On August 13, 2025, the White House issued Executive Order 14335, “Enabling Competition in the Commercial Space Industry” (“EO 14335” or the “EO”). Framed as a push to “enhance American greatness by enabling a competitive launch marketplace and substantially increasing commercial space launch cadence and novel space activities by 2030,” EO 14335 directs federal agencies to reform regulatory barriers in four key areas: (1) commercial launch and reentry, (2) spaceport infrastructure, (3) novel space activity authorization, and (4) leadership and accountability. Sec. 2. Each of these initiatives aims to streamline bureaucracy, reduce delays, and accelerate U.S. commercial space growth. Below, we break down the EO’s provisions in each area and examine their significance for industry stakeholders.
Commercial Launch and Reentry
EO 14335 seeks to remove bottlenecks in the licensing of commercial launches and reentries. It directs the Secretary of Transportation, acting through the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”)[1] to “use all available authorities to eliminate or expedite” environmental reviews for “launch and reentry licenses and permits.” Sec. 3(a). This means the FAA can leverage existing tools under the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”)—for example, issuing categorical exclusions for classes of launch activities that are known not to significantly impact the environment, instead of requiring lengthy Environmental Assessments or Impact Statements for each launch. The EO explicitly directs the use of regulatory authority to exempt launch or reentry permits from specific legal requirements “not necessary to protect the public health and safety, safety of property, and national security and foreign policy interests of the United States” (51 U.S.C. § 50905(b)(2)(C)). Taken together, these measures respond to longstanding industry concerns that lengthy environmental reviews have slowed the launch licensing process.
Perhaps most notably, EO 14335 orders a thorough revamp of the FAA’s launch and reentry licensing regulations at 14 C.F.R. Part 450. Sec. 3(b). Part 450, adopted in 2020, was intended to “streamline[] and increase[] flexibility” by allowing multiple launches under a single license. In reality, however, industry has criticized Part 450 for making approvals slower and more complicated. Rep. Brian Babin, Chair of the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee, recently noted that “license processing under the new Part 450 process is moving at a snail’s pace,” with some applications taking years. The EO responds by instructing the FAA to “reevaluate, amend, or rescind” Part 450’s requirements, including by determining if certain requirements shouldn’t apply to vehicles equipped with autonomous flight termination systems or other advanced safety features, and whether vehicles that are essentially aircraft (with airworthiness certification) merit relaxed rules. The review will also identify any regulatory requirements “too attenuated” to justify keeping. These revisions could reduce the number of launches or reentries subject to individualized FAA analysis and streamline licensing for the rest.
One issue likely on the table is eliminating duplicative analyses between the FAA and other government agencies under Part 450. For example, the U.S. Space Force (which operates the Eastern and Western Ranges) already performs extensive Range safety analyses—such as calculating the expected casualty risk posed by a launch—for every mission. The FAA has said it would defer to federal Range safety processes for launches from these ranges, but in practice, still “certifies” the results independently. This means launch providers and their customers sometimes face two layers of scrutiny for the same safety models and data, with each reviewer mandating different inputs or formats, increasing the likelihood of confusion and delay. The FAA’s ongoing Part 450 review—now reinforced by the EO—could address these pain points. If successful, it could clear away some of the regulatory friction “tether[ing]” U.S. launch operators “to Earth with red tape”—as Representative Babin put it.
Spaceport Infrastructure
EO 14335 places a strong emphasis on expanding and upgrading U.S. spaceport infrastructure—the launch and reentry sites that are critical gateways to orbit. By February 9, 2026 (180 days from the date of the EO), the Secretary of Commerce, in consultation with the Secretaries of Defense and Transportation, and the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (“NASA”), must evaluate how state compliance with the Coastal Zone Management Act (“CZMA”) affects spaceport development. Sec. 4(a). The CZMA gives states a voice in federal projects affecting coastal zones, via a “consistency” review, and some states have used this power to block spaceport projects. The EO asks whether state approval authority under the CZMA should be revoked. Further, EO 14335’s instruction to notify the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) of state or local “limitations on spaceport development on Federal lands,” suggests DOJ may now weigh in on such disputes. The message appears to be that state and local hurdles to spaceport expansion will not be tolerated if they conflict with federal law or the national interest in space access.
Beyond targeting such obstructions, the EO directs a broad interagency streamlining of spaceport approvals. Commerce, the Departments of Defense (“DoD”) and Transportation (“DOT”), and NASA are ordered to execute a memorandum of understanding that (a) “aligns review processes for spaceport development across agencies,” (b) “eliminates those that are duplicative,” and (c) “preserves required Federal space-exploration and National Security Space Launch capacity.” Sec. 4(b). In parallel, those agencies (and the Department of the Interior, which manages federal lands) must “use all available authorities” to expedite environmental and administrative reviews for spaceport-related permits, leases, and other approvals. Sec. 4(c). The Council on Environmental Quality is tasked with helping establish new categorical exclusions under NEPA for spaceport development actions “that normally do not have a significant environmental impact.” And given “the significant national security imperatives inherent in commercial space advancement,” the EO urges agencies to consider invoking the Endangered Species Act’s exemption processes for spaceport projects. This exemption process is rarely used, but its mention signals the administration’s priority: to expand launch infrastructure and capacity, even if that means overriding environmental roadblocks in extraordinary cases.
Overall, these directives amount to a concerted push for speed and coordination in building launch sites. Launch activity is soaring, with a record 148 FAA-licensed commercial space operations in FY 2024, up 30% from the prior year; that number may more than double by 2028. Without additional launch pads, improved infrastructure, and streamlined permitting, this growth will bottleneck. Congress too has spotlighted spaceports as vital to national security: section 70309 of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act treats spaceports like airports and seaports for financing purposes (e.g., enabling tax exempt bonds), reinforcing the premise that modernizing U.S. launch ranges is essential to American leadership in space. EO 14335’s spaceport initiative drives home this reality. The goal is to avoid bureaucratic delays, where myriad federal and state agencies each conduct separate reviews for a new launch pad. Instead, the EO seeks one unified process that moves quickly—a philosophy consistent with the administration’s broader focus on governmental efficiency. If fully implemented, it would help ensure the U.S. has the capacity to meet rising launch demand—enabling more rockets, not only from Florida and California, but from new commercial spaceports across the United States.
Novel Space Activity Authorization
Significantly, the EO also addresses the authorization of “novel” space activities—cutting-edge private space ventures that don’t neatly fall under any existing licensing regime. Article VI of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty requires the U.S. government to authorize and supervise all space activities of U.S. non-government entities. This obligation has been met through agencies like the FAA (for launches and reentries), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (“NOAA”) (for commercial remote sensing satellites) and the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) (for satellite communications spectrum). As companies propose new kinds of space operations—on-orbit satellite servicing, private space stations, lunar resource extraction, active debris removal, space manufacturing, etc.—gaps have emerged. These “novel” activities (from which the EO expressly excludes human spaceflight) are covered by Article VI “but not clearly or straightforwardly governed by existing regulatory frameworks.” Sec. 5.
There has been growing advocacy for an efficient process to approve such missions so that U.S. firms can pursue innovative space projects without facing a regulatory void or uncertainty that could deter progress and investment. EO 14335 effectively puts the Secretary of Commerce in the driver’s seat to solve this. It gives Secretary Lutnick 150 days (by January 10, 2026) to “propose a process for” authorizing novel space activities “with the goal of expediting and streamlining authorizations to enable American space competitiveness and superiority.” Sec. 5. The proposal must (a) incorporate feedback from other relevant agencies; (b) lay out a definitive timeline for decisions; and (c) provide clear and consistent requirements for applicants. Notably, this initiative appears to replace a more complex framework under consideration by the prior administration that would have split regulatory responsibility for new space activities between Commerce and DOT—an approach that met with mixed reviews from industry and Congress. By contrast, the new EO hints at a cleaner solution, likely centering authority for truly novel space missions in Commerce’s Office of Space Commerce (“OSC”), an outcome long favored by commercial space advocates. Activities already well-covered by the existing regime—launches, reentries, satellites, and remote sensing—would remain under the FAA/NOAA/FCC, as before. Commerce’s forthcoming proposal will need to thread that needle carefully, coordinating with the FAA, NASA, DoD, FCC, and others to ensure that companies have a one-stop authorization for novel operations in addition to any launch or spectrum licenses they might also need. If Commerce succeeds, the U.S. could achieve a streamlined Article VI licensing mechanism—unlocking entrepreneurial ventures in orbit and beyond, while upholding treaty commitments. The details of this process (e.g., what standards will be applied? how to avoid overregulation? how to enforce “continuous supervision” post license?) will determine how effective it is. For now, though, the EO appears to double down on the commitment to clear the path for new space activities that are not explicitly regulated today—welcome news for burgeoning novel space industries waiting in the wings.
Leadership and Accountability
Finally, EO 14335 makes a few organizational tweaks to bolster leadership and accountability for commercial space regulation. First, the Secretary of Transportation must establish a new advisor position within the Office of the Secretary, focused on “fostering innovation and deregulation in the commercial space industry.” In essence, DOT will add an in-house commercial space policy guru whose sole job is to push forward initiatives like those in the EO and ensure the regulatory culture stays innovation-friendly. This will elevate space issues within DOT and provide a direct line of advice to the Secretary, reflecting the administration’s prioritization of space commerce.
Second, EO 14335 directs the Secretary of Transportation to direct the FAA Administrator to appoint a senior political appointee as the Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation. Historically, the FAA’s Office of Commercial Space Transportation—the unit that oversees launch licensing—has sometimes been led by a career civil servant. Requiring this role be filled by a political appointee ensures the office is led by someone chosen by and accountable to the administration, who would be responsive to policy direction from the White House and Secretary (e.g., in initiating Part 450 reforms and speeding up license timelines). Industry groups have long called for this office to have greater influence, and a politically appointed Associate Administrator—a knowledgeable, expert, and high-profile champion for commercial space inside the FAA—could answer that call. Ultimately the individual selected to fulfill this position will be important to determining FAA’s role in effectuating EO 14335’s goals.
Third, EO 14335 elevates the OSC within the Commerce Department, placing it directly under the Office of the Secretary. Sec. 6. Under the previous administration, the Deputy Secretary of Commerce was responsible for ensuring synergy across the department—OSC included—on issues affecting the commercial space industry. By mandating that OSC report straight to the Secretary, the EO ensures Commerce’s high-level visibility of the space agenda. While this is another win for industry proponents who wanted Commerce to take a bigger leadership role in space regulatory matters, the ultimate impact will depend on the Secretary’s bandwidth to focus on OSC matters. In any event, this change, combined with the novel activities mandate discussed above, suggests that OSC—with the full backing of Commerce’s top leadership—will be a key player (alongside the FAA) in shaping the future commercial space landscape.
While small steps in themselves, together these leadership changes embed the EO’s priorities into the government’s organizational DNA, creating internal advocates for deregulation and streamlining. This will be important as implementation of the EO’s directives proceeds. Implementation will require significant follow-up work (new regulations, interagency agreements, possibly new legislation) that can’t be accomplished overnight. These changes in people and positions appear intended to reflect administration priorities of sustained momentum on commercial space initiatives and accountability for results.
Outlook: Promise and the Path Ahead
In sum, EO 14335 appears to be a major step in the right direction for U.S. commercial space competitiveness. It reflects a top-level commitment to cutting red tape, while maintaining public safety and treaty obligations. With industry, Congress, and the administration largely aligned on the need for streamlining, there is reason for cautious optimism. The EO frames regulatory reform as the way to reduce inertia and promote a more innovation-friendly framework, with the expectation that by 2030 the United States could substantially increase its launch cadence and enable a wave of new space activities, thereby keeping America at the forefront of the global space economy. If the EO’s directives are fully implemented, industry could see faster launch license turnarounds, less duplicative safety reviews, new launch pads, and a clear framework for novel space ventures. EO 14335’s supportive tone and ambitious goals have set the stage, but there is plenty of work ahead to translate these directives into improvements on the ground. Agencies face tight deadlines (60-180 days) to propose rules and agreements—EO 14335’s actual impact will depend on what those rules say and how well agencies coordinate and execute them. Policy professionals and industry stakeholders should be prepared to engage in the rulemaking and implementation process—through public comments, advisory committees, and direct consultations—to help shape outcomes that fulfill the EO’s promise.
American greatness in space may well depend on how effectively the EO’s guiding mantra is achieved: enabling competition through greater efficiency in governance—all while keeping our eyes on the stars.
Covington’s cross-practice team, including members of its Government Contracts, Public Policy, and other practices, will continue to monitor developments in the commercial space industry and implementation of EO 14335.
[1] The EO notes that “[w]here applicable, the functions assigned to the Secretary of Transportation in sections 1 through 5 of this order shall be carried out by the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration under the direction of the Secretary of Transportation.” Sec. 7.