EU Space Act Faces Legal Questions, U.S. Pushback
Compromise Text Advances As Revised Draft is Circulated
The European Union is pressing forward with its landmark EU Space Act despite mounting scrutiny from its own legal advisers and a formal objection from the United States government, as the Council of the EU circulated a Presidency compromise text this spring ahead of a key negotiating session scheduled for April 21, 2026.
The proposed regulation would establish the bloc’s first unified framework for commercial space operations, harmonizing safety, resilience and environmental sustainability standards across all 27 member states and creating a new EU Space Authorization, or EUSA, certification regime for satellite operators, launch service providers and related space service companies. All delegations have entered scrutiny reservations on the current text, signaling that final agreement has not yet been reached.
The Council’s own Legal Service raised significant concerns in a January 2026 opinion about whether parts of the proposed regulation fall within the EU’s legal authority. While the legal advisers concluded that the regulation’s core provisions governing operational space services — including launch, satellite operations and collision avoidance — are appropriately grounded in Article 114 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which covers internal market harmonization, they flagged the regulation’s reach into the downstream data economy as legally questionable.
Specifically, the Legal Service warned that rules requiring “primary providers” of space-based data — satellite communications and Earth observation companies that serve as intermediaries between space infrastructure and end users — to verify that all data originates from EUSA-compliant satellites may be disproportionate and difficult to justify under existing EU treaty powers. “In the absence of adequate evidence and explanation, it is questionable whether this approach is proportionate and remains within the limits of the proposed legal basis,” the opinion states. The legal advisers recommended lawmakers either narrow the data provisions or provide a stronger justification for their inclusion.
The opinion also flagged drafting ambiguities in the regulation’s territorial scope, its free movement clause and the justification for voluntary environmental labeling schemes, urging revisions before the regulation advances through the legislative process.
Washington Pushes Back
The United States government formally objected to the draft regulation in November 2025, submitting comments through the Department of State that characterized several provisions as “unacceptable regulatory burdens” on U.S. companies doing business in Europe.
The Office of Space Commerce, which coordinated the U.S. response in consultation with more than 70 American companies and multiple trade associations, warned that the regulation contradicts commitments made under an August 2025 U.S.-EU framework agreement aimed at reducing non-tariff trade barriers. “As close partners in civil, commercial, and security aspects of space cooperation for decades, the EU should proceed cautiously,” the U.S. comment stated, warning that burdensome requirements could threaten government-to-government burden-sharing partnerships in areas ranging from space weather monitoring to satellite communications.
Washington specifically requested that the EU align the act with internationally agreed guidelines rather than creating new unilateral standards, provide clearer equivalency mechanisms for third-country operators, and include a civil government exemption similar to the national security carve-out already in the draft. The U.S. also called on the EU to publish key implementing details in the regulation itself rather than delegating them to Commission officials in Brussels, arguing that stakeholders need full transparency before the act is adopted.
At its core, the EU Space Act is designed to replace the patchwork of national licensing regimes that have emerged as 13 member states enacted their own space legislation, often with conflicting standards. Operators providing services within the EU — including non-European companies — would be required to register in the Union Repository of Space Activities and obtain EUSA certification, with the process capped at 12 months.
The anti-circumvention provisions targeting “gatekeeper” entities in the downstream data market remain among the most contentious elements of the proposal, drawing both the Legal Service’s proportionality concerns and Washington’s trade objections. The April 21 working party session is expected to be a critical test of whether negotiators can resolve those outstanding legal and political questions before the regulation proceeds to a full vote.