
Trump's first-term space policy was great, but now he's dropping the ball
But this time is different. Many important space policy and leadership positions remain vacant. Qualified personnel have been nominated, but the Senate has yet to act. Nor has President Trump chosen to force the issue.
Personnel is policy, as the saying goes — and there is a real risk that a policy of passivity will undermine the gains America has made in space.
Holdups at NASA are case in point. Jared Isaacman, the president's first nominee to lead the space agency, was a promising pick. But Trump withdrew his nomination in May over political concerns, namely Isaacman's ties to Elon Musk and past support for certain Democrats. After Janet Petro, previously the head of the Kennedy Space Center, served as interim administrator for six months, Trump named Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy as acting head. Duffy is talented, but NASA needs dedicated leadership to avoid strategic blunders.
Other needless vacancies are stalling the national space agenda. Matthew Anderson, the nominee for NASA's deputy administrator, and Greg Autry, nominee for NASA's chief financial officer, are both major figures in the space industry. Both await Senate confirmation. The Trump administration would be within its rights to make its displeasure known over these holdups. But it seems the president has other priorities.
Other agencies with space policy portfolios are suffering, too. The Office of Space Commerce, within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, lacks a political appointee to take charge of important space traffic management and policy coordination projects. Combined with staff reductions and funding cuts, there is widespread uncertainty within the government about whether the administration is committed to strengthening America's commercial space capabilities.
The list goes on. Marc Berkowitz, a notable shaper of space and security policy who was nominated as assistant secretary of Defense, does not have a date scheduled for his confirmation hearing. The State Department has no political appointee responsible for space policy. Despite assurances from the administration that it will soon make a comeback, the National Space Council is nowhere to be seen. This is a missed opportunity.
The status quo at various federal agencies is often secure enough that policy initiatives can survive, and even thrive, during leadership vacancies. That is not the case with space policy. Widespread uncertainty, looming budget and career staff shortfalls, and developments abroad — including those concerning America's grand-strategic rivals, Russia and China — could derail long-term national space goals if the president and his closest advisors do not change course.
It does not have to be this way. From his first administration, Trump is undoubtedly aware how important it is to get key political appointees in place to ensure accountability and to harmonize policy with his goals. The Republican Party already has a bold agenda for solidifying America's position in the celestial high ground. The space policies created in the first Trump administration remain in place. What is lacking is a team to faithfully and energetically implement those policies.
With a dedicated effort of presidential will, Trump can jolt the nation's space enterprises back into high gear.
Trump should immediately reactivate the National Space Council and lean on the Senate to confirm his space policy nominees. He should also involve Vice President JD Vance, whose commitments to revitalizing American manufacturing fit with the strategic need to strengthen the defense industrial base and the space industrial base in particular.
Every day that key positions remain unfilled presents hostile nations an opportunity to undercut the U.S. and assert control over space.
Space is no longer a peripheral policy area. The space economy, already worth several hundred billion, is projected to grow to a staggering $1.8 trillion by 2035. Our daily lives, from weather forecasts to financial networks, depend on satellites and other space-reliant infrastructure that must be protected. The U.S. faces new threats from China and Russia that require space-enabled defenses, such as the Golden Dome missile system. All of this necessitates filling critical space policy positions.
Continued vacancies threaten our economic wellbeing and physical safety. The Trump administration must get serious about space policy personnel — just like it was the first time around.
Alexander William Salter is the Georgie G. Snyder Associate Professor of Economics at the Rawls College of Business at Texas Tech University and a research fellow at TTU's Free Market Institute. He holds fellowships with the Independent Institute in Oakland, Calif. and the American Institute for Economic Research in Great Barrington, Mass.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
6 minutes ago
- Yahoo
This Reddit Post Breaking Down A MAGA Dad's "Awakening" From Two-Time Trump Voter To Trump Critic Is Going Viral
A Reddit post by a user who claims their father voted for Donald Trump twice has recently gone viral for revealing what finally turned their MAGA dad into a Trump critic. At the start of the post, the redditor explained what initially attracted their father to Donald Trump during the 2016 campaign. "What got him into Trump was the first primary debate he participated in, in which he brutally attacked Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, and the others..." Related: They went on to explain that their father, a business owner, personally benefited from Trump's tax cuts, which made his view of Trump's first presidency a "success," despite events like January 6. According to the redditor, things started to change for their father when Trump's tariff war threw his business into "disarray." Related: The negative financial impact of Trump's tariff war made their father seek out more "accurate reporting" of Trump, and the new information "awakened" him. Related: "He wishes Trump would stop being such an idiotic fuckup." And finally, the post ended with the redditor's realization about changing the minds of "casual Trump voters." "You can bring all that stuff up, and they'll just wave it off. But as soon as he does do something harmful that affects them, they can be turned." After reading the post, people in the comments shared their perspective on "uniformed voters" who supported Trump. "I just think so many people drank the 'John Wayne' kool aid in the Reaganite '80s, the idea that, like the lone gunslinger, Americans are singular, self sufficient individuals, not members of a society. So many in the U.S. bought that BS wholesale, like this guy's Dad," one user wrote. "He thinks he only need care about his business, his family and his bikes, but he forgets that for businesses to flourish he needs society at large to be healthy, he needs trade rules to be enforced, and he needs stability in trade hates paying taxes, but never thinks about why the roads are maintained, why water comes out of the tap or electricity out of the socket. He's been trained and rewarded to see himself as a lone entity, independent of all social bonds. Now he's been uncomfortably reminded he is part of an interdependent society, but I'm sure he'll forget the reminder soon enough. Individualism is too deeply ingrained in his psyche for him to abandon it now." Related: "Everyone keeps saying 'they voted for this.' But in reality, some didn't. There are lots of uninformed voters out there. I'm not excusing it, but it's true. My dad is the same way," another user admitted. "He liked the sound bites he saw about draining the swamp and liked the idea of a businessman instead of a career politician. My dad is woefully misinformed and wouldn't listen to me either. But he's not an evil monster. Just complacent and kinda ignorant. He's also 83, so there's that." "They're not going to figure out Trump sucks until they get burned by the hot stove," this user wrote. "I think there is a large portion of classic Republicans, not the MAGA people, who probably just didn't give a shit about most of Trump's agenda harming other people." And finally, "I feel like the real takeaway from this is that the dad is against something Trump did, but still doesn't regret his vote." "The popular Reddit sentiment is that conservatives are feeling regret now that his policies are hurting them, but the actual sad truth is that given the opportunity at a revote, they'd probably vote for Trump again because they're convinced Harris would've still been worse or as bad as Trump anyway," another user wrote. What are your thoughts? Let us know in the comments below. Also in Internet Finds: Also in Internet Finds: Also in Internet Finds:


Buzz Feed
8 minutes ago
- Buzz Feed
MAGA Dad's Viral Journey Away From Trump
A Reddit post by a user who claims their father voted for Donald Trump twice has recently gone viral for revealing what finally turned their MAGA dad into a Trump critic. At the start of the post, the redditor explained what initially attracted their father to Donald Trump during the 2016 campaign. "What got him into Trump was the first primary debate he participated in, in which he brutally attacked Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, and the others..." They went on to explain that their father, a business owner, personally benefited from Trump's tax cuts, which made his view of Trump's first presidency a "success," despite events like January 6. According to the redditor, things started to change for their father when Trump's tariff war threw his business into "disarray." The negative financial impact of Trump's tariff war made their father seek out more "accurate reporting" of Trump, and the new information "awakened" him. "He wishes Trump would stop being such an idiotic fuckup." And finally, the post ended with the redditor's realization about changing the minds of "casual Trump voters." "You can bring all that stuff up, and they'll just wave it off. But as soon as he does do something harmful that affects them, they can be turned." After reading the post, people in the comments shared their perspective on "uniformed voters" who supported Trump. "I just think so many people drank the 'John Wayne' kool aid in the Reaganite '80s, the idea that, like the lone gunslinger, Americans are singular, self sufficient individuals, not members of a society. So many in the U.S. bought that BS wholesale, like this guy's Dad," one user wrote. "He thinks he only need care about his business, his family and his bikes, but he forgets that for businesses to flourish he needs society at large to be healthy, he needs trade rules to be enforced, and he needs stability in trade hates paying taxes, but never thinks about why the roads are maintained, why water comes out of the tap or electricity out of the socket. He's been trained and rewarded to see himself as a lone entity, independent of all social bonds. Now he's been uncomfortably reminded he is part of an interdependent society, but I'm sure he'll forget the reminder soon enough. Individualism is too deeply ingrained in his psyche for him to abandon it now." "Everyone keeps saying 'they voted for this.' But in reality, some didn't. There are lots of uninformed voters out there. I'm not excusing it, but it's true. My dad is the same way," another user admitted. "He liked the sound bites he saw about draining the swamp and liked the idea of a businessman instead of a career politician. My dad is woefully misinformed and wouldn't listen to me either. But he's not an evil monster. Just complacent and kinda ignorant. He's also 83, so there's that." "They're not going to figure out Trump sucks until they get burned by the hot stove," this user wrote. And finally, "I feel like the real takeaway from this is that the dad is against something Trump did, but still doesn't regret his vote." "The popular Reddit sentiment is that conservatives are feeling regret now that his policies are hurting them, but the actual sad truth is that given the opportunity at a revote, they'd probably vote for Trump again because they're convinced Harris would've still been worse or as bad as Trump anyway," another user wrote. What are your thoughts? Let us know in the comments below.


NBC News
9 minutes ago
- NBC News
White House economic adviser Kevin Hassett defends Trump's firing of labor statistics head
White House economic adviser Kevin Hassett on Sunday defended President Donald Trump's decision to fire the head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, as well as the president's claim that weaker-than-expected jobs reports were 'rigged,' but failed to produce any evidence to support Trump's claim. 'What we need is a fresh set of eyes over the BLS,' Hassett, the director of the National Economic Council, told NBC News' 'Meet the Press.' On Friday, the Bureau of Labor Statistics released a monthly jobs report that included weaker-than-expected numbers for July, plus major downward revisions of May and June's numbers. In a post on Truth Social on Friday, the president said the jobs numbers were 'rigged' and that he'd asked his team to fire BLS Commissioner Erika McEntarfer. 'We need accurate Jobs Numbers. I have directed my Team to fire this Biden Political Appointee, IMMEDIATELY. She will be replaced with someone much more competent and qualified. Important numbers like this must be fair and accurate,' Trump wrote. In another Truth Social post, the president added, 'In my opinion, today's Jobs Numbers were RIGGED in order to make the Republicans, and ME, look bad.' On Sunday, Hassett cast similar doubt on the accuracy of the jobs numbers, pointing to past revisions that were made to jobs reports after then-President Joe Biden stopped running for re-election last year. 'There have been a bunch of patterns that could make people wonder. And I think the most important thing for people to know is that it's the president's highest priority that the data be trusted and that people get to the bottom of why these revisions are so unreliable,' Hassett told 'Meet the Press' moderator Kristen Welker. He added later in the interview that the Trump administration's goal was to understand why there was such a sizable revision to past months' jobs numbers. 'The bottom line is that there were people involved in creating these numbers. And if I were running the BLS and I had a number that was a huge, politically important revision, the biggest since 1968 actually ... then I would have a really long report explaining exactly what happened. And we didn't get that,' Hassett said. It's not uncommon for jobs reports to be revised in the months following their release, but Hassett on Sunday emphasized that July's revision was one of the largest he's seen in decades. Trump faced criticism from Democrats and Republicans in Congress on Friday when he decided to fire McEntarfer, with several Republican senators questioning whether the firing would actually help the Trump administration improve future jobs numbers. 'We have to look somewhere for objective statistics. When the people providing the statistics are fired, it makes it much harder to make judgments that, you know, the statistics won't be politicized,' Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., told NBC News on Friday. 'I'm going to look into it, but first impression is that you can't really make the numbers different or better by firing the people doing the counting,' he added. On Sunday, Hassett said that installing Trump's 'own people' will help achieve more 'transparent and reliable' jobs reports in the future. 'The president wants his own people there so that when we see the numbers, they're more transparent and more reliable. And if there are big changes and big revisions — we expect more big revisions for the jobs data in September, for example — then we want to know why, we want people to explain it to us,' he said.