Zealous anti-vaccine advocate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is reviving a long-defunct federal vaccine panel that anti-vaccine advocates, including Kennedy, have long sought and health experts fear will be used to dismantle evidence-based recommendations for life-saving childhood shots.

The panel is a task force outlined in the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, which is best known for setting up the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. The law states that the task force's goal is to "promote the development of childhood vaccines that result in fewer and less serious adverse reactions than those vaccines on the market on the effective date of this part and promote the refinement of such vaccines."

The federal government has multiple overlapping procedures and systems that evaluate, review, and continuously monitor the safety of childhood vaccines, which have gone through rigorous testing and are well-established to be safe. Further, the government does, in effect, promote improved vaccines by providing grants to academic and industry researchers to develop advanced shots. It also conducts its own vaccine research toward that goal. For instance, researchers at the National Institutes of Health were critical in developing the mRNA vaccine technology that enabled the swift creation of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines that saved millions of lives at the height of the pandemic.

As such, the task under the 1986 law has never been active. Though there are federal records of the task force existing between 1990 and 1998, it didn't produce any reports to Congress in that time. According to the law, it's supposed to report to Congress every two years.

But anti-vaccine advocates have for years fought for the creation of the panel, likely seeing it as a tool to further erode confidence in the safety of childhood vaccines. Kennedy himself sued the government in 2018 for information on the task force.

Earlier this year, the outside counsel for the anti-vaccine group Kennedy founded and previously ran, Children's Health Defense, filed a lawsuit against Kennedy, seeking the creation of the task force. "Why is he not dealing with vaccines? This is not the Bobby we know," the lawyer, Ray Flores, said in a video posted to social media about the lawsuit last month.

Immediate concern

It's possible that Kennedy did not immediately set up the task force because the necessary leadership was not in place. The 1986 law says the task force "shall consist of consist of the Director of the National Institutes of Health, the Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, and the Director of the Centers for Disease Control [and Prevention]." But a CDC director was only confirmed and sworn in at the end of July.

With Susan Monarez now at the helm at CDC, the Department of Health and Human Services said Thursday that the task force is being revived, though it will be led by the NIH.

"By reinstating this Task Force, we are reaffirming our commitment to rigorous science, continuous improvement, and the trust of American families," NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya said in the announcement. "NIH is proud to lead this effort to advance vaccine safety and support innovation that protects children without compromise."

Kennedy's anti-vaccine group cheered the move on social media, saying it was "grateful" that Kennedy was fulfilling his duty.

Outside health experts were immediately concerned by the move.

"What I am concerned about is making sure that we don’t overemphasize very small risks [of vaccines] and underestimate the real risk of infectious diseases and cancers that these vaccines help prevent," Anne Zink, Alaska’s former chief medical officer, told The Washington Post.

David Higgins, a pediatrician and preventive medicine specialist at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, worried about eroding trust in vaccines, telling the Post, "I am concerned that bringing this committee back implies to the public that we have not been looking at vaccine safety. The reality is, we evaluate the safety of vaccines more than any other medication, medical intervention, or supplements available."

Paul Offit, a vaccine expert at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, worried about a more direct attack on vaccines, telling CNN, "Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is an anti-vaccine activist who has these fixed, immutable, science-resistant beliefs that vaccines are dangerous. He is in a position now to be able to set up task forces like this one [that] will find some way to support his notion that vaccines are doing more harm than good."

Read full article

Comments

Starlink operator SpaceX is fighting Virginia's plan to deploy fiber Internet service to residents, claiming that federal grant money should be given to Starlink instead. SpaceX is already in line to win over $3 million in grant money in the state but is seeking $60 million.

Starlink is poised to benefit from the Trump administration rewriting rules for the $42 billion Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) grant program. While the Biden administration decided that states should prioritize fiber in order to build more future-proof networks, the Trump administration ordered states to revise their plans with a "tech-neutral approach" and lower the average cost of serving each location.

With the Trump administration backing its attempt to obtain more federal funding for Starlink, SpaceX is likely to object to state plans that still include significant fiber builds. That's what happened yesterday when SpaceX filed comments on Virginia's final proposal, which will be reviewed by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA).

The Virginia plan "represents a massive waste of federal taxpayer money, reverting to the Biden Administration's failed approach to BEAD and completely disregarding the Trump Administration's effort to restructure the program to accelerate broadband deployment and reduce spending," SpaceX alleged. "Simply put, Virginia has put its heavy thumb on the scale in favor of expensive, slow-to-build fiber bias over speedy, low-cost, and technology neutral competition."

SpaceX urged the NTIA to deny Virginia's proposal. Such an outcome could result in a dispute between the Trump administration and Virginia, which is led by a Republican governor who touted the state's broadband plan in an announcement last week.

Starlink asked for $60 million

Starlink is generally seen as more beneficial in harder-to-serve areas because of its capacity limits, but Starlink and the Trump administration want satellite technology to be treated the same as fiber when it comes to giving out grants.

SpaceX said it offered to serve virtually every BEAD-eligible household in Virginia for $60 million. Starlink is already widely available and doesn't need to build infrastructure to each home like fiber and cable operators do. But states can direct grant money to Starlink in exchange for guaranteed service availability or deals on equipment.

SpaceX is objecting to Virginia's plan even though Starlink won grants to serve 5,579 locations for a total of $3.26 million. SpaceX is one of 24 entities that is set to receive funding in Virginia. Amazon's Kuiper satellite service is set to receive $4.46 million for 6,957 locations.

The biggest winner in the proposed grants is local provider All Points Broadband, which offers both fiber and wireless service and is set to receive $171.4 million to serve 19,801 locations. Comcast would get $146.4 million to serve 24,343 locations. The cost per location can vary widely based on terrain and population density.

States have to justify cost of fiber

An interactive map of grant awards shows that fiber providers were the biggest winners, though the Virginia plan would also provide funding to satellite and fixed wireless Internet providers. Virginia said its plan will allocate $613.3 million to serve 133,472 locations. The state's latest version of the plan reduced projected costs by $200 million, it said.

The Trump administration's "technology-neutral" guidelines make it harder for states to justify paying for fiber deployment when other options are cheaper, but Virginia provided an explanation for its funding decisions. The state Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) said it chose "technology-neutral solutions that perform at the required speeds across diverse terrain, including dense tree coverage, undulating slopes, and varying altitudes, to meet unique needs of each [location]."

Noting that its "project areas span from mountains and hills to farmland and coastal plains," the DHCD said its previous experience with grant-funded deployments "revealed that tree canopy, rugged terrain, and slope can complicate installation and/or obstruct line-of-sight." State officials said that wireless and low-Earth orbit satellite technology "can have signal degradation, increased latency, and reduced reliability" when there isn't a clear line of sight.

The DHCD said it included these factors in its evaluation of priority broadband projects. State officials were also apparently concerned about the network capacity of satellite services and the possibility that using state funding to guarantee satellite service in one location could reduce availability of that same service in other locations.

"To review a technology's ability to scale, the Office considered the currently served speeds of 100/20 Mbps, an application's stated network capacity, the project area's number of [locations], the project area's geographic area, current customer base (if applicable), and future demand," the department said. "For example, the existing customer base should not be negatively impacted by the award of BEAD locations for a given technology to be considered scalable."

SpaceX: “Playing field was anything but level”

SpaceX said Virginia is wrong to determine that Starlink "did not qualify as 'Priority Broadband,'" since the company "provided information demonstrating these capabilities in its application, and it appears that Virginia used this definition only as a pretext to reach a pre-ordained outcome." SpaceX said that 95 percent of funded "locations in Virginia have an active Starlink subscriber within 1 mile, showing that Starlink already serves every type of environment in Virginia's BEAD program today" and that 15 percent of funded locations have an active Starlink subscriber within 100 meters.

"The playing field was anything but level and technology neutral, as required by the [updated program rules], and was instead insurmountably stacked against low-Earth orbit satellite operators like SpaceX," the company said.

We contacted the Virginia DHCD about SpaceX's comments today and will update this article if the department provides a response.

Read full article

Comments

Sean Duffy, the acting administrator of NASA for a little more than a month, has vowed to make the United States great in space.

With a background as a US Congressman, reality TV star, and television commentator, Duffy did not come to the position with a deep well of knowledge about spaceflight. He also already had a lot on his plate, serving as the secretary of transportation, a Cabinet-level position that oversees 55,000 employees across 13 agencies.

Nevertheless, Duffy is putting his imprint on the space agency, seeking to emphasize the agency's human exploration plans, including the development of a lunar base, and ending NASA's efforts to study planet Earth and its changing climate.

Duffy has not spoken much with reporters who cover the space industry, but he has been a frequent presence on Fox News networks, where he previously worked as a host. On Thursday, he made an 11-minute appearance on "Mornings with Maria," a FOX Business show hosted by Maria Bartiromo to discuss NASA.

NASA should explore, he says

During this appearance, Duffy talked up NASA's plans to establish a permanent presence on the Moon and his push to develop a nuclear reactor that could provide power there. He also emphasized his desire to end NASA's focus on studying the Earth and understanding how the planet's surface and atmosphere are changing. This shift has been a priority of the Trump Administration at other federal agencies.

"All the climate science, and all of the other priorities that the last administration had at NASA, we’re going to move aside, and all of the science that we do is going to be directed towards exploration, which is the mission of NASA," Duffy said during the appearance. "That’s why we have NASA, to explore, not to do all of these Earth sciences."

Many people in the space industry welcome Duffy's push to focus NASA on exploration of deep space and other planets, particularly his emphasis on the Moon. NASA's effort to establish a sustainable lunar presence could certainly use some focus, as it appears increasingly likely that, absent serious changes, China will land humans on the Moon before NASA returns.

However, in abandoning Earth science, NASA would be violating the law that created the agency, the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958.

This charter legislation established "the expansion of human knowledge of phenomena in the atmosphere and space" as part of the space agency's core mission. To meet this mandate, NASA has typically spent about 10 percent of its budget annually on Earth science, including key missions to observe the planet's atmosphere, monitor weather, study land use changes, and more.

"This area of research positively impacts our economy and national security beyond measure," said Lori Garver, NASA's deputy administrator from 2009 to 2013. "Ignoring scientific evidence and stripping NASA of one of its most tangible public purposes throws NASA into the fire of partisan politics. Enacting this agenda would set back our status as a global leader and risks our economic future."

Garver added that surveys repeatedly indicate that the public would increase prioritization of NASA’s research in Earth and climate science above other areas, which currently receive significantly more funding at the space agency.

Public prioritizes Earth science

Garver is referring to polls by Gallup, the Pew Research Center, and other organizations that have repeatedly found that the public's top two priorities for NASA are monitoring asteroids that could potentially strike Earth and studying and understanding our planet's climate. It is worth noting that the Trump administration has also sought to end funding for repurposing an existing spacecraft to rendezvous with the asteroid Apophis as it makes a close pass by Earth in 2029.

Multiple sources have indicated to Ars that, in his leadership so far, Duffy has largely listened to political staffers at NASA—including Chief of Staff Brian Hughes, a former Florida-based political consultant—rather than senior civil servants with engineering backgrounds. He is also carrying out the priorities for NASA established in the President's Budget Request for fiscal year 2026, which are the agency's marching orders in absence of a budget formally approved by the US Congress.

It is unclear how long Duffy will remain as "acting" administrator. Since his appointment, Duffy has been prominent in NASA's social media accounts and in news updates (for example, in the past, NASA administrators were unlikely to be quoted in a standard press release concerning a photo from Mars). He also plans to travel to the space industry's largest conference, the International Astronautical Congress, in late September and early October, in Australia. This all suggests he may remain in place for a while.

However, one source indicated to Ars that the Trump administration may be closing in on a new nominee to lead the space agency full-time. This person could be named in the coming weeks. It is difficult to see anyone being nominated who is not aligned with the priorities of Duffy and the White House Office of Management and Budget.

Read full article

Comments

Donald Trump has been meddling with Intel, which now apparently includes mulling "the possibility of the US government taking a financial stake in the troubled chip maker," The Wall Street Journal reported.

Trump and Intel CEO Lip-Bu Tan weighed the option during a meeting on Monday at the White House, people familiar with the matter told WSJ. These talks have only just begun—with Intel branding them a rumor—and sources told the WSJ that Trump has yet to iron out how the potential arrangement might work.

The WSJ's report comes after Trump called for Tan to "resign immediately" last week. Trump's demand was seemingly spurred by a letter that Republican senator Tom Cotton sent to Intel, accusing Tan of having "concerning" ties to the Chinese Communist Party.

Cotton accused Tan of controlling "dozens of Chinese companies" and holding a stake in "hundreds of Chinese advanced-manufacturing and chip firms," at least eight of which "reportedly have ties to the Chinese People’s Liberation Army."

Further, before joining Intel, Tan was CEO of Cadence Design Systems, which recently "pleaded guilty to illegally selling its products to a Chinese military university and transferring its technology to an associated Chinese semiconductor company without obtaining license."

"These illegal activities occurred under Mr. Tan’s tenure," Cotton pointed out.

He demanded answers by August 15 from Intel on whether they weighed Tan's alleged Cadence conflicts of interest against the company's requirements to comply with US national security laws after accepting $8 billion in CHIPS Act funding—the largest granted during Joe Biden's term. The senator also asked Intel if Tan was required to make any divestments to meet CHIPS Act obligations and if Tan has ever disclosed any ties to the Chinese government to the US government.

Neither Intel nor Cotton's office responded to Ars' request to comment on the letter or confirm whether Intel has responded.

But Tan has claimed that there is "a lot of misinformation" about his career and portfolio, the South China Morning Post reported. Born in Malaysia, Tan has been a US citizen for 40 years after finishing postgraduate studies in nuclear engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

In an op-ed, SCMP reporter Alex Lo suggested that Tan's investments—which include stakes in China's largest sanctioned chipmaker, SMIC, as well as "several" companies on US trade blacklists, SCMP separately reported—seem no different than other US executives and firms with substantial investments in Chinese firms.

"Cotton accused [Tan] of having extensive investments in China," Lo wrote. "Well, name me a Wall Street or Silicon Valley titan in the past quarter of a century who didn’t have investment or business in China. Elon Musk? Apple? BlackRock?"

He also noted that "numerous news reports" indicated that "Cadence staff in China hid the dodgy sales from the company’s compliance officers and bosses at the US headquarters," which Intel may explain to Cotton if a response comes later today.

Any red flags that Intel's response may raise seems likely to heighten Trump's scrutiny, as he looks to make what Reuters reported was yet another "unprecedented intervention" by a president in a US firm's business. Previously, Trump surprised the tech industry by threatening the first-ever tariffs aimed at a US company (Apple) and more recently, Trump struck an unusual deal with Nvidia and AMD that gives US a 15 percent cut of the firms' revenue from China chip sales.

However, Trump was seemingly impressed by Tan after some face-time this week. Trump came out of their meeting professing that Tan has an "amazing story," Bloomberg reported, noting that any agreement between Trump and Tan "would likely help Intel build out" its planned $28 billion chip complex in Ohio.

Those chip fabs—boosted by CHIPS Act funding—were supposed to put Intel on track to launch operations by 2030, but delays have set that back by five years, Bloomberg reported. That almost certainly scrambles another timeline that Biden's Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo had suggested would ensure that "20 percent of the world’s most advanced chips are made in the US by the end of the decade."

Why Intel may be into Trump’s deal

At one point, Intel was the undisputed leader in chip manufacturing, Bloomberg noted, but its value plummeted from $288 billion in 2020 to $104 billion today. The chipmaker has been struggling for a while—falling behind as Nvidia grew to dominate the AI chip industry—and 2024 was its "first unprofitable year since 1986," Reuters reported. As the dismal year wound down, Intel's longtime CEO Pat Gelsinger retired.

Helming Intel for four years, Gelsinger acknowledged the "challenging year." Now Tan is expected to turn it around. To do that, he may need to deprioritize the manufacturing process that Gelsinger pushed, which Tan suspects may have caused Intel being viewed as an outdated firm, anonymous insiders told Reuters. Sources suggest he's planning to pivot Intel to focus more on "a next-generation chipmaking process where Intel expects to have advantages over Taiwan’s TSMC," which currently dominates chip manufacturing and even counts Intel as a customer, Reuters reported. As it stands now, TSMC "produces about a third of Intel’s supply," SCMP reported.

This pivot is supposedly how Tan expects Intel can eventually poach TSMC's biggest customers like Apple and Nvidia, Reuters noted.

Intel has so far claimed that any discussions of Tan's supposed plans amount to nothing but speculation. But if Tan did go that route, one source told Reuters that Intel would likely have to take a write-off that industry analysts estimate could trigger losses "of hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars."

Perhaps facing that hurdle, Tan might be open to agreeing to the US purchasing a financial stake in the company while he rights the ship.

Trump/Intel deal reminiscent of TikTok deal

Any deal would certainly deepen the government's involvement in the US chip industry, which is widely viewed as critical to US national security.

While unusual, the deal does seem somewhat reminiscent to the TikTok buyout that the Trump administration has been trying to iron out since he took office. Through that deal, the US would acquire enough ownership divested from China-linked entities to supposedly appease national security concerns, but China has been hesitant to sign off on any of Trump's proposals so far.

Last month, Trump admitted that he wasn't confident that he could sell China on the TikTok deal, which TikTok suggested would have resulted in a glitchier version of the app for American users. More recently, Trump's commerce secretary threatened to shut down TikTok if China refuses to approve the current version of the deal.

Perhaps the terms of a US deal with Intel could require Tan to divest certain holdings that the US fears compromises the CEO. Under terms of the CHIPS Act grant, Intel is already required to be "a responsible steward of American taxpayer dollars and to comply with applicable security regulations," Cotton reminded the company in his letter.

But social media users in Malaysia and Singapore have criticized Cotton of the "usual case of racism" in attacking Intel's CEO, SCMP reported. They noted that Cotton "was the same person who repeatedly accused TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew of ties with the Chinese Communist Party despite his insistence of being a Singaporean," SCMP reported.

"Now it’s the Intel’s CEO’s turn on the chopping block for being [ethnic] Chinese," a Facebook user, Michael Ong, said.

Tensions were so high that there was even a social media push for Tan to "call on Trump’s bluff and resign, saying 'Intel is the next Nokia' and that Chinese firms would gladly take him instead," SCMP reported.

So far, Tan has not criticized the Trump administration for questioning his background, but he did issue a statement yesterday, seemingly appealing to Trump by emphasizing his US patriotism.

"I love this country and am profoundly grateful for the opportunities it has given me," Tan said. "I also love this company. Leading Intel at this critical moment is not just a job—it’s a privilege."

Trump’s Intel attacks rooted in Biden beef?

In his op-ed, SCMP's Lo suggested that "Intel itself makes a good punching bag" as the biggest recipient of CHIPS Act funding. The CHIPS Act was supposed to be Biden's lasting legacy in the US, and Trump has resolved to dismantle it, criticizing supposed handouts to tech firms that Trump prefers to strong-arm into US manufacturing instead through unpredictable tariff regimes.

"The attack on Intel is also an attack on Trump’s predecessor, Biden, whom he likes to blame for everything, even though the industrial policies of both administrations and their tech war against China are similar," Lo wrote.

At least one lawmaker is ready to join critics who question if Trump's trade war is truly motivated by national security concerns. On Friday, US representative Raja Krishnamoorthi (D.-Ill.) sent a letter to Trump "expressing concern" over Trump allowing Nvidia to resume exports of its H20 chips to China.

"Trump’s reckless policy on AI chip exports sells out US security to Beijing," Krishnamoorthi warned.

"Allowing even downgraded versions of cutting-edge AI hardware to flow" to the People's Republic of China (PRC) "risks accelerating Beijing’s capabilities and eroding our technological edge," Krishnamoorthi wrote. Further, "the PRC can build the largest AI supercomputers in the world by purchasing a moderately larger number of downgraded Blackwell chips—and achieve the same capability to train frontier AI models and deploy them at scale for national security purposes."

Krishnamoorthi asked Trump to send responses by August 22 to four questions. Perhaps most urgently, he wants Trump to explain "what specific legal authority would allow the US government to "extract revenue sharing as a condition for the issuance of export licenses" and what exactly he intends to do with those funds.

Trump was also asked to confirm if the president followed protocols established by Congress to ensure proper export licensing through the agreement. Finally, Krishnamoorthi demanded to know if Congress was ever "informed or consulted at any point during the negotiation or development of this reported revenue-sharing agreement with NVIDIA and AMD."

"The American people deserve transparency," Krishnamoorthi wrote. "Our export control regime must be based on genuine security considerations, not creative taxation schemes disguised as national security policy."

Read full article

Comments

The Trump administration has ended potential enforcement actions against dozens of tech firms and 165 corporations overall, delivering on promises to end the alleged "weaponization" of the federal government, a report by nonprofit consumer advocacy group Public Citizen said.

"In six months, the Trump administration has already withdrawn or halted enforcement actions against 165 corporations of all types—and one in four of the corporations benefiting from halted or dropped enforcement is from the technology sector, which has spent $1.2 billion on political influence during and since the 2024 elections," the report published on Wednesday said. The political spending includes $352 million that "is attributable to Elon Musk."

At the beginning of Trump's second term, there were at least 104 tech companies facing at least 142 federal investigations and enforcement actions, Public Citizen reported. The Trump administration has halted or withdrawn about one-third of the "targeted investigations into suspected misconduct and enforcement actions against technology corporations... So far, 47 enforcement actions (against 45 tech corporations) have been withdrawn or halted (38 withdrawn, nine halted)," the report said.

Separately, Axios reported today that the White House "created a scorecard that rates 553 companies and trade associations on how hard they worked to support and promote President Trump's 'One Big Beautiful Bill.'" The internal spreadsheet ranking companies' loyalty to the White House "helps us see who really goes out and helps vs. those who just come in and pay lip service," a senior White House official told Axios.

The spreadsheet reportedly ranks organizations' support as strong, moderate, or low. It gives senior aides "data to consult when considering corporate requests... Axios has learned that 'examples of good partners' on the White House list include Uber, DoorDash, United, Delta, AT&T, Cisco, Airlines for America, and the Steel Manufacturers Association," the report said.

We contacted the White House today and will update the story if it provides any comment.

Ending “weaponization”

Public Citizen wrote that "President Donald Trump spent much of his 2024 presidential campaign claiming his prosecution by multiple authorities and subsequent conviction for his crimes are unfair 'weaponization' of law enforcement. Corporate executives in the technology sector, eager to curry favor, seized on the talking point. They similarly cast powerful corporations accused of violating laws that protect consumers, workers, investors, and the public as victims of 'weaponized' enforcement."

The Trump administration acted quickly to end this alleged weaponization, Public Citizen wrote:

When Trump took office, the corporate campaign to discredit law enforcement that protects the public and holds the powerful accountable culminated in the day one executive order "Ending Weaponization of the Federal Government," which explicitly ties enforcement against Trump and January 6 rioters to enforcement against corporate lawbreaking...

Since then, the Trump White House has exerted unprecedented authority over statutorily independent enforcement agencies such as the Consumer Product Safety Commission, Federal Trade Commission, and the Securities and Exchange Commission, and has essentially eliminated the half-century policy of the Justice Department's independence from the White House.

The elimination of agency independence means enforcement investigations and lawsuits will not proceed if President Trump wants to kill them, and that agency officials who resist White House orders will be removed.

Twenty-three enforcement actions against cryptocurrency corporations and 11 against financial technology firms have been dropped or halted under Trump, the report said. Tech companies that have had investigations stopped include Activision, Binance, Coinbase, eBay, HP, Juniper, Meta, Microsoft, PayPal, SpaceX, and Tesla, the report said.

There are still numerous pending investigations and lawsuits against tech companies that the Trump administration hasn't ended, at least not yet. Companies investigated by the Biden administration and which are now "poised to exploit their ties with the Trump administration include Amazon, Google, Meta, OpenAI, and corporations headed by Elon Musk (Tesla, SpaceX, xAI, The Boring Company, and Neuralink)," the report said. Public Citizen also published a spreadsheet containing information on active cases and those that have been ended.

Read full article

Comments

President Donald Trump signed an executive order Wednesday directing government agencies to "eliminate or expedite" environmental reviews for commercial launch and reentry licenses.

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), part of the Department of Transportation (DOT), grants licenses for commercial launch and reentry operations. The FAA is charged with ensuring launch and reentries comply with environmental laws, comport with US national interests, and don't endanger the public.

The drive toward deregulation will be welcome news for companies like SpaceX, led by onetime Trump ally Elon Musk; SpaceX conducts nearly all of the commercial launches and reentries licensed by the FAA.

Deregulation time

Trump ordered Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy, who also serves as the acting administrator of NASA, to "use all available authorities to eliminate or expedite... environmental reviews for... launch and reentry licenses and permits." In the order signed by Trump, White House officials wrote that Duffy should consult with the chair of the Council on Environmental Quality and follow "applicable law" in the regulatory cull.

The executive order also includes a clause directing Duffy to reevaluate, amend, or rescind a slate of launch-safety regulations written during the first Trump administration. The FAA published the new regulations, known as Part 450, in 2020, and they went into effect in 2021, but space companies have complained they are too cumbersome and have slowed down the license approval process.

And there's more. Trump ordered NASA, the military, and DOT to eliminate duplicative reviews for spaceport development. This is particularly pertinent at federally owned launch ranges like those at Cape Canaveral, Florida; Vandenberg Space Force Base, California; and Wallops Island, Virginia.

The Trump administration also plans to make the head of the FAA's Office of Commercial Space Transportation a political appointee. This office oversees commercial launch and reentry licensing and was previously led by a career civil servant. Duffy will also hire an advisor on deregulation in the commercial spaceflight industry to join DOT, and the Office of Space Commerce will be elevated to a more prominent position within the Commerce Department.

"It is the policy of the United States to enhance American greatness in space by enabling a competitive launch marketplace and substantially increasing commercial space launch cadence and novel space activities by 2030," Trump's executive order reads. "To accomplish this, the federal government will streamline commercial license and permit approvals for United States-based operators."

News of the executive order was reported last month by ProPublica, which wrote that the Trump administration was circulating draft language among federal agencies to slash rules to protect the environment and the public from the dangers of rocket launches. The executive order signed by Trump and released by the White House on Wednesday confirms ProPublica's reporting.

Jared Margolis, a senior attorney for the Center for Biological Diversity, criticized the Trump administration's move.

"This reckless order puts people and wildlife at risk from private companies launching giant rockets that often explode and wreak devastation on surrounding areas," Margolis said in a statement. "Bending the knee to powerful corporations by allowing federal agencies to ignore bedrock environmental laws is incredibly dangerous and puts all of us in harm's way. This is clearly not in the public interest."

Duffy, the first person to lead NASA and another federal department at the same time, argued the order is important to sustain economic growth in the space industry.

"By slashing red tape tying up spaceport construction, streamlining launch licenses so they can occur at scale, and creating high-level space positions in government, we can unleash the next wave of innovation," Duffy said in a statement. "At NASA, this means continuing to work with commercial space companies and improving our spaceports' ability to launch."

Nipping NEPA

The executive order is emblematic of the Trump administration's broader push to curtail environmental reviews for large infrastructure projects.

The White House has already directed federal agencies to repeal regulations enforcing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), a 1969 law that requires the feds prepare environmental assessments and environmental impact statements to evaluate the effects of government actions—such as licensing approvals—on the environment.

Regarding commercial spaceflight, the White House ordered the Transportation Department to create a list of activities officials there believe are not subject to NEPA and establish exclusions under NEPA for launch and reentry licenses.

Onlookers watch from nearby sand dunes as SpaceX prepares a Starship rocket for launch from Starbase, Texas. Credit: Stephen Clark/Ars Technica

The changes to the environmental review process might be the most controversial part of Trump's new executive order. Another section of the order—the attempt to reform or rescind the so-called Part 450 launch and reentry regulations—appears to have bipartisan support in Congress.

The FAA started implementing its new Part 450 commercial launch and reentry regulations less than five years ago after writing the rules in response to another Trump executive order signed in 2018. Part 450 was intended to streamline the launch approval process by allowing companies to submit applications for a series of launches or reentries, rather than requiring a new license for each mission.

But industry officials quickly criticized the new regulations, which they said didn't account for rapid iteration of rockets and spacecraft like SpaceX's enormous Starship/Super Heavy launch vehicle. The FAA approved a SpaceX request in May to increase the number of approved Starship launches from five to 25 per year from the company's base in Starship, Texas, near the US-Mexico border.

Last year, the FAA's leadership under the Biden administration established a committee to examine the shortcomings of Part 450. The Republican and Democratic leaders of the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee submitted a joint request in February for the Government Accountability Office to conduct an independent review of the FAA's Part 450 regulations.

"Reforming and streamlining commercial launch regulations and licensing is an area the Biden administration knew needed reform," wrote Laura Forczyk, founder and executive director of the space consulting firm Astralytical, in a post on X. "However, little was done. Will more be done with this executive order? I hope so. This was needed years ago."

Dave Cavossa, president of the Commercial Spaceflight Federation, applauded the Trump administration's regulatory policy.

"This executive order will strengthen and grow the US commercial space industry by cutting red tape while maintaining a commitment to public safety, benefitting the American people and the US government that are increasingly reliant on space for our national and economic security," Cavossa said in a statement.

Specific language in the new Trump executive order calls for the FAA to evaluate which regulations should be waived for hybrid launch or reentry vehicles that hold FAA airworthiness certificates, and which requirements should be remitted for rockets with a flight termination system, an explosive charge designed to destroy a launch vehicle if it veers off its pre-approved course after liftoff. These are similar to the topics the Biden-era FAA was looking at last year.

The new Trump administration policy also seeks to limit the authority of state officials in enforcing their own environmental rules related to the construction or operation of spaceports.

This is especially relevant after the California Coastal Commission rejected a proposal by SpaceX to double its launch cadence at Vandenberg Space Force Base, a spaceport located roughly 140 miles (225 kilometers) northwest of Los Angeles. The Space Force, which owns Vandenberg and is one of SpaceX's primary customers, backs SpaceX's push for more launches.

Finally, the order gives the Department of Commerce responsibility for authorizing "novel space activities" such as in-space assembly and manufacturing, asteroid and planetary mining, and missions to remove space debris from orbit.

This story was updated at 12:30 am EDT on August 14 with statements from the Center for Biological Diversity and the Commercial Spaceflight Federation.

Read full article

Comments