If President-elect Donald Trump and Elon Musk get their way, NASA may become a glorified contracting agency.
As Musk promises the American public “temporary hardship” as he looks to cut some $2 trillion from the federal budget — the equivalent of all spending outside Social Security, Medicare and interest on the national debt — Trump’s top space advisers talk openly about funneling even more public money to Musk’s SpaceX. If actually implemented, such proposals would give Musk a de facto monopoly over America’s commercial space industry, stifle healthy competition that fuels technological innovation and demoralize an already overtaxed NASA workforce.
Never mind that SpaceX remains well behind schedule when it comes to delivering a lunar lander derived from its Starship vehicle, or that it’ll need an as-yet untried on-orbit refueling method to reach the moon.
This reality makes it ludicrous to suggest, as Trump space adviser Greg Autry has done, that NASA simply contract out a human Mars mission to SpaceX. To put it bluntly, the company has not demonstrated the technical competence required to execute even less demanding missions.
NASA remains an irreplaceable and indispensable public agency. If Trump and Musk hollow it out, however, the United States will quickly find itself without any viable space program.
Fortunately, Congress can prevent the incoming administration from dismantling NASA and effectively turning its activities over to one private company. Indeed, Congress has historically proven more than willing to exert its authority when it comes to America’s space exploration priorities — and it should do so once again to protect NASA and ensure robust competition in America’s commercial space industry.
First, Congress can legally protect the Space Launch System — the only rocket able to send astronauts to the moon in one launch — from an executive branch firing squad. As it has done with specific types of military aircraft, Congress could prohibit NASA from stopping work on SLS or canceling already-signed contracts for future SLS rockets. Congress could also mandate NASA use SLS and the Orion crew vehicle for Artemis missions to the moon as well as on other agency missions, when applicable.
For all the compromises involved in its creation and design, SLS remains a unique capability that no other nation or private company can match — and one that has already proven itself.
Next, Congress can require NASA to contract with more than one company when it procures commercial space services. Such a move would preserve competition in the commercial space industry and preempt any attempt by Musk to entrench SpaceX as a de facto monopoly for commercial space services. Without real competition, innovation and quality control — vital in an enterprise as inherently dangerous as human spaceflight — will inevitably suffer.
Such dual-source contracting is already a best practice for NASA. Contracts for commercial cargo and crew missions to the International Space Station, for instance, have typically involved at least two companies. When funding concerns led the agency to award SpaceX and SpaceX alone a contract to build a lunar lander for Artemis, Congress stepped in to require NASA to choose a second company to build a separate lunar lander. In May 2023, Blue Origin was given a $3.4 billion contract to build Blue Moon.
To prevent the Trump administration from simply giving handouts to SpaceX, Congress should write this dual-source commercial contracting policy into law. Details will remain up to lawmakers, of course, but Congress should mandate that NASA award major commercial services contracts — cargo delivery to the ISS and its successors, commercial crew transportation to low-Earth orbit and human and robotic lunar landing services, to name a few — to at least two companies. That will require additional resources so NASA can fund two commercial services contracts at once.
Finally, Congress should do whatever it can to shield NASA and its workforce from the ministrations of the so-called “government efficiency” effort co-chaired by Musk. It could use annual agency authorization and appropriations laws to legally require Musk to recuse himself from any role with any agency with which his companies have contracts or outstanding regulatory disputes. If Musk plays hardball right out of the gate, Congress could explicitly exempt NASA from the ambit of his committee’s work.
Likewise, Congress could also refuse to confirm any nominee for NASA administrator unwilling to support the agency’s existing plans and programs, especially its human spaceflight endeavors.
There are likely other ways Congress could protect NASA, of course, but it would be a tragedy of the highest order if Congress allowed the Trump administration to gut the agency. It’s not that NASA is perfect; indeed, it could stand to do business better and spend its money more wisely. But for all its flaws and faults, the agency remains one of the nation’s most precious assets — one that expands humanity’s knowledge of the cosmos and inspires us to look beyond our present circumstances.
NASA is an American crown jewel that deserves to be shielded from the depredations of would-be oligarchs — and right now, only Congress can give the agency the protection it needs.
Peter Juul is the director of national security at the Progressive Policy Institute. He has worked and written on national security, defense, and space policy in Washington, D.C., for almost 20 years.
Editor’s Note: This op-ed has been updated to address inaccuracies and clarify potentially misleading statements.
The op-ed originally misidentified Trump adviser Greg Autry as Gene Autry. Additionally, it originally stated the following: “Never mind that SpaceX remains well behind schedule when it comes to delivering a lunar lander derived from its Starship vehicle. Or that any lunar landing mission using Starship will require 17 launches of a booster rocket that has yet to complete one successful flight test. Or that it’ll need an as-yet untried on-orbit refueling method to reach the Moon at all.”
While the 17-launch figure aligns with a NASA official’s statement from November 2023, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk has suggested as few as 4–8 launches might suffice, and NASA revised its estimate in January 2024 to “ten-ish,” with the exact number still subject to further testing. The op-ed’s omission of these alternative estimates may have given readers the impression that the 17-launch figure was definitive.
The claim the booster “has yet to complete one successful flight test” also lacked nuance. Since April 2023, multiple test flights have demonstrated significant progress, including orbital launches, successful stage separation, and advancements in booster recovery systems. By October 2024, the booster achieved a successful return and recovery, marking a key milestone in its development. While no full mission-profile test has been completed, the op-ed’s language did not reflect these achievements, which are critical steps toward operational readiness.
We regret the lack of context in these statements and have updated the op-ed to provide a fuller and more accurate account.
