The US Space Force is facing criticism for its lack of clearly defined roles and overlapping missions with other agencies. This confusion, according to industry executives, is hindering the service's ability to secure resources and execute its mission effectively. The concerns were raised in a new report from the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies, based on a workshop with experts from various fields.
Robert Winkler of Kratos Defense & Security Solutions highlighted the blurred responsibilities among the Space Force, US Space Command, and intelligence agencies. “We’ve got Space Command, Space Force, the IC [intelligence community] all doing work in space,” Winkler said, emphasizing the lack of clarity even within the military. “We haven’t really defined what those differences are.”
Arnie Streland of Northrop Grumman echoed these concerns, noting the confusion among lawmakers, industry, and the public regarding the Space Force’s precise role. The Trump administration’s “Iron Dome for America” executive order exemplifies this challenge, mandating accelerated space technologies for missile defense without clearly defining responsibilities. “What is the Space Force’s role going to be for space-based missile defense and space-based sensing versus the Missile Defense Agency or other organizations?” Streland asked. “You need the clarity in the Pentagon, you need it on Capitol Hill, you need it in the general public so that the Space Force gets the support they need.”
Executives also criticized the Space Force's predominantly defensive strategy. Winkler described the service’s focus on resilience as limited. “The Space Force talks about protect and defend, a very defensive mindset, and then they use it as a euphemism to try to talk a little bit about offensive,” he said. “If all you’re going to do is sit there and be resilient and be able to take punches, you are going to lose the fight in the end.” He argued that the Space Force’s hesitation to discuss offensive capabilities puts the US at a disadvantage.
Streland acknowledged concerns about creating orbital debris from destroying satellites, but stressed that offensive operations don't necessarily mean kinetic strikes. “Physically destroying a satellite may not be in our best interest because of the larger debris problem,” Streland said. “But there should still be a focus on denying the enemy its space capability, which could happen in a number of ways.”
Retired General David Deptula of the Mitchell Institute criticized the Biden administration for avoiding discussions of offensive space operations. “We just went through an administration whose policy was not to discuss or embrace the ability to achieve offensive effects in space,” Deptula said. “And that needs to change with the new administration.”