The “protectionist” Europe of space. U.S. anger

In a comment on the draft of the EU Space Act, the U.S. State Department uses forceful language: “Unacceptable rules. They must be removed.”

BY EMILIO COZZI

To say that, across the ocean, the European draft law on space has not been well received would be an understatement.
In a lengthy and detailed statement, the U.S. Department of State commented on the EU Space Act, the new regulatory framework through which the European Union seeks to create a common market for the space sector; Washington considers it a protectionist obstacle. Because, even without imposing tariffs, it would introduce technological requirements and bureaucratic processes accused of making it harder for non-EU players to provide services and hardware to European countries. In other words, the U.S. fears losing market share while Europe tries to strengthen its own position.

“Overall, the United States expresses deep concern about the measures contained in the proposed law, which would impose unacceptable regulatory burdens on U.S. providers of space services to European clients.” Thus begins the assessment, backed by “input from trade associations […] representing a broad cross-section of the U.S. commercial space industry” and the opinions of “over 70 companies with active or potential commercial interests in the European Union market.”
More generally, reference is made to the commitments undertaken under the U.S.–EU trade agreement of August 21, 2025, which also aims to reduce or eliminate non-tariff barriers. “The current draft of the EU Space Law contradicts the spirit of that agreement,” the Department concludes.

U.S. Companies Discriminated Against

Throughout the 13 pages of the document, the tone does not become any softer. Exceptions are requested for collaborations involving U.S. companies in the civilian domain. The EU Space Act does not, in fact, apply to space objects launched for defense purposes. But, as the Department of State warns, “the exemptions provided are not sufficient to protect routine national security uses, since many space capabilities are inherently dual use technologies,” both civilian and military.

As if that were not enough, the U.S. government has also identified several provisions that “appear to be specifically targeted at U.S. companies solely because of their size, significance, and proven record of innovation, particularly in the field of large satellite constellations for telecommunications (read Starlink, ed.). Such rules, unfair and unjustified, are unacceptable to the United States and must be removed.”
Must is an imperative, not a request.

The Satellite Clampdown, Concerns for SpaceX and Kuiper

Specifically, Europe intends to introduce certifications and rules for actors and operators that provide launch services to European institutions and companies. These safety requirements concern, for example, the mitigation of space debris and the reentry of satellites and launcher components. It will be mandatory, in Europe, for satellite systems to be equipped with propulsion systems to avoid collisions and ensure safe deorbiting in the atmosphere.

This constraint, the statement complains, would limit innovation (since some operators use other systems, such as atmospheric drag for maneuvering); the regulation would require a redesign, with a corresponding increase in costs, considered excessive especially for research satellites and institutional missions with limited funding.

“The United States calls on the EU to recognize U.S. launch and reentry licenses and not to impose highly burdensome regulatory requirements with new obstacles created by the space law.” The same argument applies to the restrictions related to satellite light pollution.

The EU Space Act also introduces a distinction between mega constellations (with more than 100 satellites) and giga constellations (with more than one thousand systems). “Such a distinction would entail additional burdens and restrictions for U.S. operators providing services to persons abroad, including EU citizens.” And it would directly affect a segment, that of satellite communications, in which North America currently dominates the market, with Starlink and Amazon’s newly launched Kuiper.

Launches from the United States under European Rules

A major concern emerges in particular regarding the fate of space launch vehicles after liftoff, which could lead operators to avoid using the full capacity of the vehicle in order to comply with the new restrictions.

It is likely that in this case Washington’s worries stem from the requirements that would apply to space transport providers operating in the United States for European clients: “We are concerned that the EU regulation appears to require the registration of U.S. operators launching EU assets from launch sites based in the United States. Since such launches are fully authorized by the United States, the EU requirements for launch activities carried out outside EU launch sites should be excluded from the regulation.”

These measures are perceived as discriminatory toward launch service providers from third countries and non-EU operators. “Expanded protectionism raises costs, limits technical achievements, and puts pressure on the space objectives of both the United States and Europe.”

Additional reservations are expressed about the new measures that would be introduced for cybersecurity to protect the European system. The Department of State even alludes to an alleged European weakness in cybersecurity due to risky partnerships, for example between scientific institutions and non-EU countries, that “could inappropriately provide backdoor access to European-owned data, despite the strict privacy laws upheld by the EU, through the installation of sensitive and compromised technologies and predatory memoranda of understanding.”

Specifically, “the United States opposes the digital sovereignty measures enacted by the Commission, which would unfairly limit the ability of U.S. companies to participate in the European space market. Particular concern arises from the analysis contained in the Commission’s impact assessment, according to which the new cybersecurity requirements and other risk management costs could increase IT budgets for private sector companies by 10 percent.”

No to Bureaucratic Overload

In summary, Washington is asking for equal treatment that “would avoid duplicate compliance procedures for U.S. space operators and U.S. space service providers working with European counterparts. This would ensure that the EU Space Law does not negatively impact supply chains or the ability of businesses in the United States and Europe to collaborate, as well as the ability of U.S. companies to provide space services to European customers.”

The concern expressed by Washington is not, moreover, the only one raised about the proposed European regulation. The International Center for Law and Economics has warned of the risk of “economic distortions and structural barriers that could hinder, rather than promote, the goals of competitiveness and regulatory predictability.”
Among other points, it is argued that EUSPA, the agency tasked with implementing and enforcing the new rules, “is also involved in the management and operation of EU constellations, such as Iris². Therefore, it acts both as a regulatory authority and as a de facto competitor to the foreign constellation operators it oversees.”

Another aspect that has generated skepticism even within Europe concerns the bureaucratization that will lead (by the Union’s own admission) to higher costs for certain activities. In a comment reported by Payload Space, Sara Dalledonne, head of EU relations and regulatory affairs at the European Space Policy Institute (ESPI), said that “heavy administrative burdens could also lead to a kind of forum shopping. Operators will start looking to establish themselves and obtain authorizations in other countries that are less strict or more favorable.”

The European Union was founded with strict rules, for example in the food sector, to build itself into a single system, to protect its products, services, and industries, and to ensure a higher quality of life for its citizens. That the EU Space Act has similar intentions is not in doubt. Yet the question remains legitimate: how long can a protectionist vision be sustained without triggering a new trade war?