Brendan Carr, the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, has greenlighted regulatory requests for the company’s Starlink satellite internet service and lavished praise on its chief executive.
The foundation of global space law that has governed human activity outside Earth for nearly six decades may be approaching a breaking point, according to a new analysis by two astronomers who argue that the legal framework created during the Cold War is inadequate for an era of commercial spaceflight, global political instability, and growing militarization of orbit.
The study, published in Frontiers in Space Technologies, argues that the 1967 Outer Space Treaty (OST), long regarded as the foundation of peaceful space exploration, confronts mounting challenges from transforming global power shifts, increasing orbital competition, and the emergence of private companies as dominant players in space activities.
Dr. John Barentine of the Center for Space Environmentalism and Dark Sky Consulting, along with Dr. Aparna Venkatesan, a physicist and astronomer at the University of San Francisco, contend that while the treaty remains valuable, it may not be able to address the realities of the modern space age.
Rather than emphasizing legal reforms alone, the paper raises a wider question about humanity’s relationship with space itself. Researchers suggest that future governance of outer space may require a fundamental shift away from viewing space as a resource to be exploited and toward treating it as an environment that deserves stewardship and protection in its own right.
Although neither author specializes in international relations or military affairs, they argue that astronomers are uniquely positioned to witness how changes in space policy increasingly affect scientific research and humanity’s future in orbit.
“We are living through a time in which Earth and near-Earth space are facing unprecedented levels of potentially irreversible change,” researchers write. “The modern history of our discipline is inseparable from the technological developments brought on by those who sought to make a warfighting domain of outer space.”
A Space Treaty Born From the Cold War
The Outer Space Treaty emerged during one of the most tense periods of the Cold War. Negotiated primarily by the United States and the Soviet Union, the agreement established several basic principles that still govern space activities today.
Among them are prohibitions on national sovereignty claims over celestial bodies, restrictions on the placement of weapons of mass destruction in space, and commitments to use outer space for peaceful purposes.
For decades, the treaty has been credited with helping prevent an outright orbital arms race. Yet, Dr. Barentine and Dr. Venkatesan argue that the document was written for a vastly different world. One in which only a handful of nations possessed launch capabilities and private space companies were virtually nonexistent.
Today, dozens of countries operate satellites, commercial firmslaunch rockets at unprecedented rates, and ambitious plans for lunar bases, asteroid mining, and cislunar infrastructure are rapidly moving from science fiction to reality.
Researchers argue that the treaty’s framers could not have anticipated many of these developments, leaving major legal and moral questions unresolved. They note that the treaty lacks robust enforcement mechanisms and provides no definitive mechanism for resolving disputes between member states.
Space Has Always Been a Military Domain
A central theme of the paper is that warfare and space exploration have been intertwined from the beginning.
The authors trace the history of military activity in space back to the V-2 rockets of World War II and the launch of Sputnik in 1957, which demonstrated Soviet intercontinental missile capabilities as much as scientific achievement.
They also recount historical examples such as Soviet space weaponsexperiments, anti-satellite weapon testing by multiple nations, and the Strategic Defense Initiative of the 1980s, often remembered by its popular nickname, “Star Wars.”
In recent years, nations including the United States, China, India, and Russia have invested heavily in military space capabilities. Meanwhile, proposals such as advanced missile-defense architectures and growing concerns about anti-satellite weapons have renewed fears that space could become an increasingly contested military environment.
The researchers warn that global disputes on Earth are increasingly likely to spill into orbit, where the consequences could be especially severe. In contrast to terrestrial battlefields, debris generated by destructive actions in space can persist for years or even decades, threatening spacecraft belonging to many nations.
The Commercial Space Revolution Creates New Questions
The study additionally highlights the rapid rise of private space companies as a challenge that the Space Treaty never fully anticipated.
Under Article VI of the Space Treaty, governments are responsible for overseeing activities conducted by non-governmental entities within their jurisdictions. However, the researchers argue that the explosive growth of commercial spaceflight is creating uncertainty concerning regulatory oversight and responsibility.
This issue is especially important for the United States, which currently accounts for more than half of all low-Earth-orbit launches and operates the majority of active satellites.
As commercial firms assume larger roles in launch services, communications infrastructure, and moon missions, questions about who bears responsibility for environmental impacts and operational decisions become increasingly important.
The researchers suggest that future governance systems must address not only nation-state behavior but also the increasing influence of private actors whose interests may not always coincide with long-term environmental management.
A Forthcoming Lunar Land Rush?
One of the study’s most important observations concerns the Moon.
Dr. Barentine and Dr. Venkatesan describe moon missions as an early glimpse of future space geopolitics. Five nations have already successfully landed spacecraft on the Moon, and plans for permanent infrastructure continue to accelerate.
Because the Space Treaty prevents claims of sovereignty but does not completely resolve questions about resource use and operational exclusion zones, the researchers warn that countries arriving first could effectively secure the most valuable locations for science, resource extraction, or future settlements.
That dynamic, they argue, risks creating new forms of competition despite the treaty’s intent to promote cooperation.
The same concerns extend to orbital congestion and space debris. Researchers note that nations with little or no involvement in space activities may nevertheless bear the consequences of falling rocket stages and orbital debris generated by major space powers.
Rethinking Humanity’s Relationship With Space
Rather than advocating abandoning the Outer Space Treaty, the researchers ultimately argue that it remains the best framework currently available. However, they contend that future agreements must move past traditional geopolitical thinking.
The paper proposes drawing inspiration from the growing global “Rights of Nature” movement, which argues that ecosystems possess intrinsic value and deserve legal protections independent of human economic interests. Applied to space, such an approach would emphasize environmental health, reciprocity, and long-term stewardship over competition and exploitation.
Dr. Barentine and Dr. Venkatesan point to examples such as the peaceful management of Antarctica, international cooperation aboard the International Space Station, and partnerships among scientific institutions and Indigenous communities as models that could help shape future space governance.
Ultimately, they argue that the greatest threat to the space environment may not be legal loopholes nor technological restrictions, but humanity’s own willingness to abandon cooperation when competition becomes tempting.
“As our title reveals, the fundamental challenge lies in defending the space environment from failure of human goodwill and trust, rather than defending the space environment from the blind spots of current treaties,” researchers write. “The story of humanity in space is still being written, requiring innovation and determination from institutions and communities alike.”
Tim McMillan is a retired law enforcement executive, investigative reporter and co-founder of The Debrief. His writing typically focuses on defense, national security, the Intelligence Community and topics related to psychology. You can follow Tim on Twitter:@LtTimMcMillan. Tim can be reached by email: tim@thedebrief.org or through encrypted email:LtTimMcMillan@protonmail.com
The European Commission published its tech sovereignty package last week, including the clearest signal yet of its intention to strengthen European cloud sovereignty and reduce its dependence on US hyperscalers.
But any shift toward local, sovereign cloud providers will necessarily be gradual, analysts, said as the Cloud and AI Development Act (CADA) proposals leave plenty of room for US providers to continue supplying cloud computing services to European public sector customers.
“The direction is right. The execution will be slow,” said Fernando Pereiro, senior director analyst at Gartner.
While the Commission has correctly identified areas where the EU is most dependent on foreign providers, delivering on its ambitions is another challenge, he said. Scaling alternatives to US suppliers “takes time, capital, and coordination at a level that is difficult to sustain in Europe.”
Dario Maisto, senior analyst at Forrester, played down the prospect of a major short-term shift towards European cloud providers as a result of the CADA proposals, even after recent interest in local European vendors for mission-critical workloads and highly sensitive data.
“I do not expect an immediate impact on the cloud infrastructure market,” Maisto said. “Full-blown migrations are costly and take several years. They are not going to happen in the near future.”
Instead, Pereiro expects the gradual emergence of “sovereign enclaves” or controlled environments for sensitive workloads, particularly in government and regulated sectors. “Outside of those areas, the market will remain global, but increasingly shaped by European rules,” he said.
Nevertheless, the three US hyperscalers that account for around 70% of the European cloud market – Amazon Web Services (AWS), Google, and Microsoft — will likely see a more competitive environment.
“The real shift is symbolic and structural: hyperscalers move from being the default choice to one option among others, and their competitiveness will increasingly depend on how well they align with European control requirements, not just on technology or price,” said Pereiro.
What is CADA and what could it mean for Europe’s cloud market?
CADA is part of a range of policy and legislative proposals — known as the Tech Sovereignty Package — published by the Commission, alongside Chips Act 2.0, the Open Source Strategy, and Strategic Roadmap for Digitalization and AI in Energy.
CADA includes measures to boost European tech sovereignty. Among other things, it aims to triple data center capacity in the next five to seven years by easing restrictions on new infrastructure projects across the EU, as well as efforts to support research and development of cloud and AI technologies.
It also includes a sovereignty framework that, if enacted, would require EU public bodies to assess sovereignty risks and procure cloud services that meet four assurance levels.
The various levels portray “a political vision with many open questions,” said Maisto. In more detail:
Level 1 requirements are achievable by hyperscalers, Maisto said, with requirements focused mostly on data residency.
Level 2 is “more controversial,” he said, as it includes requirements around third-country access to data and disruption of services.
Level 3 leaves room for US providers to win procurement contracts — particularly where they enter a joint venture with a European cloud provider such as S3NS, a Thales subsidiary that has partnered with Google.
Level 4 applies to only a small proportion (1%) of the most sensitive workloads.
The first two levels could be open to US hyperscalers, said Maisto, with 70% of existing EU public sector workloads falling under Level 1 and 20% at Level 2, according to Commission’s own impact assessment. Just 9% of the workloads would require Level 3.
The most stringent Level 4 would require cloud providers that “have full transparency and control over their software supply chain and no interference from a third country,” the Commission said.
For public sector organizations, the CADA rules could create more clarity around procurement, said Pereiro. “Today, the concept of ‘sovereign cloud’ is often vague and inconsistently applied in providers’ marketing and messaging,” he said. “This package standardizes what sovereignty must look like in practice, effectively ending the era of ‘sovereign washing.’”
The proposals give public sector organizations a “stronger set of requirements with which to assess risk, especially around jurisdiction and access to data,” he said.
“For enterprises, it’s less about regulation and more about leverage,” said Pereiro. “They gain clearer benchmarks and more viable alternatives, particularly through open source and emerging European providers.”
European cloud industry sees ‘a step in the right direction’
The Cloud Infrastructure Services Providers in Europe (CISPE) — a nonprofit trade group — welcomed the “strong definitions” of Levels 3 and 4, and said that, if implemented well, the proposed rules could “help to challenge the commercial dominance of established foreign cloud and AI vendors.”
However CISPE also called the current Level 1 and 2 criteria “confusing and non-sensical,” and said they should not be designated as “sovereign” since US hyperscalers can meet the requirements. “This will continue to confuse the market, both public and private customers, and encourage more sovereignty washing attempts,” CISPE said in a blog post Thursday.
CISPE also said the proposals fail to require public authorities to check whether a European service exists before opting for a foreign supplier. “We see a significant risk that assessments become a ‘rubber-stamp’ exercise that allow IT departments to continue to buy non-sovereign services out of convenience,” the organization said.
French firm OVHcloud — one of the leading European cloud computing and web hosting companies — welcomed the proposals, though it said any rules must be carefully scoped to ensure they are effective.
“This text is a step in the right direction and represents an opportunity to strengthen European strategic autonomy — something unthinkable just a few years ago,” an OVHcloud spokesperson said. “It provides a useful framework, but one that must not leave too much room for exceptions and workarounds.
“Europe must and can move much faster, with very clear rules and a genuine European preference. Beyond this text, the Commission has demonstrated with its sovereign procurement call that it is possible to act right now to reduce critical dependencies. The time for waiting is over. We must accelerate. We must clarify. We must own it.
“Europe has the players and the expertise,” the spokesperson said. “It is time to turn political ambition into European industrial capability.”
The overall tech sovereignty package “marks the overdue shift from diagnosis to treatment,” said a spokesperson at Ionos, a German cloud and hosting company. Ionos pointed to the EC’s claims that more than 80% of digital products, services and infrastructures in the EU originate from non-European providers, while 264 billion euros flow from EU organizations into predominantly US-based IT products.
“This is a strategic failure that must now be corrected,” the spokesperson said. While the company applauded the Commission’s focus on “secure and sovereign cloud and AI infrastructure for highly critical use cases,” it argued the CADA proposals fall short. “The central weakness of the package: the approach remains predominantly supply-side. The decisive lever — the demand side – is missing. Public procurement is the most powerful instrument for digital sovereignty. The public sector as anchor customer is critical for scaling sovereign cloud and AI solutions.
“Europe will remain dependent on Nvidia and AMD for GPU computing, the spokesperson said. “What matters is not whether to cooperate, but on what terms: data under European law, operations by European providers, no extraterritorial access. …If EU funding earmarked for ‘sovereign cloud’ ends up with the European subsidiaries of US hyperscalers, the package will have failed its objective.”
The real impact on hyperscalers
The proposed rules could require hyperscalers to change tactics to cater to European customers, or to at least ramp up existing sovereign cloud strategies. “For vendors, this is essentially a shift in what ‘competitive’ means,” said Pereiro. “For the last decade, scale and hyperscaler alignment were enough. That’s no longer the case.”
Cloud providers will need to demonstrate real control over data, infrastructure, and operations, he said, and not just label solutions as “sovereign.”
“The bar has been raised, and some existing offerings simply won’t clear it,” he said.
While the CADA rules are designed to favor European providers in some cases, the proposals stop short of barring US providers from public sector contracts. “It doesn’t shut them out,” said Pereiro, “but it changes competitive conditions substantially.”
The proposed procurement requirements make sovereignty a “gating factor” for sensitive workloads, said Pereiro, and “create real friction for providers whose operating models depend on centralized control or non-EU jurisdiction.”
US tech firms tout support
US hyperscalers publicly welcomed the proposals, and indicated plans to work with policy makers and ensure the importance of customer choice in cloud service procurement.
“We look forward to reviewing the proposed rules and continuing to work alongside our partners to ensure European organizations have the power of choice and sovereign control,” a Google spokesperson said.
An AWS spokesperson said the company has invested ”tens of billions of euros” in European cloud infrastructure, which it claims has “already advanced the continent’s competitiveness, helped organizations innovate and grow, and supported the development and resilience of both public and private services that Europeans now rely on every day.
“European organizations deserve access to the best technology available from trusted providers, chosen on the basis of security, performance, verifiable controls, and value,” the AWS spokesperson said. “We look forward to working with policymakers to ensure the Cloud and AI Development Act promotes technology choice and rewards long-term investment in Europe’s digital future.”
A Microsoft spokesperson said the company shares the EU’s “ambition to strengthen technological sovereignty and global competitiveness in AI, grounded in openness, partnership and fair competition.
“Achieving this will depend on access to world-class infrastructure and technologies at scale,” the Microsoft spokesperson said. “That means enabling European companies and public administrations to make procurement choices based on a broad, risk-based assessment in an open and competitive market.
“Microsoft offers secure and sovereign cloud solutions that put customers in control, and we stand ready to help build a strong, resilient and globally connected AI ecosystem in Europe.”
While the proposals present potential hurdles for US hyperscalers, those that adapt to the new regulatory direction — and concerns of European organizations — will benefit, said Pereiro. “If your offering aligns with sovereignty requirements, your company will be likely to see more opportunities, not fewer,” he said.
The age-old IT defense when compliance violations are investigated by regulators is to try and keep a low profile — and hope no one looks too closely. But with enhanced SEC interest in all data breaches encouraging regulators around the globe to take those closer looks at IT, data breach disclosure rules are becoming more strict.
While that might be unsettling for cybersecurity executives, it is also disturbing news for IT admins, who could find themselves under a remarkably uncomfortable spotlight.
Consider this recent move by the New York State Department of Financial Services against the Delta Dental Insurance Company. State officials hit the insurance company for improper and inconsistent enforcement of its own data retention policies; improper incident response plan protocols; and improper notification of the security incident itself.
The company was fined more than $2 million.
The data retention violations are perhaps the most problematic. Had that policy been enforced properly, much of the stolen data would have been destroyed long before the attackers could have accessed it.
It’s not simply a matter of whether the IT rules for retention were sufficiently strict. Some regulators — and especially the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) — focus extensively on companies who don’t do what they say publicly. If a corporate website promises something to customers, the FTC will hold companies to their word.
Think about that the next time you assign a summer intern to handle your website’s copy.
Inconsistent implementation of data retention policies can deliver other legal headaches. Having a good policy approved by the general counsel is fine, but it means nothing if all of your people do not follow it strictly.
Let’s say one of your business units is being sued for having done something naughty. Opposing counsel subpoenas your business records, including emails from a few years ago. Your attorney responds that those email records no longer exist; they were deleted last year in accordance with corporate policy on data retention that says everything of a certain nature has to be deleted after one year.
Fair enough. But what if opposing counsel in a deposition asks,“Really? Does that policy apply to all records of that nature?” You say that it does.
“It might interest you to know that we have sworn testimony from four other employees who showed us emails of the same nature that were more than five years old. So why did you adhere to your policy regarding emails that might prove the fraud but somehow you did not delete others? Sounds a little selective, no? I think the judge would agree.”
In the dental case, the company had a strict policy on retention rules. But corporate software was programmed with “the ability to shorten, extend, or disable MOVEit Transfer’s default retention settings on a folder-by-folder or file-by-file basis.”
The regulators then swooped in because the insurance company “had no written policy or procedure for requesting, reviewing, or approving such changes to folder retention settings.”
The best retention policy would, in theory, have no exemptions. But if you’re going to allow exemptions, you need a precise policy documenting how and when they can occur. There should be a required form so that a manager can write out the reasons for this specific exemption.
The New York state document is an important one to carefully review; it provides an excellent roadmap to how compliance can go wrong — and useful information on how to keep something similar from happening to your company.
Of the roughly $700 million in total funding, $425 million would be used to upgrade and extend the life of 13 coal plants that otherwise might have closed in the coming years.
The European Union has now published a set of measures aimed at boosting Europe’s tech industry to help reduce reliance on US and Chinese suppliers for AI, cloud, and semiconductors. The proposals include rules to restrict the use of US hyperscalers for certain public sector procurement purposes, but stop short of banning them outright.
“Technological sovereignty does not mean protectionism. Europe remains grounded in openness, partnership, and fair competition,” Henna Virkkunen, executive vice president for Tech Sovereignty, Security and Democracy, said in a statement Wednesday. “At the same time, Europe wants to be in the position to make its own choices, avoiding dependence on single dominant suppliers, especially from non-like-minded countries.”
The European Technological Sovereignty Package — released after several delays — includes two legislative proposals: the Cloud and AI Development Act and Chips Act (CAIDA) 2.0 and the Open Source Strategy and Strategic Roadmap for Digitalization and AI in Energy.
CAIDA aims to triple data center capacity in the next five to seven years by easing restrictions for deployments across the EU. It also includes rules that, if enacted, would require EU public bodies to meet certain sovereignty criteria for cloud service procurement related to certain sensitive workloads.
Amid ongoing trans-Atlantic tensions and a long-time deep reliance on US tech providers, European organizations have become increasingly wary of a “kill switch” that would cut off access to digital services. There are also concerns that US hyperscalers could be compelled to share data with US government under the CLOUD Act and Foreign Intelligence Services Act (FISA), even when data centers are located in Europe.
The CAIDA proposals include four levels of criteria for suppliers; the most basic includes data center infrastructure located and operated in the region – something many US cloud suppliers already provide – with stricter rules around supplier ownership, full control over the software stack, and more stringent cybersecurity certification.
The majority of existing EU public sector workloads (70%) fall under the first level, with 20% at level 2, and 9% at level 3. Only a small proportion (1%) of the most sensitive workloads would require level 4.
Other proposals include the Chips Act 2.0, a follow-up to the 2023 legislation that sought to improve semiconductor production capabilities; the updated version now aims to boost research and spur demand for domestically produced processors.
The legislative proposals must be negotiated by the European Parliament and Council of the European Union before adoption.
The Trump administration is dismantling a $368 million deep-ocean observation system that monitors marine ecosystems and the effects of climate change.
The Trump administration is dismantling a $368 million deep-ocean observation system that monitors marine ecosystems and the effects of climate change.
Recovering a surface buoy — part of a network of moorings, buoys and gliders making observations of the ocean — from the Irminger Sea off Greenland’s coast, in 2021.
The new Australian "hate speech" legislation criminalizes criticism of Israel or Jewish identity, potentially labeling such discourse as harassment. Attorney-General Michelle Rowland confirmed that if Jewish Australians feel intimidated, related actions could be prosecuted. Critics warn this undermines democracy and enables totalitarian practices by silencing political opposition.
Australia's hate speech laws are under debate after passing the House of Representatives. Critics argue the definition of hate speech is subjective, potentially threatening free speech. Concerns arise over the bill’s ability to target legitimate political discourse while seemingly failing to address extremism comprehensively. A crucial Senate vote is pending.
December 10, 2025, the Australian Online Safety Act has been implemented requiring identity checks for internet access. This is authoritarian government overreach, the beginning of a dystopian future in the Australian surveillance police state. Make sure you are signed up for our emailed newsletter.
The NSW government has enacted a law banning certain prayers, public or private, related to transgender conversion, sparking concerns about government control over personal beliefs. The Attorney-General stated that prayers aimed at changing sexual orientation could be deemed illegal. This is only the tip of the iceberg.
The order, which signaled a shift from the hands-off approach the White House had previously taken toward A.I., followed debates over how to gain control of A.I. models without disrupting innovation.
Login
