Securing the High Ground: US Space Policy for Defense and Warfare in a Contested Domain

A New Frontier of Conflict and Strategy

Executive Summary

The domain of space, once perceived primarily as a realm for scientific exploration and benign support functions, has unequivocally transformed into a critical theater for defense and warfare. This report details the United States' evolving policy in this contested environment, emphasizing the strategic imperative of achieving and maintaining space superiority as a fundamental precondition for overall military success and national security. A historical review of intelligence satellites reveals a decades-long reliance on space-based assets for gaining intelligence on adversaries, a reliance that has only deepened with technological advancements. Today, the vulnerabilities of these indispensable assets to sophisticated threats necessitate robust defensive and offensive counterspace capabilities. Initiatives like the "Golden Dome" missile defense system exemplify this strategic shift, integrating cutting-edge technologies, including space-based interceptors, to protect the homeland from increasingly complex airborne threats. Crucially, sustained congressional appropriations, as evidenced by recent defense bills, underscore a historic commitment to modernizing space defense. Garnering continued public and political support for these vital endeavors is paramount, as investment in space security not only safeguards national interests but also drives economic prosperity and technological innovation with broad societal benefits.

1. Introduction: The Evolving Landscape of Space Power

Space has transcended its initial role as a frontier for scientific discovery to become an indispensable domain for global security and economic prosperity. Modern military operations are profoundly reliant on space-based capabilities, which provide critical functions such as secure communication, precise navigation, comprehensive intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR), and early warning of missile launches.¹ These capabilities are so deeply integrated into the fabric of both military functions and civilian life that their dependence is often "unrecognized and irreplaceable".² This pervasive reliance on space assets means that while space enables unparalleled military capabilities, it simultaneously creates a critical vulnerability. The more integrated space becomes into military and civilian operations, the higher the strategic risk if these assets are compromised. A disruption to space capabilities could lead to "incalculable risk" and potentially "U.S. military failure," crippling joint functions and isolating operational commanders from the battlefield.²

This fundamental dependence has driven a significant doctrinal evolution within US space policy. Space is no longer considered a benign environment but a recognized warfighting domain.¹ This shift is explicitly articulated in the US Space Force's (USSF) new "Warfighting Framework," released in April 2025. This foundational document asserts that "space superiority" is the central foundation of US military power and a "necessary precondition for Joint Force success".³ The explicit shift in Space Force doctrine, moving from merely enabling other military branches to actively preparing to "fight in space," is a direct response to the perceived and demonstrated counterspace capabilities of peer adversaries such as China and Russia.³ The 2025 Space Force doctrine represents the "first major update" to the USSF's foundational doctrine in five years and introduces "space control" as a core function, a concept not explicitly mentioned in the 2020 publication.⁴ This rapid doctrinal change, driven by Chief of Space Operations Chance Saltzman's emphasis on developing a "fighting force," directly indicates that the threat landscape has evolved significantly in a short period, necessitating a more aggressive and proactive stance in space operations. The observed or anticipated counterspace capabilities of adversaries are thus directly driving a fundamental re-evaluation of US space strategy, shifting it from a passive support role to an active warfighting posture.

2. A History of Eyes in the Sky: Intelligence Satellites and Strategic Advantage

The genesis of modern space policy for defense is inextricably linked to the Cold War, a period that spurred the rapid development of space-based intelligence capabilities. The need for reliable intelligence on adversaries, particularly "closed societies" like the Soviet Union and China, became paramount.⁶ Following the downing of a U-2 reconnaissance aircraft over Soviet territory in 1960, the United States recognized the inherent dangers and diplomatic complications of airborne overflights. Satellites emerged as the indispensable, safer alternative for gathering critical data about nuclear threats, providing information that could not be obtained in any other way.⁶

Key Programs and Their Capabilities

The early decades of space-based intelligence were marked by highly secretive, groundbreaking programs that laid the foundation for today's sophisticated systems:

• GRAB I (Galactic Radiation and Background): Launched in 1960, just four days after the U-2 incident, GRAB I was the first operational electronic intelligence (ELINT) satellite. This project provided proof-of-concept for satellite-collected ELINT, demonstrating that a space platform could gather as much intelligence as all other sea-, air-, and land-based reconnaissance platforms combined, at a fraction of the cost and with no risk to personnel. GRAB I clandestinely obtained vital information on Soviet air defense radar by receiving energy pulses and transmitting corresponding signals to ground collection sites.⁷

• CORONA (Keyhole "KH" series): Initiated as a Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) program with support from the Air Force in 1959, CORONA became a primary imagery intelligence (IMINT) program. These satellites used photographic film, which was then returned to Earth in specialized capsules for development and analysis.⁶ Early CORONA satellites achieved ground resolutions of 12.9 meters (42 feet), which rapidly improved over the program's lifespan to 1.5 meters (5 feet), with an optimal resolution of 0.91 meters (3 feet).⁹

• GAMBIT (KH-7/8): Entering service in 1963, GAMBIT satellites provided higher-resolution imagery, typically ranging from 0.61 meters (2 feet) to 0.91 meters (3 feet), improving to 0.6 meters by 1966.⁶ These systems focused on "hot spots" and detailed pictures of Chinese and Soviet nuclear and missile installations.¹⁰

• HEXAGON (KH-9): Launched in 1971, HEXAGON offered even more persistent imagery and superior resolution, with its main cameras achieving ground resolutions better than 0.61 meters (2 feet), and some later missions reportedly reaching sub-foot resolution.⁶ HEXAGON also included a mapping camera, which produced lower-resolution images but covered the entire Earth for mapmaking purposes.¹¹

Evolution to Real-Time Digital Intelligence

The technological progression from film-based systems, which required the physical return of negatives, to digital imaging systems capable of electronic data transmission marked a pivotal shift in intelligence gathering. The KH-11 KENNEN, introduced in the 1970s, was a transformative development, enabling "near-real-time" reconnaissance by transmitting imagery almost instantaneously.⁸ This capability was profoundly impactful, as highlighted by historical events where film-return satellites provided intelligence

after critical events had occurred, such as the Soviet invasion of Prague in 1968, where imagery of troop movements was only retrieved after the invasion had commenced.¹³ This starkly contrasted with the immediate awareness provided by digital transmission.

The evolution from film-return satellites like Corona, Gambit, and Hexagon to near-real-time digital transmission (exemplified by KH-11 KENNEN) and the current integration of commercially augmented systems (such as Planet and the CASINO program) represents a fundamental transformation in the speed and accessibility of intelligence.⁸ The anecdote about the Prague invasion, where intelligence was delayed due to the film return process, stands in sharp contrast to the near-instantaneous capabilities of modern digital and commercial satellites.¹³ This progression demonstrates a clear causal relationship: faster intelligence collection through digital transmission leads directly to faster analysis and decision-making, which is critical for maintaining "real-time global situational awareness".¹⁶ This speed advantage acts as a significant force multiplier, enabling more responsive military operations and potentially deterring adversaries by drastically reducing their window of opportunity for covert actions. Furthermore, the increasing integration of commercial capabilities, through initiatives like the Commercially Augmented Space Inter-Networked Operations (CASINO) program, is a key factor in achieving this speed and resilience.¹² However, this reliance on non-military infrastructure also introduces new vulnerabilities, as commercial systems may operate without the same level of defense as dedicated military assets.⁵

The Critical Role in Strategic Stability

The intelligence garnered from these early satellite systems played a "critical" role in the Cold War.⁶ They were instrumental in dispelling fears of a "missile gap" in the 1950s and 1960s, providing concrete evidence that the US had not fallen behind the USSR in weapons development.⁶ This accurate information allowed defense officials to make decisions based on facts, rather than speculation.⁶ Moreover, satellite imagery was crucial for confidently verifying arms control agreements and tracking global conflicts, thereby contributing to strategic stability by fostering transparency and reducing the potential for miscalculation.⁶

The historical success of reconnaissance satellites in providing accurate, verifiable intelligence demonstrates that space-based ISR is not merely about gaining a military advantage; it is also about reducing miscalculation and fostering a degree of strategic stability through transparency. The ability of early satellites to "dispel the fear of missile gap" and enable "defense officials to act on facts, not speculation" directly links robust intelligence capabilities to strategic confidence and deterrence.⁶ This historical precedent illustrates that reliable, verifiable intelligence from space can prevent unnecessary escalation driven by uncertainty or misinformation, thereby contributing to overall international security. This causal relationship reinforces the ongoing need for continuous investment in "next generation intelligence collection systems" to maintain this crucial aspect of strategic stability.¹⁶

Table 1: Evolution of US Reconnaissance Satellites (1960s-Present)

3. The Imperative for Space Defense: Threats and Vulnerabilities

The increasing reliance on space assets has rendered them critical national security infrastructure, but this dependence also exposes them to a growing array of threats. Losing these capabilities would have catastrophic consequences, leading to "incalculable risk" and potentially "U.S. military failure" by crippling joint functions like GPS and satellite communications.² Operational commanders could face complete isolation from the battlefield, severely impacting command and control.² Beyond military implications, civilian infrastructure, including communication satellites, navigation systems, and weather monitoring platforms, operates with limited inherent defenses and could easily become collateral damage or even deliberate targets during conflict.⁵

Categorization of Threats

Threats to space assets are diverse and can be broadly categorized as follows:

• Kinetic Physical Attacks: These involve the use of physical force to damage or destroy satellites, launch vehicles, or ground infrastructure. Examples include direct-ascent anti-satellite (DA-ASAT) missiles, which are launched from the ground or air, and co-orbital ASAT weapons that can maneuver in space to intercept and destroy targets.¹⁹ The destructive potential of these weapons has been demonstrated by ASAT tests conducted by China (2007), India (2019), and Russia (2021), which generated thousands of pieces of dangerous space debris.⁵

• Non-Kinetic Physical Attacks: This category includes weapons that can disrupt or disable satellites without making physical contact. Directed energy weapons, such as lasers or high-powered microwaves, can blind or "dazzle" satellite sensors or electronics, degrading their functionality without necessarily destroying the satellite outright.⁵

• Electronic Warfare (EW): EW targets the electromagnetic spectrum to interfere with satellite operations. This includes jamming, where noise-like signals are emitted to mask or prevent the reception of desired signals, and spoofing, which involves capturing, altering, and retransmitting communication streams to mislead recipients or hijack satellite operations.⁵ Both uplink (ground-to-satellite) and downlink (satellite-to-ground) communications are susceptible to jamming, with ground-based downlink jammers often being less powerful but still effective.²¹

• Cyberattacks: These attacks target a satellite's computer networks to disrupt or deny its ability to collect, process, and disseminate data.⁵ The ground segment of space systems, including fixed and mobile land, sea, or airborne equipment used to interact with the space segment, is particularly vulnerable to cyber intrusions and physical attacks due to its accessibility.²¹ Detected probes and scans are increasing, and hacking tools and techniques are becoming more sophisticated.²¹

Destabilizing Risks of Space Militarization

The extension of military competition into space introduces several profound destabilizing risks:

• Space Debris and the Kessler Syndrome: One of the most tangible and indiscriminate risks of kinetic counterspace operations is the creation of space debris. ASAT tests have produced thousands of pieces of debris, threatening all operational spacecraft and crewed missions.⁵ Even a limited conflict in orbit could generate debris clouds that render important orbital zones unusable, a scenario known as the Kessler Syndrome. This cascading effect would jeopardize not only military assets but also civilian and commercial systems globally.⁵ The risk of space debris from ASAT tests is not just an environmental concern but a critical strategic one, as it can indiscriminately render orbital zones unusable and affect
  all nations. This inherent risk acts as a paradoxical deterrent against the use of kinetic ASAT weapons, yet it also means that any kinetic engagement could have catastrophic, long-term, and indiscriminate consequences for the entire space domain, impacting both military and civilian systems.⁵ This causal relationship strongly influences the development of preferred counterspace methods, favoring non-kinetic approaches that do not generate debris.

• Geopolitical Tensions and Arms Races: The militarization of space amplifies geopolitical tensions. The development of space-based weapons or perceived advantages in counterspace capabilities by one nation can trigger a security dilemma, compelling other nations to develop similar systems. This dynamic risks an arms race in space, diverting resources from civilian and scientific uses and undermining global trust. Diplomatic resolution is further complicated by the technical challenges of verification and attribution in space.⁵

• Legal and Governance Challenges: The existing international legal framework for space activities, particularly the Outer Space Treaty (OST) of 1967, offers limited and ambiguous regulations for modern military activities. While the OST prohibits nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction in orbit and limits celestial bodies to peaceful purposes, it does not expressly ban all military activities in space or the placement of conventional weapons.⁵ This legal ambiguity creates opportunities for misinterpretation, unilateral action, and destabilizing behavior. Attempts to expand space law, such as the Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space (PAROS) proposals, have stalled due to a lack of consensus among major space powers, including the United States.⁵

• Dual-Use Technology Dilemma: Many space technologies are inherently dual-use, possessing both civilian and military applications. For instance, satellite-based Earth observation can support agriculture or military surveillance depending on its application.⁵ This ambiguity complicates monitoring, enforcement, and trust-building efforts. The increasing reliance on privately owned infrastructure, such as Starlink's critical role in military operations in Ukraine, raises significant concerns about the implications of commercial systems shaping national security outcomes.¹⁷ While commercial space offers significant advantages in terms of innovation, speed, and proliferation ¹², it also introduces substantial vulnerabilities for national security due to its reliance on non-military infrastructure and its potential as a target.⁵ This necessitates a proactive cybersecurity strategy ¹⁷ and careful management of the dual-use dilemma. The "buy before build" commercial preference ¹⁸ and the increasing use of commercial systems like Starlink for military operations demonstrate the benefits of rapid deployment and technological advancement. However, these commercial systems often "operate without defenses" ⁵ comparable to dedicated military assets and could become "collateral damage or even deliberate targets" during conflict.⁵ This creates a critical vulnerability, as attacks on commercial assets could have profound national security implications. The pursuit of efficiency and rapid deployment through commercial means inadvertently increases the attack surface and blurs the lines between civilian and military targets, complicating international law and rules of engagement. This situation mandates the development and implementation of robust cybersecurity strategies for commercial space assets that support national security missions.

Table 2: Key Threats to Space Assets and Corresponding Defense Measures

4. US Space Policy and Warfighting Doctrine: Securing Space Superiority

The establishment of the US Space Force (USSF) in 2019 marked a definitive commitment to space as a warfighting domain. The USSF is explicitly the military service "dedicated to fighting in space".¹ Its overarching mission is to achieve "space superiority," a condition defined as the degree of control that enables friendly forces to operate at a time and place of their choosing without prohibitive interference from space or counterspace threats, while simultaneously denying the same freedom to an adversary.³ This objective is deemed a "necessary precondition for Joint Force success" across all domains.³ Chief of Space Operations General B. Chance Saltzman has underscored that the Space Force must not only defend its own capabilities but also actively protect the Joint/Combined Force from space-enabled targeting by adversaries.¹

Core Functions and Competencies

The USSF's new "Warfighting Framework," released in April 2025, details its strategic approach to achieving space superiority. Central to this framework is "space control," identified as a core function that encompasses both offensive and defensive "counterspace operations" across orbital, electromagnetic, and cyber warfare domains.³ The USSF is specifically trained to deliver space superiority for the Joint Force and holds lead responsibility for fires, intelligence, movement, maneuver, protection, and sustainment within, from, and to space.³

Overview of Counterspace Operations

Counterspace operations are broadly divided into offensive and defensive categories:

• Offensive Counterspace: These operations are designed to deceive an adversary, disrupt the use of their space systems, temporarily deny their functionality, degrade or impair their performance, or, in some cases, permanently eliminate them.²⁰ While historically a "taboo topic" in open discussions, the explicit inclusion of offensive counterspace in the new doctrine reflects the evolving nature of space as a contested domain.⁴

• Defensive Counterspace: These actions are taken to protect friendly space forces, assets, and capabilities from attack, interference, or other hazards.³ Defensive measures are further categorized:

• Passive Defenses: These measures aim to minimize the effectiveness of attacks or increase the inherent resilience of space systems. Examples include architectural defenses, such as disaggregated and distributed constellations. These involve satellites operating in parallel or as a system where the end-user is not dependent on any single satellite, thereby ensuring redundancy and avoiding single points of failure.¹ Technical defenses encompass jam-resistant waveforms, encryption, filtering and shuttering techniques to protect against laser dazzling and blinding, and antenna nulling to minimize signals from specific regions.²⁴ Operational defenses include the rapid deployment of new capabilities, the integration of stealth systems, and optimized maneuverability to evade threats.²⁴

• Active Defenses: These measures directly target threats to destroy or nullify them. Space-based active defenses can involve jamming and spoofing sensors on incoming weapons, using onboard laser systems for dazzling or blinding adversary missile sensors, physically docking onto or disrupting adversary satellite systems, or even employing "shoot back" capabilities.²⁴ Terrestrial-based active defenses include cyberattacks designed to disrupt the command and control of antagonistic space weapons systems, or the use of defensive kinetic weapons (land, sea, or air-based) to target ground-based jamming centers or rocket launch sites.²⁴

Advancements in Space Domain Awareness (SDA)

Space Domain Awareness (SDA)—the comprehensive detection, tracking, cataloging, identification, and attribution of objects and activities in space—is a critical enabler for understanding the operational environment and identifying potential threats.²⁰ It provides the "real-time global situational awareness" necessary for effective space operations.¹⁶

Significant advancements are being made in autonomous SDA, leveraging next-generation sensors within hybrid architectures to provide a persistent and comprehensive understanding of the space domain.²⁵ This includes the innovative use of physics-informed neural networks (PINNs) and artificial intelligence (AI), often in collaboration with companies like NVIDIA, to predict the future locations of orbital debris with unprecedented accuracy and computational efficiency.²⁶ This capability is crucial for ensuring the safety and operational integrity of space assets by enabling timely evasive actions to prevent collisions.²⁶ Furthermore, companies like Redwire are developing high-agility spacecraft based on platforms such as Mako, designed for cooperative and prepared inspection, docking, on-orbit refueling, proximity operations, and advanced autonomy techniques.²⁵

The integration of AI, machine learning (specifically PINNs), and advanced autonomy into SDA and satellite operations represents a critical development for maintaining space superiority. These technological advancements enable faster, more precise, and more resilient operations than human operators alone could achieve at scale or speed. The emphasis on "autonomous multi-domain information superiority" ²⁵ and the application of "physics-informed neural networks (PINNs)" for debris prediction ²⁶ highlight the transformative role of AI. This demonstrates that AI and autonomy enable capabilities that human operators cannot achieve alone, such as real-time threat detection, rapid evasive maneuvers, and complex orbital operations.²⁵ This is essential for operating effectively in an increasingly contested environment and for maintaining space superiority. While these capabilities offer immense strategic advantages, their maturation also necessitates careful consideration of ethical implications and control mechanisms for autonomous systems.

5. Reinforcing Homeland Defense: The Golden Dome Initiative

The "Golden Dome for America" initiative represents a revolutionary concept in US homeland missile defense, designed to further peace through strength and deter adversaries from attacks on the homeland.²⁷ This next-generation defense shield aims to identify incoming projectiles, calculate their trajectories, and deploy interceptor missiles to destroy them mid-flight, thereby safeguarding the homeland and projecting American strength.²⁷ It signifies a strategic evolution beyond traditional ballistic missile defense (BMD) systems, aiming to counter a diversifying and increasingly complex array of "emerging airborne threats," including hypersonic glide vehicles (HGVs), advanced cruise missiles, and AI-equipped drone swarms that could number in the hundreds.²⁸

Concept and Strategic Vision

The Golden Dome is not merely an incremental upgrade to existing systems; it is a "revolutionary concept" ²⁷ that fundamentally redefines homeland missile defense. Its objective to counter "emerging airborne threats such as hypersonic glide vehicles" ²⁸ indicates a strategic pivot in defense planning. The explicit inclusion of "space-based interceptors" ¹⁸ signifies a shift towards active defense

in space against threats to the homeland, moving beyond sole reliance on ground-based interceptors. This implies a recognition that terrestrial defense alone is insufficient against the evolving nature of modern threats, creating a causal demand for integrated, space-based defensive capabilities to ensure comprehensive protection.

Integration of Advanced Technologies

At its core, Golden Dome is envisioned as a "System of Systems" that organically integrates technology-intensive, independent detection and tracking sensors, interceptor systems, and command and control networks.²⁸ This layered defense approach leverages both existing and under-development defense systems.

Key components and capabilities central to the Golden Dome include:

• Space-based Interceptors: These are considered critical "space control weapons" that would intercept and destroy hostile missiles while they are transiting through space.¹⁸ This capability is a cornerstone of the Golden Dome's advanced defense posture.

• Hypersonic Defenses: A direct response to the formidable challenge posed by hypersonic glide vehicles, which are designed to be highly maneuverable and difficult to counter with conventional missile defense systems.²⁷

• Command and Control, Battle Management, and Communications (C2BMC): Lockheed Martin, a key industry partner, leads the Missile Defense Agency’s (MDA) National Team for C2BMC. This system is described as the world's most powerful missile defense software network, seamlessly connecting forces around the globe 24/7 to enable synchronized decision-making about threats at any range and in any phase of flight.²⁷ Other integrated systems contributing to this comprehensive shield include the Next Generation Interceptor (NGI), PAC-3 MSE, Aegis Combat System, Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD), and the F-35 fighter jet, all of which provide advanced radars, sensors, and intercept capabilities.²⁷

The "Whole of Industry" Approach and "As a Service" Model

The Golden Dome initiative is characterized as a "Manhattan Project-scale mission," emphasizing the urgency and crucial nature of the project for American security.²⁷ It champions a "whole of industry" approach, bringing together the "best of the defense and commercial industries" to accelerate development and deployment.²⁷

A notable aspect of this approach is the consideration of providing space-based elements, such as interceptors, "as a service" using a subscription model.¹⁸ This model aims to leverage the continuous innovation and rapid technology refresh cycles characteristic of the commercial sector, potentially accelerating deployment timelines and achieving economies of scale.¹⁸ The "as a service" model for critical components of Golden Dome, such as space-based interceptors ¹⁸, signifies a profound shift in military procurement and operations. It blurs the traditional lines between government and commercial roles in functions critical to national security. The "buy before build" commercial preference ¹⁸ for components as vital as "space-based interceptors" is a significant departure from traditional defense acquisition. While this approach offers benefits like "continuous innovation, technology refresh, and possible economies of scale" ¹⁸, it also raises legitimate "concerns about contractors performing inherently governmental roles".¹⁸ The success of this model will depend on effectively navigating these complex legal, ethical, and operational challenges, particularly for functions that involve direct "space control".¹⁸

6. Gaining Support: Congressional Commitment and Public Imperatives

Sustained support for space defense initiatives, particularly those as ambitious as the Golden Dome, requires a clear demonstration of commitment from legislative bodies and a compelling case for public endorsement.

Recent Congressional Appropriations

Recent legislative actions underscore a significant and sustained financial commitment to space defense:

• FY26 Defense Bill: The House Appropriations Committee's Fiscal Year 2026 Defense Bill, released in June 2025, provides a total discretionary allocation of $831.5 billion.¹⁶ When combined with significant defense funding advancing through Congress as part of the reconciliation process, total defense spending is projected to exceed $1 trillion in the next fiscal year. This represents a "historic commitment to strengthening and modernizing America's national defense".¹⁶

• Specific Allocations for Space Defense: The FY26 bill specifically allocates "approximately $13 billion for missile defense and space programs to augment and integrate in support of the Golden Dome effort".¹⁶ This substantial funding is targeted at critical areas, including:

• Proliferated missile warning systems.

• Missile tracking satellites.

• Next-generation intelligence collection systems, designed to ensure national leaders have real-time global situational awareness.¹⁶

• Additionally, the bill provides over $2.6 billion for hypersonics programs, reflecting the urgency of addressing this emerging threat.¹⁶

• Broader Space Force Budget Context: For fiscal year 2025, the administration requested between $29.4 billion ²⁹ and $29.6 billion ³⁰ for the Space Force, constituting approximately 3.5% of the Department of Defense's total budget request.³⁰ The Space Force budget has nearly doubled since its establishment.³⁰ While the FY2025 request saw a slight reduction compared to the FY2024
  request, this was attributed to factors such as launch delays due to payloads not being ready.³⁰ Importantly, the FY2025 request still represents an increase over the FY2024
  appropriations, reflecting continued prioritization, including increased investment in positioning, navigation, and timing (PNT) capabilities and the Space Development Agency (SDA).³⁰

Despite a slight dip in the FY25 Space Force request compared to the FY24 request ³⁰, the overall trend demonstrates a significant and sustained increase in space defense funding since the Space Force's inception. This indicates a long-term strategic commitment to the domain. The fact that the Space Force budget has "nearly doubled" since its establishment ³⁰ and that the FY26 Defense Bill allocates substantial funds specifically for "missile defense and space programs to augment and integrate in support of the Golden Dome effort" ¹⁶ provides clear evidence of a sustained financial commitment. The minor year-over-year fluctuations are explained by specific programmatic factors rather than a reduction in strategic priority. This strong financial backing reinforces the argument for continued support, demonstrating that the government is investing significantly in these critical initiatives.

Table 3: FY26 Congressional Appropriations for Key Space Defense Programs

Arguments for Sustained Public and Political Support

Beyond direct military utility, the arguments for robust space defense extend to broader societal benefits, leveraging the dual-use nature of space technology to gain public and political buy-in.

• National Security Imperative: As established, space superiority is a "necessary precondition for Joint Force success" ³ and is vital for protecting the homeland from evolving threats, including hypersonic weapons and sophisticated drone swarms.²⁷ The catastrophic consequences of losing space capabilities for military operations and national security underscore the urgency of sustained investment.²

• Economic Benefits and Technological Spin-offs: Investment in space defense acts as a powerful catalyst for innovation and technological advancements that yield significant spillover benefits for the civilian sector and the broader economy.³¹ Examples include the development of GPS technology, which originated from space missions and now underpins a wide range of industries from transportation to agriculture, as well as advancements in solar cells and advanced computing.³² Space exploration and related defense investments are inherently drivers of "economic prosperity," fostering job creation and technological progress across various sectors.³²

• Safeguarding Human Interests: Space capabilities also contribute directly to human survival interests. This includes the critical identification and monitoring of near-Earth objects (NEOs), such as asteroids and comets, that could pose a catastrophic risk to the planet. Developing the capability to detect, track, and potentially mitigate the impact of NEOs provides essential tools and knowledge for planetary defense, demonstrating a direct benefit to all humanity from investments in space capabilities.³²

• Deterrence and Global Leadership: A robust space defense posture enhances US military power, serving as a powerful deterrent against potential adversaries and reinforcing global leadership in this increasingly critical domain.²⁷ The ability to project power and protect national interests in space is fundamental to maintaining strategic advantage in the 21st century.

By linking defense investments to these tangible civilian benefits, and to the broader imperative of "human survival interests" through NEO detection, the case for public and congressional support becomes more compelling. Framing space defense as an investment in national well-being, not solely military might, can help overcome potential resistance to defense spending by demonstrating a broader and enduring return on investment for all citizens.

7. Conclusion: Sustaining US Leadership in the Space Domain

The strategic landscape of space has undergone a profound transformation, evolving from a benign frontier to a highly contested warfighting domain. The United States' deep and irreplaceable reliance on space assets for national security, military operations, and civilian functions necessitates a proactive and comprehensive space defense policy. Achieving and maintaining "space superiority" is no longer an aspiration but a fundamental precondition for the success of the Joint Force and the protection of the homeland.

This imperative demands continuous innovation and sustained investment in advanced technologies. The historical trajectory of intelligence satellites, from early film-return systems to today's near-real-time digital and commercially integrated constellations, demonstrates a relentless pursuit of technological advantage. This evolution, driven by the need for timely and accurate intelligence, underscores the critical importance of ongoing research and development in areas such as proliferated constellations, AI, and autonomous operations. These technologies enable faster, more resilient, and more effective space capabilities, which are crucial for operating in a dynamic and contested environment.

Initiatives like the "Golden Dome" exemplify this forward-looking approach, integrating space-based interceptors and hypersonic defenses to create a layered defense shield against emerging airborne threats. The adoption of a "whole of industry" approach and the exploration of "as a service" models for critical components highlight a strategic agility aimed at leveraging commercial innovation to accelerate deployment and enhance capabilities. However, this increased reliance on commercial entities also introduces complexities, blurring the lines between governmental and private sector responsibilities in national security, a dynamic that requires careful management and robust cybersecurity frameworks.

Recent congressional appropriations, particularly the significant allocations in the FY26 Defense Bill for missile defense and space programs, provide concrete evidence of a strong political commitment to these endeavors. This sustained financial backing is essential for modernizing capabilities and maintaining a qualitative edge against peer adversaries.

Ultimately, securing the high ground in space is a multifaceted endeavor that extends beyond military advantage. It drives economic growth through technological spin-offs, contributes to scientific understanding, and even safeguards humanity's future through efforts like planetary defense. Therefore, continued public and political support, underpinned by clear communication of these broad benefits and the evolving threat landscape, is paramount. By prioritizing strategic investment, fostering innovation, and navigating the complexities of a commercialized and contested space environment, the United States can sustain its leadership and ensure the security and prosperity that depend on this vital domain.

Works cited

1. Military/National Security Space Activities – SpacePolicyOnline.com, accessed July 8, 2025, https://spacepolicyonline.com/topics/militarynational-security-space-activities/

2. 568 Balls in the Air: Planning for the Loss of Space Capabilities - National Defense University, accessed July 8, 2025, https://www.ndu.edu/News/Article-View/Article/1668457/568-balls-in-the-air-planning-for-the-loss-of-space-capabilities/

3. Space Force's new 'warfighting framework' says 'space superiority' is ..., accessed July 8, 2025, https://breakingdefense.com/2025/04/space-forces-new-warfighting-framework-says-space-superiority-is-basis-of-us-military-power/

4. New Space Force Core Doctrine Emphasizes Warfighting, accessed July 8, 2025, https://www.airandspaceforces.com/space-force-new-core-doctrine-warfighting/

5. What Are the Risks of Space Militarization?, accessed July 8, 2025, https://newspaceeconomy.ca/2025/07/06/what-are-the-risks-of-space-militarization/

6. Cold War in Space: Top Secret Reconnaissance Satellites Revealed ..., accessed July 8, 2025, https://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Visit/Museum-Exhibits/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/195923/cold-war-in-space-top-secret-reconnaissance-satellites-revealed/

7. GRAB I, First Operational Intelligence Satellite - Naval Research Laboratory - Navy.mil, accessed July 8, 2025, https://www.nrl.navy.mil/Media/News/Article/3074375/grab-i-first-operational-intelligence-satellite/

8. Reconnaissance satellite - Wikipedia, accessed July 8, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconnaissance_satellite

9. CORONA (satellite) - Wikipedia, accessed July 8, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CORONA_(satellite)

10. KH-7 Gambit - Wikipedia, accessed July 8, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KH-7_Gambit

11. KH-9 Hexagon - Wikipedia, accessed July 8, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KH-9_Hexagon

12. The Evolution of Space-Based ISR, accessed July 8, 2025, https://www.airandspaceforces.com/article/the-evolution-of-space-based-isr/

13. The long road to near-real-time satellite reconnaissance: a chronology - The Space Review, accessed July 8, 2025, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/5003/1

14. HEXAGON - The History of Film-based Intelligence Satellites - AFCEA Silicon Valley, accessed July 8, 2025, https://siliconvalley.afceachapters.org/hexagon-history-film-based-intelligence-satellites

15. U.S. Satellite Imagery, 1960-1999 - The National Security Archive, accessed July 8, 2025, https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB13/

16. Committee Releases FY26 Defense Bill | House Committee on ..., accessed July 8, 2025, https://appropriations.house.gov/news/press-releases/committee-releases-fy26-defense-bill

17. Securing the space-based assets of NATO members from cyberattacks - Chatham House, accessed July 8, 2025, https://www.chathamhouse.org/2025/05/securing-space-based-assets-nato-members-cyberattacks/03-evolution-space-policies-nato-and

18. The Golden Dome as a Service - CSIS, accessed July 8, 2025, https://www.csis.org/analysis/golden-dome-service

19. Space Threats and Evolving Security Environment - Defstrat, accessed July 8, 2025, https://www.defstrat.com/magazine_articles/space-threats-and-evolving-security-environment/

20. U.S. Counterspace Capabilities | Congress.gov, accessed July 8, 2025, https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IN12420

21. Space System Threats - CSIS Aerospace Security, accessed July 8, 2025, https://aerospace.csis.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Space-System-Threats.pdf

22. Outer Space Treaty - Wikipedia, accessed July 8, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty

23. PAROS Treaty, accessed July 8, 2025, https://www.nti.org/education-center/treaties-and-regimes/proposed-prevention-arms-race-space-paros-treaty/

24. The Need for Space Defence - ST Engineering Antycip, accessed July 8, 2025, https://steantycip.com/blog/the-need-for-space-defence/

25. The Future of Space Warfighting is Autonomous Space Domain Awareness | Redwire Space, accessed July 8, 2025, https://redwirespace.com/newsroom/the-future-of-space-warfighting-is-autonomous-space-domain-awareness/

26. Sierra Space Advances Space Domain Awareness with NVIDIA, accessed July 8, 2025, https://www.sierraspace.com/press-releases/sierra-space-advances-space-domain-awareness-with-nvidia/

27. Golden Dome for America | Lockheed Martin, accessed July 8, 2025, https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/capabilities/missile-defense/golden-dome-missile-defense.html

28. Overview and Implications of the “Golden Dome” Missile Defense Plan for the U.S. Mainland | List of Articles | International Information Network Analysis, accessed July 8, 2025, https://www.spf.org/iina/en/articles/nagashima_22.html

29. DAF releases 2025 budget proposal > United States Space Force > Article Display, accessed July 8, 2025, https://www.spaceforce.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/3703322/daf-releases-2025-budget-proposal/

30. FY 2025 DEFENSE SPACE BUDGET: CONTINUED EMPHASIS ON PROLIFERATION UNDER A MORE CONSTRAINED TOP-LINE, accessed July 8, 2025, https://csps.aerospace.org/sites/default/files/2024-06/FY25BudgetBrief_20240605.pdf

31. Benefits Stemming from Space Exploration | NASA, accessed July 8, 2025, https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/benefits-stemming-from-space-exploration-2013-tagged.pdf?emrc=ca90d1

32. Why Should We Explore Space? What Are the Benefits for Us? | American Public University, accessed July 8, 2025, https://www.apu.apus.edu/area-of-study/math-and-science/resources/why-should-we-explore-space/

33. Orbit of Opportunity: The Space Force's Strategic Pivot to Dominance and Investment Implications - AInvest, accessed July 8, 2025, https://www.ainvest.com/news/orbit-opportunity-space-force-strategic-pivot-dominance-investment-implications-2507/

34. Space to Breathe: The Argument for a New Outer Space Treaty, accessed July 8, 2025, https://www.potomacinstitute.org/steps/index.php/component/content/article/space-to-breathe-the-argument-for-a-new-outer-space-treaty?catid=30&Itemid=101