Who Sits on the National Space Council?

Last updated 3 weeks ago. Our resources are updated regularly but please keep in mind that links, programs, policies, and contact information do change.

The National Space Council has operated with an on-again, off-again existence that reflects shifting presidential priorities. Established by law under the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 1989, the council first began operations during President George H.W. Bush’s administration.

President Bill Clinton discontinued the council in 1993, leaving it dormant for nearly 25 years. During this period, space policy was managed through lower-level interagency working groups within the National Security Council or the Office of Science and Technology Policy. These arrangements often proved inefficient and prone to bureaucratic turf battles.

President Donald Trump revived the council on June 30, 2017, signaling renewed White House focus on space policy. The Biden-Harris administration continued this approach, establishing bipartisan consensus on the need for centralized, high-level space policy coordination.

The revival addressed a dramatically changed space environment. The rise of commercial space companies like SpaceX and Blue Origin, combined with heightened geopolitical competition from China and Russia, created challenges too complex for the old fragmented system to handle effectively.

The Chair: Vice President’s Central Role

The Vice President chairs the National Space Council, making them the President’s principal advisor on space policy and strategy. This high-level leadership provides significant political clout and direct access to the Oval Office.

The chair sets meeting agendas, establishes procedures, and drives the administration’s strategic vision for space. This influence appears in keynote speeches and policy announcements made by the Vice President at council meetings, which articulate administration goals to the nation and world.

The Core Government Members

The council’s power stems from the seniority of its members. The Biden-Harris administration expanded the traditional roster through Executive Order 14056 issued on December 1, 2021, reflecting a broader vision for space policy applications.

National Security Representatives

Three key figures represent the national security community’s view of space as an increasingly contested domain.

The Secretary of Defense oversees protection of U.S. national security interests in space. This includes safeguarding military and civilian assets like the Global Positioning System and intelligence-gathering satellites, ensuring military freedom to operate in orbit, and overseeing the United States Space Force. The Assistant Secretary of Defense for Space Policy handles day-to-day coordination with the council.

The Director of National Intelligence represents the U.S. Intelligence Community, providing critical intelligence on foreign space capabilities and counterspace threats. The DNI ensures intelligence perspectives integrate into national space strategy while advising on evolving risks to U.S. space systems.

The National Security Advisor ensures council policies align with the President’s broader national security agenda. The council must coordinate with the National Security Council on space matters affecting national security.

NASA: The Civil Space Voice

The NASA Administrator represents the nation’s civil space program. NASA’s portfolio spans human space exploration through programs like Artemis, scientific discovery, and technology development that pushes boundaries of possibility.

The relationship between NASA and the council has been complex. During the George H.W. Bush administration, senior NASA officials reportedly resented the council’s activist role, viewing it as unwelcome political interference. However, the modern council also functions as a powerful advocate for NASA’s flagship initiatives, providing high-level political backing necessary to secure ambitious goals and budgets.

Commerce: The Commercial Champion

The Secretary of Commerce has emerged as one of the most influential council members, reflecting the explosive growth and strategic importance of the U.S. commercial space industry.

The Commerce Department, through its Office of Space Commerce, champions U.S. space-related businesses globally, promotes economic growth, and streamlines regulations for commercial activities. This places the Secretary at the critical intersection of economic policy and space operations, leading debates on space traffic management and licensing of novel commercial activities.

State: The Diplomatic Front

The Secretary of State oversees the international dimension of U.S. space policy. This involves negotiating international treaties, forging cooperative partnerships with allied nations, and championing development of responsible behavior norms in space.

A prime example is the State Department’s central role in creating and expanding the Artemis Accords. This initiative uses NASA’s civil exploration program as a tool of “space diplomacy,” building a U.S.-led international coalition committed to shared principles for peaceful lunar exploration.

The Expanded Roster

The Biden-Harris administration added the Secretaries of Interior, Agriculture, Labor, and Education, plus the National Climate Advisor. This expansion formally broadens the council’s mandate beyond traditional exploration, commerce, and defense pillars.

The additions reflect strategic intent to harness space-based capabilities for pressing terrestrial challenges like climate change monitoring and natural resource management. They also signal policy focus on leveraging space’s inspirational power to build the next-generation workforce through STEM education and diverse employment opportunities.

The Outside Influence: Users’ Advisory Group

The formal government list doesn’t tell the complete story. The Users’ Advisory Group (UAG) ensures private sector and non-federal organization voices are integral to policy-making.

Official Structure and Mandate

The UAG is a formal Federal Advisory Committee governed by the Federal Advisory Committee Act, with a function designated as “solely advisory.” Created by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 1991, its purpose ensures industry, academia, and other non-federal entities are “adequately represented” in council deliberations.

NASA provides administrative and financial support for the UAG, with estimated annual operating costs of no more than $350,000.

Power Players and Industry Titans

The UAG membership, announced by Vice President Harris in December 2022, reads like a directory of the most influential figures in modern space enterprise. Chaired by retired Air Force General Lester Lyles, the group represents every major corner of the space industry.

Legacy aerospace and defense giants include CEOs and senior executives from Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Boeing, and United Launch Alliance. “New Space” titans have prominent representation with top executives from SpaceX, Blue Origin, and Amazon’s Project Kuiper satellite internet initiative.

The broader commercial ecosystem includes leaders from satellite manufacturing (Maxar Technologies, Ball Aerospace), Earth observation and data services (Planet Labs), and industry advocacy groups like the Commercial Spaceflight Federation and Aerospace Industries Association.

Academia, science, and education representatives include leaders from premier institutions like MIT, climate science experts, and STEM education organizations such as the Challenger Center.

Subcommittees as Policy Channels

The UAG’s influence flows through six organized subcommittees mirroring the council’s policy priorities: Exploration & Discovery; Economic Development & Industrial Base; Climate & Societal Benefits; STEM Education, Diversity & Inclusion; National Security; and Data & Emerging Technology.

These subcommittees develop detailed white papers, findings, and formal recommendations presented directly to the National Space Council during public meetings. This creates a formal, highly influential pipeline from the private sector into White House policy-making.

The UAG structure reveals it operates as more than a passive advisory board. It’s the primary, institutionalized mechanism through which the commercial and industrial base actively shapes U.S. space policy from within. The law mandates representation for non-federal interests, and UAG appointments fulfill this by selecting the most senior executives from the sector’s most powerful companies.

How Presidential Priorities Shape Space Policy

A comparison of the National Space Council under Trump and Biden administrations reveals how executive branch changes can profoundly shift national space policy emphasis and tone while maintaining surprising continuity on core strategic objectives.

The Trump Era: Dominance and Commercialization

The Trump administration’s space policy was characterized by “Peace Through Strength” philosophy and ambition to reassert America’s dominance in space. The council, under Vice President Mike Pence’s chairmanship, pursued an agenda centered on national security, aggressive exploration timelines, and liberating the commercial sector from regulatory burdens.

Key initiatives included creating the U.S. Space Force as the sixth branch of armed forces on December 20, 2019. This move fundamentally reoriented U.S. military posture by formally recognizing space as a distinct warfighting domain.

Through Space Policy Directive-1, the administration directed NASA to lead a program returning American astronauts to the Moon. At the fifth council meeting on March 26, 2019, Vice President Pence dramatically accelerated this timeline, challenging NASA to land the first woman and next man on the Moon by 2024 in what became the Artemis program.

Commercial deregulation formed a central tenet, aiming to “unleash American industry.” Space Policy Directive-2 streamlined regulatory frameworks for commercial launch and reentry, while Space Policy Directive-3 established the nation’s first comprehensive space traffic management policy with clear focus on enabling commercial growth.

The Biden Era: Alliances and Broader Benefits

The Biden-Harris administration continued the council and retained the Space Force and Artemis program foundations. However, under Vice President Kamala Harris’s leadership, the council’s focus pivoted significantly in tone and emphasis, prioritizing international cooperation, leveraging space to address climate crisis, and ensuring domestic space benefits are distributed more equitably.

Key initiatives include strengthening international partnerships. A core theme of Vice President Harris’s leadership has been rebuilding alliances and promoting a rules-based international order for space. This appears most clearly in energetic expansion of the Artemis Accords and the landmark announcement that an international astronaut will land on the Moon as part of an Artemis mission by decade’s end.

Space for climate change represents another major shift. The Biden-Harris council explicitly integrated climate action into top-level priorities. Expanding council membership to include the National Climate Advisor and focusing on Earth observation satellites for climate monitoring represent major policy changes.

STEM and workforce development, reflecting the addition of Education and Labor Secretaries, emphasizes using space’s inspirational appeal to build a diverse, next-generation STEM workforce and ensure space industry economic benefits are accessible to more Americans.

Where Power and Priorities Collide

The National Space Council serves as both a forum for grand strategy and an arena where practical, often contentious policy details are hammered out. These debates provide clear windows into how the council’s various power players interact to shape space activities’ future.

Mission Authorization Battle

One of the most pressing debates facing the council involves “mission authorization.” As commercial companies develop novel space activities like satellite servicing, active debris removal, and in-space manufacturing, they require clear regulatory pathways for government approval. This authorization is necessary for the United States to fulfill obligations under Article VI of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, which requires nations to authorize and supervise their non-governmental entities’ space activities.

This seemingly administrative issue has ignited significant bureaucratic turf wars. The commercial space industry, speaking through the UAG and advocacy groups like the Commercial Spaceflight Federation, consistently argues for a “one-stop-shop” approach. They advocate for a single government agency, preferably Commerce, to license these new activities, arguing this would provide regulatory clarity and efficiency needed to foster innovation and maintain competitive edge.

The Biden council, in a legislative proposal sent to Congress, advanced a bifurcated framework splitting authorization responsibilities between Commerce and Transportation. This debate encapsulates the central council tension: balancing economic growth promotion with government responsibilities for safety, security, and international compliance.

The Orbital Debris Challenge

The escalating orbital debris problem represents a classic “tragedy of the commons” and major council challenge. More than six decades of space activity have littered Earth’s orbit with millions of debris pieces, from defunct satellites to tiny fragments, all traveling at hypervelocity and posing lethal threats to operational spacecraft.

Recent proliferation of large commercial satellite constellations rapidly increases low Earth orbit object density, making catastrophic collision risks ever more likely. The council coordinates the U.S. government response, a policy first articulated in the Trump administration’s Space Policy Directive-3 and carried forward in documents like the National Orbital Debris Implementation Plan.

This creates direct conflicts among key council members. Commerce is tasked with promoting a vibrant commercial space sector, currently the primary source of new orbital objects. Meanwhile, Defense is deeply concerned about debris threats to its multi-billion-dollar national security satellites essential for intelligence, communication, and navigation.

The council debate involves difficult balancing between enabling near-term economic opportunity and ensuring long-term space environment sustainability for all users, requiring careful coordination between policy, technology, and international diplomacy.

Artemis Accords as Strategic Tool

The Artemis Accords exemplify the council successfully integrating multiple national power instruments to achieve strategic objectives. The Accords are non-binding principles for civil space exploration, grounded in the foundational 1967 Outer Space Treaty, outlining best practices for peaceful and transparent cooperation on the Moon and beyond.

Developed under council guidance by NASA and State during the Trump administration, the Accords have been enthusiastically championed and expanded by the Biden administration, demonstrating bipartisan appeal.

While presented as peaceful scientific collaboration framework, the Accords are also masterful American soft power and strategic competition instruments. By making adherence to these principles a prerequisite for Artemis program participation—this generation’s defining human space exploration effort—the United States effectively builds a broad, U.S.-led international coalition.

With over 50 signatory nations, this coalition establishes a powerful bloc promoting U.S.-preferred norms on critical issues like space resource utilization and lunar activity deconfliction. This approach allows the U.S. to shape future space governance outside often-stalled formal U.N. treaty processes while creating clear diplomatic and normative counterweight to alternative lunar exploration visions pursued by strategic rivals China and Russia.

The Artemis Accords success showcases the council operating at peak effectiveness, seamlessly blending civil space exploration goals (NASA) and international diplomacy (State) to advance America’s geopolitical interests.

The Institutional Balance of Power

The council’s composition reveals fundamental tensions inherent in U.S. space policy. It serves as the designated arena where core pillars of national space power—military strength, scientific leadership, economic dynamism, and diplomatic influence—must be reconciled.

Defense and Intelligence approach space through strategic competition lens, naturally favoring policies enhancing security and control. NASA’s mission builds on open scientific inquiry and international collaboration foundations. Commerce advocates for light regulatory touch to fuel commercial innovation, sometimes conflicting with Defense’s stringent security requirements or NASA’s rigorous safety protocols. State’s methodical pursuit of international treaties and norms can seem ponderous to commercial players eager to move at business speed.

Every major policy decision, from space traffic rules to satellite data sharing protocols, results from this institutional push-and-pull. The council serves as the formal battleground where these competing interests are negotiated, with the Vice President serving as final arbiter.

The council’s enduring bipartisan support suggests this balance, while sometimes contentious, effectively serves American space interests in an increasingly complex and competitive global environment.

Our articles make government information more accessible. Please consult a qualified professional for financial, legal, or health advice specific to your circumstances.