August 16, 2018
Toward the Creation of a U.S. “Space Force”
Background
Organizational Structure of the Military
For over two decades, the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) and others have found that fragmentation and
overlap in national security space acquisition management
and oversight have contributed to program delays and
cancellations, cost increases, and inefficient operations.
Congress has attempted numerous organizational and
acquisition reforms to address these problems. In the view
of many observers, these efforts have generally been
unsuccessful.
The U.S. military is composed of three military
departments—the Departments of the Army, Navy, and Air
Force—and four armed forces (the Department of the Navy
is responsible for both the Navy and the Marine Corps).
The Secretaries of the military departments are responsible
for organizing, training, and equipping their respective
forces.
In addition to these perceived managerial deficits, Congress
has more recently expressed concern over the slow pace
with which the Department of Defense (DOD) and the Air
Force have addressed the growing threat to U.S. national
security in space from adversaries, particularly Russia and
China, and to a lesser extent North Korea and Iran. Some in
the military and elsewhere now increasingly refer to space
as a “warfighting domain”; once seen as peaceful and
uncontested, space is now viewed as crowded and
adversarial.
Generally, House Members have led the effort to remove
institutional barriers to space acquisition reform by
advocating for the creation of a new entity for national
security space. Until recently, the Senate largely favored
efforts to reform existing organizations rather than
authorize new ones. However, as part of the FY2019
National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) deliberations,
both chambers passed (and the President signed) legislation
that authorized the creation of a subordinate unified
command known as the U.S. Space Command (under the
U.S. Strategic Command). The reorganization was intended
to address long-standing concerns related to space
acquisition management and sharpen DOD’s strategic focus
on space.
DOD recently developed a series of additional proposals
that would authorize the creation of an 11th unified
combatant command responsible for space. Separately, the
Trump Administration called for Congress to establish by
2020 a new military service branch—Space Force—with
the goal of asserting “American dominance in space.” The
new service branch would be the first since the creation of
the U.S. Air Force (previously part of the Army) in 1947.
Inconsistencies between these various executive branch
proposals have puzzled some observers and Congress could
play a major role in adjudicating among them.
Given the long-standing nature of the debate over how
space assets should be managed, some observers view
recent proposals as initial positions in a longer-term
negotiation among the part of major stake holders during
next year’s NDAA and beyond.
Unified Combatant Commands (COCOMS) are
organizationally responsible for employing these forces
during military operations. There are currently 10 Unified
COCOMs, including 6 that are geographically defined (e.g.,
U.S. Central Command) and 4 that are functionally oriented
(e.g., U.S. Strategic Command.) Unified COCOMs are led
by a single commander and composed of a mix of
servicemen and women from the military departments.
Currently, the Air Force provides space mission capabilities
for DOD, primarily through the Air Force Space Command,
which has its headquarters at Peterson Air Force Base in
Colorado, but has additional installations around the world.
Section 1601 of the FY2018 NDAA (P.L. 115-91)
authorized the establishment of Commander, U.S. Air Force
Space Command, and designated the commander of Air
Force Space Command as the “sole authority with respect
to … [o]rganizing, training, and equipping personnel and
operations of the space forces of the Air Force.”
Options for Space Reorganization
Specific organizational options that the President or
Congress could implement to conduct national security
space operations include the following:
Reorganization within the military services. The
President could direct the service secretaries to develop new
units or restructure existing units to provide greater
capability and capacity to conduct space operations. Such
changes might involve procuring new equipment, revising
training strategies, and modifying organizational structures
and relationships. Congress could also mandate such
changes by statute, or influence executive branch action
based on its oversight and appropriations powers.
Establish a new COCOM. Using the authority of 10
U.S.C. 161, the President could direct the establishment of
a space-oriented COCOM, or a subordinate unified
combatant command under an existing COCOM (similar to
the subordination of U.S. Forces Korea to U.S. Indo-Pacific
Command). Alternatively, Congress could require the
establishment of a space-oriented COCOM in law, perhaps
with special authorities, as it did with the establishment of
Special Operations Command and Cyber Command (10
USC 167 and 167b). The FY2019 NDAA provided for the
https://crsreports.congress.gov
Toward the Creation of a U.S. “Space Force”
establishment of a subordinate unified command, to be
known as U.S. Space Command, under U.S. Strategic
Command.
New military service. Congress could establish a separate
military service focused on space operations within one of
the existing military departments, in a manner similar to the
way the Marine Corps exists within the Department of the
Navy. The statutory authorities required to establish such a
new service would likely resemble those used for the
Marine Corps (various sections of Title 10, Subtitle C,
including Chapter 506).
New military department. Congress could choose to
establish a new military department with a new military
service focused on space operations. The most recent
establishment of a military department occurred in 1947,
when Congress established the Department of the Air Force
via the National Security Act of 1947. This act also
transferred equipment, personnel, and installations from the
Army Air Corps to the newly created Air Force. The
statutory authorities required to establish a new department
would likely be similar to those used for the Army (Subtitle
B of Title 10), Navy (Subtitle C of Title 10), and Air Force
(Subtitle D of Title 10).
Constitutional Authority to Establish a
“Space Force”
Under the Constitution, authority over the Armed Forces is
divided between the President and Congress. Under Article
I, section 8, Congress has the power “To lay and collect
Taxes ... to ... pay the Debts and provide for the common
Defence,” “To raise and support Armies,” “To provide and
maintain a Navy,” “To make rules for the Government and
Regulation of the land and naval Forces,” and “To provide
for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for
governing such Part of them as may be employed in the
Service of the United States.” Further, Congress is
empowered “To make all Laws which shall be necessary
and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing
Powers ...” as well as “all other Powers vested by this
Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in
any Department or Officer thereof.”
Congress also has virtually plenary constitutional power
over appropriations, one that is not qualified with reference
to its powers in Section 8. Article I, Section 9, provides that
“No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in
Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.” It is well
established, as a consequence of these provisions, that “no
money can be paid out of the Treasury unless it has been
appropriated by an act of Congress” and that Congress can
specify the terms and conditions under which an
appropriation may be used, so long as the restrictions do not
impair power inherent solely in other branches or otherwise
run afoul of constitutional restrictions on congressional
prerogatives.
Article II of the Constitution vests the President with the
“executive Power,” and appoints him “Commander in Chief
of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the
Militia of the several States, when called into the actual
Service of the United States.”
Accordingly, the constitutional framework appears to
contemplate that the role of establishing, organizing,
regulating, and providing resources for the Armed Forces
belongs to Congress, while the President is in charge of
commanding the forces Congress has established using the
funds Congress has provided.
It may conceivably be argued that congressional authority is
limited to “land and naval forces,” including “Armies” and
“the Navy” as well as the “Militia” (i.e., the reserve
components), and thus would not extend to a new armed
force operating primarily in the realm of space. The
President’s commander-in-chief authority is similarly
limited to the Army and Navy and activated reserve
components. However, it is unclear whether a new Space
Force would actually carry out functions in space or that its
functions would be any different from those related to space
operations already carried out by the various services.
Given this uncertainty, it is possible that a Space Force
would already constitute a land and naval force under the
Constitution. Finally, it is of note that respective
congressional and presidential authorities over the Air
Force—which is not specifically mentioned in the
Constitution—have not been historically called into
question.
Additional Considerations
Given myriad challenges to creating some new structure
around which to organize national security in space, some
in Congress are looking at previous major legislative
reforms. Many are focused on how best to address the
challenges of solving the problems that exist today.
Previous major legislative initiatives include the creation of
the Air Force itself, the creation of U.S. Special Operations
Command, Cyber Command, or even Transportation
Command. Other significant landmark bills include the
Goldwater Nichols Act, the Patriot Act, and creation of the
Department of Homeland Security. Each of these took
varying amounts of time and hearings to establish (e.g.,
creation of the Air Force took three years of hearings), and
most provide varying degrees of lessons learned, both good
and bad. Congress may focus on previous major legislation
to determine how best and how quickly to proceed toward
reorganizing DOD and its future in space.
Budgetary costs and personnel disruptions and
opportunities are also likely to play in important ways that
could take time to fully understand. Congress has a unique
opportunity to shape the direction of U.S. national security
space at this moment in time.
Steven A. Hildreth, Coordinator, Specialist in U.S. and
Foreign National Security Programs
Jennifer K. Elsea, Legislative Attorney
Lawrence Kapp, Specialist in Military Manpower Policy
Kathleen J. McInnis, Specialist in International Security
https://crsreports.congress.gov
IF10950
Toward the Creation of a U.S. “Space Force”
Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff to
congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of Congress.
Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of information that has
been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the
United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be
reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include
copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you
wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.
https://crsreports.congress.gov | IF10950 · VERSION 4 · NEW