NASA should increasingly act as a customer and collaborator rather than the sole developer of space infrastructure, thus incentivizing private sector growth.
Public-private partnerships also extended into missions beyond LEO. NASA’s Artemis Program invited private firms to submit proposals for components like the Human Landing System (HLS) and lunar transport services. The Trump administration emphasized that competitive selection of contractors could reduce development costs and speed up timelines. Although this vision posed scheduling challenges and sparked debate over technical and financial feasibility, it helped to broaden industry involvement in programs historically dominated by a few legacy aerospace primes. By supporting smaller or newer players, the administration sought to diversify the industrial base, which in turn contributed to a more dynamic ecosystem of suppliers, startups, and investors.
Artemis Program and Lunar Ambitions
The Artemis Program—announced in 2019 and named after the mythological twin sister of Apollo—became the leading banner for American ambitions to return to the Moon. The Trump administration declared an intention to land astronauts on the lunar surface by 2024, an accelerated timeline that many observers thought was optimistic given the stage of key hardware developments. Nonetheless, the administration claimed this lunar push would galvanize innovation, stimulate industry partnerships, and restore America’s preeminence in space exploration.
At the core of Artemis were three major elements: the Space Launch System (SLS) rocket, the Orion crew vehicle, and the Lunar Gateway outpost. SLS and Orion had already been in development for multiple years, encountering budget overruns and schedule slips. The Trump administration largely stuck with these programs, viewing them as anchors of human deep space exploration. Alongside these existing programs, the administration pushed for new initiatives such as the Human Landing System competition, in which multiple companies competed to design and build a spacecraft capable of ferrying astronauts from lunar orbit to the lunar surface.
The Artemis Program’s budget requests generally increased NASA’s human exploration funding, although congressional appropriations did not always match the White House’s desires. Questions arose about whether the 2024 deadline was realistic, especially as hardware testing took longer and new technologies faced potential delays. Still, the administration’s repeated public statements raised the profile of the lunar mission, creating momentum that attracted private investors. Companies that saw a potential market for resource utilization, lunar surface robotics, and other commercial services began to position themselves for future contracts. Simultaneously, international partners expressed interest in supporting Artemis or complementary programs. Canada, Europe, and Japan each explored ways to contribute hardware or technology, fostering global collaboration while maintaining U.S. leadership.
Despite logistical hurdles, the Artemis Program did encourage a wave of innovation. Firms specializing in robotics, life support, radiation shielding, and propulsion technologies raced to secure development contracts or form strategic partnerships. In that sense, the Trump administration’s high-profile lunar commitment acted as a catalyst for new entrants, venture capital activity, and novel engineering approaches to the next generation of human-rated spacecraft.
Creation of the United States Space Force
A highly publicized element of Trump’s impact on the space sector was the establishment of the United States Space Force (USSF). Signed into law in December 2019 under the National Defense Authorization Act, the USSF became the sixth branch of the U.S. Armed Forces and the first new military service since the creation of the Air Force in 1947. While critics dismissed the move as largely cosmetic—given that most space-related defense functions had been under Air Force Space Command—supporters insisted that formalizing a separate branch would streamline responsibilities, encourage a focused organizational culture, and secure budgetary resources to protect critical space assets.
The Space Force took shape with the mission of organizing, training, and equipping personnel to conduct space-based operations and protect U.S. interests in orbit. The creation of a dedicated branch sent a message that space was now recognized as a domain of warfare akin to land, sea, air, and cyberspace. A separate service, it was argued, would be better positioned to address threats to satellites and other orbital infrastructure, which are vital for communications, navigation, weather forecasting, and missile detection.
For the space economy, the implications were multifaceted. On one hand, the Space Force signaled a robust commitment to funding advanced technologies that could foster innovation in propulsion, space surveillance, and satellite architecture. Companies specializing in small satellites, anti-jamming systems, and ground-support infrastructure found new contract opportunities with the Department of Defense (DoD). The USSF could stimulate market growth by contracting with commercial launch providers for smaller, more agile rocket systems designed to replenish or replace satellites quickly if they were lost.
On the other hand, concerns existed that militarizing space might spur international tensions or lead to unforeseen consequences for commercial operators. If space became more contested, insurance rates for satellites could rise, and companies might incur extra costs to protect their assets. Even so, the mere existence of the Space Force provided a sense of stability for certain elements of the market. DoD funding traditionally remains less vulnerable to short-term political shifts, thereby offering a steadier pipeline of projects than NASA’s discretionary budgets.
National Space Council and Executive Space Policy Directives
Soon after taking office, the Trump administration revived the National Space Council, a body originally created in the late 1980s but dormant since 1993. Chaired by Vice President Mike Pence, the council included cabinet members and senior officials across departments and agencies, including Commerce, Defense, Transportation, and NASA. Its mission was to coordinate U.S. space policy and advise the president on major strategic decisions.
The council served as a platform to announce executive-level priorities and shape Space Policy Directives (SPDs). Beyond SPD-1, which reoriented NASA toward the Moon and Mars, the administration released multiple additional directives:
- SPD-2 focused on streamlining commercial space regulations. This directive called for reforms in how the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Commerce, and other agencies license and oversee launches, satellite operations, and remote sensing activities. The intent was to reduce bureaucracy and give companies greater flexibility, theoretically boosting America’s competitiveness.
- SPD-3 addressed the increasing challenges posed by orbital debris and the need for Space Traffic Management (STM). It emphasized the role of the Department of Commerce in providing space situational awareness services, such as tracking and cataloging potentially hazardous objects in orbit. This directive aimed to establish clearer lines of responsibility among federal agencies to mitigate collision risks.
- SPD-4 officially laid the groundwork for the Space Force, directing the Department of Defense to propose legislative actions that would codify this new branch of the military.
These directives, along with meetings of the National Space Council, amplified the administration’s message that space was integral to national strategy and worthy of sustained attention. From the perspective of the private sector, SPD-2 and SPD-3 stood out as efforts to create a more business-friendly environment and address long-term sustainability issues. Although some criticized the directives for lacking comprehensive implementation frameworks, they still provided valuable guidance for companies navigating licensing, compliance, and safety considerations.
International Collaborations and Diplomatic Endeavors
During Trump’s first term, international space collaborations often had to adapt to a different diplomatic style. Traditional partnerships, like those with European and Japanese space agencies, continued at the project level, but the administration’s overarching stance on global affairs sometimes colored perceptions of U.S. reliability. Despite tensions in unrelated policy areas such as trade, NASA maintained cooperative ventures including the ISS and Earth science missions that relied on data-sharing agreements with allies.
Artemis introduced a fresh dimension to diplomatic collaboration. As NASA invited allied nations to join the Artemis Accords—a set of principles governing peaceful exploration, resource extraction, and cooperative activities on the Moon—several countries expressed support. These agreements sought to clarify how signatories would conduct themselves on the lunar surface, share scientific data, and maintain a safe operational environment. Proponents argued that the Artemis Accords provided a flexible, modern framework for exploration without requiring the negotiation of a new international treaty. Skeptics believed the Accords might lead to questions about resource rights under existing space law, particularly the Outer Space Treaty of 1967.
Beyond NASA-led initiatives, the administration also grappled with evolving relationships with other major space powers, notably China. The Wolf Amendment, originally passed in 2011, restricted NASA from engaging in bilateral cooperation with Chinese entities without congressional approval, and the Trump administration did not alter it in a significant way. As China ramped up its own space program—launching crewed missions, building its Tiangong space station, and landing rovers on the Moon and Mars—the U.S. faced a strategic competitor whose advancements could challenge American leadership in space. The administration continued to treat China as a rival, focusing on national security and technology protection.
While the administration’s America-centric approach sometimes worried international partners, existing collaborations generally proved resilient. For the space economy, these international dimensions shaped market opportunities for satellite services, Earth observation data, and deep space missions. American companies with global customers still found ways to leverage NASA partnerships and cross-border arrangements, albeit within a regulatory environment that emphasized export controls and technological safeguarding.
Influence on Satellite Industry and Launch Providers
The satellite segment has long been a significant driver of the space economy, encompassing manufacturing, launch services, communications, Earth observation, and data analytics. Throughout Trump’s first term, growth in this sector accelerated, in part due to technological advances that made small satellites cheaper and more capable. The administration’s regulatory streamlining contributed to this trend, but other economic and technological factors were also at play.
Launch providers, both traditional and emerging, benefited from the administration’s willingness to award contracts for commercial and national security payloads. SpaceX, in particular, advanced its reusability model to lower launch costs, capturing a large share of the commercial launch market. The company gained certifications and contracts for launching National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) payloads and Air Force missions. United Launch Alliance (ULA) also adapted to an environment where the government encouraged competition and cost reductions.
In tandem, smaller rocket companies like Rocket Lab and Virgin Orbit aimed at the market for rapid, dedicated launches of small satellites. The administration’s emphasis on a responsive, innovative industry aligned well with these firms’ business models. Under SPD-2, the White House directed federal agencies to create more efficient licensing processes, which supported smallsat launch startups seeking to deploy multiple vehicles yearly. Nonetheless, as with all emerging markets, not all companies thrived. Some encountered funding shortfalls or technical hurdles that forced them to exit or consolidate.
On the satellite services side, commercial constellations for broadband internet, Earth imaging, and remote sensing drew investor capital. Although these trends were partially global, administration policies offering flexibility in licensing and spectrum allocations played a role. For instance, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) under Ajit Pai worked to update regulatory procedures for large satellite constellations, allowing ventures like SpaceX’s Starlink and OneWeb to proceed more systematically. Critics, however, argued that these constellations could contribute to orbital debris and traffic management problems, pointing to a need for stronger safety regulations. The balance between deregulation and oversight remained a topic of debate during the Trump years.
Broader Economic Ramifications
The Trump administration often presented space endeavors as an engine for job creation, innovation, and American leadership in high-technology fields. Agencies and officials highlighted the multiplier effect: government investment in research and development could seed private sector growth in spin-off industries ranging from robotics to data analytics. Large-scale programs such as Artemis and the Space Force did command notable budgets, translating into work for aerospace giants, small subcontractors, and research institutions.
Companies in states with strong aerospace footprints—like Florida, Texas, California, Alabama, and Colorado—benefited directly from NASA or DoD contracts. Small businesses supplying components, software, or specialized services for rocket engines, life support systems, avionics, and ground support also saw increased demand. Tourism in regions surrounding launch facilities, such as Florida’s Space Coast, received a boost from higher launch cadence and public interest in crewed missions. Universities secured grants for technology demonstration projects, fueling the pipeline of skilled workers.
These benefits had to be weighed against the complexities of sustaining big-ticket programs in a shifting political environment. While NASA’s budget was moderately protected, it was still a small fraction of total federal spending. That made space investments vulnerable to broader economic or political downturns. Some critics worried that acceleration of deep space goals might draw funds away from long-term research or Earth science, thereby affecting the diversity of scientific output. Others contended that commercial space programs needed predictable regulation and stable funding, fearing that changes in administration could disrupt or slow momentum.
Overall, the space economy under Trump showed significant growth. Public funding, regulatory reforms, and strategic directives all contributed to an expanding commercial launch sector and the promise of new orbital and lunar markets. The fundamental question was whether these gains would be sustainable over future administrations. Even if goals shifted, the investments in infrastructure, workforce development, and intellectual property could continue to fuel the space economy beyond any single presidential term.
Challenges and Critiques
Despite the administration’s emphasis on space, challenges and critiques emerged from different corners. Some observers believed that accelerated timelines—particularly the 2024 goal for a crewed lunar landing—were more aspirational than practical. Engineering and logistics experts voiced concerns that unrealistic deadlines could lead to cost overruns and compromised program integrity. Even NASA officials acknowledged the difficulty of meeting accelerated milestones when major system components were still in development.
There were also debates about the prioritization of human exploration over Earth science. Critics lamented proposals to cut certain climate-monitoring missions, arguing that Earth observation was an important function of space programs and carried direct societal benefits. Although final budgets often preserved some Earth science missions, tension persisted over resource allocation. This tension was not new, but it became more pronounced under a leadership that placed emphasis on human exploration as a marker of national prestige.
The creation of the U.S. Space Force faced skepticism as well. Some viewed it as an unnecessary bureaucratic layer, contending that the Air Force was already performing space-related defense functions effectively. Others warned of escalating an arms race in space, pointing to possible conflicts with international norms and treaties. The administration and supporters of the Space Force countered that a specialized branch would bring clarity to mission planning, improve readiness, and secure funding for next-generation defense capabilities.
Furthermore, there were questions about how well the administration’s goals aligned with industry readiness and investor appetite. Even though many startup ventures entered the space domain during Trump’s tenure, there were equally many that struggled to find sustainable business models once initial enthusiasm wore off. Launch vehicle development remained a crowded and competitive field with thin profit margins. Satellite broadband constellations, though potentially transformative, posed technical hurdles like antenna design, frequency coordination, and orbital debris mitigation, all of which added cost and regulatory challenges.
The Legacy: What Changed and What Remains
When assessing Trump’s first-term legacy on the space economy, it is useful to differentiate between direct policy actions and broader market forces that were already in motion. Programs like Commercial Crew and SLS began before 2017, but the Trump administration took them forward and publicly celebrated their milestones. By reviving the National Space Council, issuing Space Policy Directives, and supporting NASA’s commercial partnership approach, the administration gave these initiatives high visibility.
The ambitious Artemis timeline, even if delayed, introduced a new spirit of urgency into NASA programs. The infusion of resources for human exploration spurred technology development and contributed to a more vibrant commercial ecosystem. The focus on deregulation in SPD-2 and modernization of space traffic management in SPD-3 addressed industry concerns about outdated rules and increasing orbital congestion. The Space Force brought defense-related space activities into the public spotlight, offering new contract opportunities and emphasizing the need for vigilance in an era of potential anti-satellite weaponry.
Yet, some of these policies might prove transient, subject to revision by subsequent administrations and congressional decisions. Space programs frequently span many years or decades, transcending short-term political timelines. Companies, research institutions, and international partners often plan over longer horizons than a single presidential term. This disjoint between political cycles and technological cycles leaves open the question of how much of the Trump administration’s space policy will endure.
Final Observations
Trump’s first term coincided with a moment of accelerated change in the aerospace sector, fueled by cheaper launches, public-private collaborations, and heightened public awareness of space endeavors. Federal support under Trump accentuated these trends, making American leadership in space a hallmark of the administration’s public narrative. Despite internal debates on funding distribution, regulatory measures, and military organization, the pursuit of ambitious exploration goals like Artemis and the creation of the Space Force showcased a willingness to expand the government’s role in shaping and protecting space-based activities.
The administration’s actions invigorated parts of the U.S. space economy, offering greater opportunities to established giants and emerging startups alike. Publicly stated timelines—whether fully achievable or not—provided an additional impetus for innovations that may pay off in coming years, from spacecraft manufacturing to advanced robotics and resource utilization. Meanwhile, NASA’s Commercial Crew Program succeeded in restoring domestic crewed launch capabilities, a high-profile demonstration of partnership between a government agency and commercial enterprise.
Critics remained skeptical about the financial and technical feasibility of accelerating lunar and other deep space missions. They also questioned whether certain policy shifts, such as renewed emphasis on militarizing space or scaling back Earth science, would produce unintended consequences in the long run. The administration’s America-first stance occasionally caused friction in international collaborations, yet many partnerships persisted based on mutual scientific and economic interests.
By the end of Trump’s first term, it was evident that U.S. space policy had undergone significant shifts, but it also retained essential elements of continuity. Many of the principal NASA programs—SLS, Orion, ISS activities—kept moving forward, though often with fresh directives and timelines. Commercial space capitalized on the environment of deregulation and government contracts, opening new avenues for innovation. For better or worse, the Trump era ensured that space remained central to national discourse, with the possibility of shaping not just America’s cosmic ambitions but also the competitive landscape of an expanding global space economy.
Ultimately, the Trump administration’s imprint on the space economy was marked by its emphasis on public-private models, accelerated lunar exploration goals, and a heightened defense posture in orbit. While some measures will require further political and financial support to succeed, the groundwork laid during those years influenced the direction of NASA, private enterprise, and global partnerships. The full scope of its lasting impact continues to unfold as subsequent administrations, commercial actors, and international bodies act upon this evolving space frontier.
Today’s 10 Most Popular Books About Donald Trump
Last update on 2025-12-21 / Affiliate links / Images from Amazon Product Advertising API
