[Republish] The Great Compromise: Space Force Personnel Management Act

Content Guide hide

The state’s rights argument has, consciously or unconsciously, reared its head in advocating work for USSF workforce development. Establishing a Space National Guard may be off the table for now due to the Personnel Management Act’s compromise. Yet, there’s an opportunity to revisit the Space National Guard idea in the future.

The battle for states’ rights dates to the writing of the U.S. Constitution. The Tenth Amendment of the Constitution enumerates the limits of the Federal government on the rights of the States and the people.[1] The purpose was to prevent the presumption that the federal government had rights or powers beyond those enumerated.[2] The Southern States used the states’ rights argument to protest and defy Northern tariffs, Northern proposals to abolish slavery, and later, desegregation.[3] The argument also underpinned the “nullification theory,” where states can annul federal acts within a state’s borders or secede from the union.[4] Conflicts between the federal and state governments have always been centered around economics and real estate.

The Battle For Jurisdiction

In modern times, the 2025 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) served as the battleground between federal and state jurisdictions. The Space Force Personnel Management Act was passed in the 2024 NDAA after the Biden administration blocked multiple attempts to establish a Space National Guard. The effort was stymied based on federal funding of space-related activities and federal influence on U.S. military space operations, particularly real estate.[5] The administration endorsed the Space Force Personnel Management Act to achieve the goals of workforce recruitment and retention for the USSF, enticing private-sector talent to consider military service, ensuring unity of command, and streamlining efforts to maximize effectiveness in addressing current and emerging threats in the space domain.[6]

The saga intensified in March when the U.S Air Force released its Legislative Proposal 480 (LP 480)[7], which included language that would override the autonomy of state governors in matters of personnel transfers from the Air National Guard to the USSF:

“SEC. ___. TRANSFER TO THE SPACE FORCE OF COVERED SPACE FUNCTIONS OF THE AIR NATIONAL GUARD OF THE UNITED STATES.

(a) TRANSFER OF C COVERED SPACE FUNCTIONS.—During the transition period, the Secretary of the Air Force shall transfer to the Space Force the covered space functions of the Air National Guard of the United States. Such transfer shall occur without regard to Section 104 of Title 32, United States Code, or Section 18238 of Title 10, United States Code.”[8]

Section 104 of Title 32, United States Code, or section 18238 of Title 10 states that the President may establish units of the National Guard by the Army or Air Force, but “no change in the branch, organization, or allotment of a unit located entirely within a State may be made without the approval of its governor.”[9]

In April 2024, the National Governors Association’s Council of Governors penned an open letter to Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin requesting that LP 480 be retracted by the Department of Defense.[10] In May, Congressman Jason Crow (D-CO-06), founding Co-Chair of the Space Force Caucus, alongside Representative Joe Wilson (R-SC-02), a member of the House Armed Services Committee (HASC), Senators Michael Bennet (D-CO), and John Hickenlooper (D-CO) penned a letter with 56 representatives and 29 senators advising the House and Senate Armed Services Committees to reject LP 480, stating that the proposal undermined 120 years of National Guard precedent.[11]

The 2025 NDAA language was since updated to include the following compromise:

“SEC. 521. TRANSFER TO THE SPACE FORCE OF COVERED SPACE FUNCTIONS OF THE AIR NATIONAL GUARD OF THE UNITED STATES.

TRANSFER OF COVERED SPACE FUNCTIONS. — During the transition period, the Secretary of the Air Force may transfer to the Space Force the covered space functions of the Air National Guard (ANG) of the United States. Any such transfer shall occur subject to section 104 of title 32, United States Code, and section 18238 of title 10, United States Code.”[12]

Air Force Reservists in space-related career fields can volunteer for USSF full-time, and the application window for volunteers is June 1–Nov. 30, 2024.[13] The new service model integrates active-component Guardians and Air Force Reservists serving in space-focused career fields into a unified service that offers both full- and part-time service options.[14]

In a USAF press release in May 2024, Chief of Space Operations Gen. Chance Saltzman stated, “This is an important first step toward fully integrating critical space expertise from the Reserve into our force. We’ve been serving side-by-side together, supporting the same mission, for longer than the Space Force has existed. I’m excited to officially call the teammates who decide to transfer Guardians.”[15]

Application windows for Air Force Reservists looking to transfer to the USSF in a part-time role are expected to open in 2026 once policies, processes, and systems are established. The PMA does not currently apply to space units and ANG personnel; however, Guard members could expect a similar process to their Reserve counterparts after fitting legal and policy changes.[16]

The Great Space Compromise

The great compromise of the Space Force Personnel Management Act has been reached, but support and advocacy for the Space National Guard continues. The Space National Guard Establishment Act of 2024 (S. 3697) was introduced in the Senate in January, sponsored by Sen. Marci Rubio (R-FL) and 16 cosponsors along with corresponding H.R. 3048 introduced in the House of Representatives by Congressman Jason Crow (D-CO-06) and 17 co-sponsors.[17] The bill indicates that relocation of facilities, infrastructure, or military personnel will not be required, but it does not have a budget estimate from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).[18] This month, Bobbi Doorenbos, Board of Directors, National Guard Association of the United States, penned an op-ed in Government Executive explaining that pushing forward with integrating ANG personnel into the USSF would lead to a recruitment and retention decline, a severe delay in delivery of service, and “diminished space capabilities at a crucial time when Russia and China are rushing to bolster their presence in space.”[19]

The CBO published a cost estimate report in 2020, which found that creating a smaller SFNG would create additional annual operation and support (O&S) costs totaling $100 million and a one-time construction cost of $20 million.[20] A larger SFNG would result in an additional $400 million in O&S costs and a one-time construction cost of $900 million. The National Guard Bureau stated that the true, one-time cost of standing up a Space National Guard would be about $250,000 including transferring 1,000 space professionals in 16 Air National Guard Units across eight states and territories to new units[21] The National Guard Bureau found the CBO report to be misguided.[22] The PMA addresses cost, logistics, and transfer concerns citing that the USSF will become a tenant organization of a standing National Guard installation unless the Secretary of the Air Force determines an alternate arrangement is in the best interest of the United States.[23]

Looking Forward

The question remains if the compromise will deliver on building, recruiting, and retaining an optimal Space Force to enhance readiness, ensure unity of command, and streamline efforts to prevail in an increasingly contested space domain. The Space Force currently hosts approximately 9,000 Guardians[24] and surpassed its 2023 recruitment goals by 109.15%, attaining 537 new Guardians to the goal of 497.[25] The FY 25 NDAA allows for no more than 580 voluntary transfers from the Air National Guard to the USSF.[26] The USSF aims to have a force of 10,000 Guardians in 2025.

The resiliency and redundancy necessary to accomplish the USSF mission require a robust, skilled, innovative, and mission-focused workforce, enlisted and civilian. The Space Force must meet the challenge of strategic messaging and benefit options to attract and retain top talent already on the market and in the making. The PMA has created a unique opportunity to develop a next-generation warfighting force with flexible options; however, the incentives may not be enough to compete with the private sector, and the flexibility of the PMA may not satisfy the preferences of Americans who would rather join the reserves. The PMA is a welcome compromise, but the Space Force National Guard should remain on the table for future refinement and reconsideration.

References:

[1] https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt10-2/ALDE_00013620/

[2] Ibid.

[3] https://www.britannica.com/topic/states-rights

[4] Ibid.

[5] https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/H.R.-2670-NDAA.pdf

[6] https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/sfa-legislative-update-spaceforceassociation-fjmxc/?trackingId=7i6c3CKOZzVwM1bDx613pA%3D%3D

[7]https://ogc.osd.mil/Portals/99/OLC%20Proposals/FY%202025/29Mar2024Proposals.pdf?ver=1n2_LXCTde_yaLPbCbGm6w%3d%3d

[8] Ibid.

[9] https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title32&edition=prelim

[10] https://www.nga.org/advocacy-communications/letter-to-dod-on-legislative-proposal-480/

[11] https://crow.house.gov/media/press-releases/reps-crow-wilson-and-senators-bennet-hickenlooper-lead-bipartisan-bicameral-coalition-opposing-air-force-proposal-to-override-governors-authority-strip-national-guard-units