Who Regulates Space in the US? The Agencies, the Gaps and the New Mission Authorisation Pilot

“Who regulates space in the US?” sounds like a question with a one-word answer. It is not. A company that wants to launch a satellite, talk to it, take pictures with it and sell the data abroad can need permission from four or five federal bodies, each acting under a different statute. A company that wants to refuel another satellite or land on the Moon may find that no agency has clear authority over the activity itself.

This explainer maps who does what, where the gaps are, and what the government is now doing about them. The answer matters outside the United States too: US rules shape how most of the world’s commercial launches and satellites are authorised, and foreign operators seeking US market access deal with the same agencies.

Why the United States has to regulate at all

The starting point is international law. Article VI of the Outer Space Treaty makes States internationally responsible for “national activities in outer space”, including those of “non-governmental entities”, and requires that such activities have “authorization and continuing supervision by the appropriate State Party”. Article VII makes launching States liable for damage. Our Outer Space Treaty explainer walks through both.

The treaty does not say how a State must authorise anything. The United States chose to do it piece by piece, giving each agency a slice of the activity that matched its existing expertise. The result is functional for launches and communications satellites and patchy for almost everything else.

The FAA: launches, re-entries and spaceports

The Federal Aviation Administration’s Office of Commercial Space Transportation licenses commercial launches and re-entries, and the operation of launch and re-entry sites, under chapter 509 of title 51 of the US Code. Section 50904 requires a licence for a launch or re-entry by any person in the United States, and by US citizens or companies abroad. The detailed rules are in 14 CFR chapter III, mainly Part 450 for launch and re-entry licences, which we explained in our Part 450 guide, Part 420 for launch site operators and Part 440 for insurance.

The FAA’s mandate is public safety, national security and foreign policy, not mission success. It also reviews payloads. Under 14 CFR 450.43, a payload may fly only if its launch “would not jeopardize public health and safety, safety of property, U.S. national security or foreign policy interests, or international obligations of the United States”. The rule excludes aspects of payloads “subject to regulation by the Federal Communications Commission or the Department of Commerce”, and payloads owned or operated by the US government.

For people on board, the FAA’s role is deliberately limited. Crew and spaceflight participants fly under informed consent requirements in Part 460, and Congress has barred most occupant safety regulations during a “learning period” that, according to the Congressional Research Service, was most recently extended to 1 January 2028.

The FCC: radios, spectrum and debris plans

Any satellite that transmits needs a radio licence, and in the United States that means the Federal Communications Commission. Section 301 of the Communications Act requires a licence for “any apparatus for the transmission of energy or communications or signals by radio”. The FCC licenses US satellites and earth stations, grants market access to foreign-licensed systems serving the United States, and files the US satellite networks with the International Telecommunication Union.

Over the years the FCC has used its licensing power to set orbital debris rules, including the five-year post-mission disposal rule for low Earth orbit that we covered in our deorbit rule explainer. In July 2026 it adopted a new Part 100 to replace its Part 25 satellite rules, and its follow-up proposals, published on 26 October 2026, would add a US-based control point requirement and stronger ephemeris sharing.

The limit of FCC authority became visible this year. In licensing Reflect Orbital’s sunlight-reflecting test satellite, the FCC’s Space Bureau held that its licence “is for the radio station”, together with the debris plan, and does not “inherently extend to all activities that a spacecraft conducts in space”.

Commerce: remote sensing, space traffic and export controls

The Department of Commerce has three roles. Through NOAA’s Commercial Remote Sensing Regulatory Affairs office, it licenses private Earth observation systems under 51 U.S.C. 60121 and the rules in 15 CFR Part 960, which I covered in our NOAA remote sensing licence explainer. A camera aimed at Earth needs this licence in addition to the FCC licence for the radio that sends the images down.

Commerce’s Office of Space Commerce, set up under 51 U.S.C. 50702, promotes the industry and runs TraCSS, the civil space traffic coordination system. And the Bureau of Industry and Security administers the Export Administration Regulations, which cover most commercial satellite hardware and technology.

State, NASA and the Space Force

The State Department’s Directorate of Defense Trade Controls administers the International Traffic in Arms Regulations, which still cover launch vehicle technology and the most sensitive spacecraft items. State also handles US space diplomacy and treaty relations. Export licensing applies even where no other permit does, so it is often the first regulatory question a foreign partner asks.

NASA is not a regulator of commercial space. It is a customer, a partner and a source of technical standards. When NASA buys a launch, a lunar delivery or crew transport, its requirements come through contract terms, not licences. The same goes for the Space Force, which operates the Eastern and Western Ranges used by many commercial launches and buys national security launches, but does not license commercial operators.

Government missions sit outside the FAA’s statute altogether. Under 51 U.S.C. 50919(g), chapter 509 “does not apply to” a launch, re-entry or “other space activity the Government carries out for the Government”. A NASA launch on its own rocket needs no FAA licence; a commercial launch carrying a NASA payload usually does.

The gap: activities no one licenses

Put the pieces together and a pattern appears. The United States regulates getting to space (FAA), talking to spacecraft (FCC), imaging Earth (NOAA) and exporting technology (State and Commerce). What it does not regulate, as such, is what a spacecraft does once it is up there.

That leaves a list of activities without a dedicated licence. The Commerce Department’s own March 2026 proposal names them: “in-space manufacturing, orbital computing, satellite servicing, lunar operations, and commercial inhabitable stations”, which it says “all fall outside of the existing legislative authorities”. Operators in these fields have relied on the FAA’s payload review and the FCC’s radio licence to supply the “continuing supervision” Article VI requires, even though neither was designed for it. I looked at that problem for in-orbit servicing in our piece on the Swift rescue mission.

Debate over who should fill the gap, Commerce or the FAA, has gone on for about a decade without legislation. The executive branch has now moved on its own.

Executive Order 14335 and the Space Commerce Certification

On 13 August 2025 the President signed Executive Order 14335, “Enabling Competition in the Commercial Space Industry”. Section 5 directed the Secretary of Commerce, within 150 days, to “propose a process for individualized mission authorizations” for activities covered by Article VI of the Outer Space Treaty that existing regulatory frameworks do not clearly govern. The proposal had to include “a definitive timeline for the grant or denial” and “clear and consistent requirements for applicants”, and the section expressly does not apply to human spaceflight. The same order told the FAA to revisit Part 450 and to speed up environmental reviews.

The Office of Space Commerce answered with its March 2026 proposal for an opt-in “Space Commerce Certification”. Under it, the Office would set “light-touch” requirements focused on national security, international obligations, foreign policy and safety, circulate each application to other agencies, and grant certification “within 120 days of the complete application’s submission” if no concerns are identified. The proposal relies on the Office’s existing statutory duties to foster the industry and remove impediments to it, and says the certificate would not replace FAA, FCC or NOAA licensing; those agencies could instead choose to rely on it.

On 20 August 2026 the Office published a Notice of Mission Authorization Pilot Program inviting US entities to volunteer missions by 5 October 2026. The notice says the pilot will be “highly selective” and run in coordination with the FAA, the FCC, the Department of War, the State Department and NASA. It is also candid about the limits: the pilot is “voluntary and non-binding”, a certificate “on its own, will have no direct legal effect”, and participants must still satisfy every existing FAA and FCC requirement. The Office suggests that, in time, the certificate could support waivers of FCC debris rules or replace parts of the FAA payload review.

I think the honest description is that the United States now has a pilot for mission authorisation, not a mission authorisation regime. A voluntary certificate issued under a general promotional mandate cannot compel an operator to apply, and it cannot stop one that refuses. Whether that satisfies Article VI’s “authorization and continuing supervision” is a question other States may eventually ask.

What I would watch

The first is the pilot cohort. The notice gave no date for selections. The missions chosen, and whether they include lunar landers or servicing vehicles, will show what the Office means by “novel” and how much the FAA and FCC are willing to defer to it.

The second is the FCC. Its Part 100 proceeding is moving into areas such as ephemeris sharing, rendezvous notifications and a US-based control point. If the FCC keeps expanding what it reviews through the radio licence, the practical gap narrows even without new legislation, but it also deepens the overlap the executive order was meant to cut.

The third is the FAA’s Part 450 rewrite. The FAA published proposed changes in October 2026, and the payload review provision is the one existing tool that reaches non-radio payloads. Any change to 450.43 will affect what is left to the Commerce certificate.

The fourth is Congress. Only legislation can turn a voluntary certificate into a mandatory licence with enforcement powers. Until then, the answer to “who regulates space in the US?” will keep depending on what the spacecraft does.

Anuj KumarEditor-in-Chief

Anuj Kumar is the founder of Legal Desire Media and publishes Fashion Law Journal and Space Law Journal.

Space Law Journal is a joint initiative of Legal Desire Media and Odyogeek. Spotted something we got wrong, or want to respond? Write to space@legaldesire.com.