Evaluating the Future of Planetary Defense: NASA vs. Space Force

In recent discussions regarding the future of planetary defense against potentially hazardous asteroids, a significant debate has emerged over whether NASA or the U.S. Space Force should take the lead role in protecting Earth. This dialogue has intensified as uncertainties surrounding NASA's budget have raised concerns about the continuity and efficacy of its planetary defense initiatives.

NASA has historically been at the forefront of efforts to detect and mitigate threats posed by near-Earth objects (NEOs). According to Brian Babin, Chairman of the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee, NASA's Planetary Defense Coordination Office (PDCO) oversees the mission to protect Earth from these cosmic threats. The PDCO was established following the George E. Brown Jr. Near-Earth Object Survey Act of 2005, which tasked NASA with cataloging 90% of NEOs larger than 140 meters within 15 years. However, as of today, only 44% of these potentially dangerous objects have been cataloged, raising alarms among lawmakers and scientists alike about the agency's capacity to fulfill its mandate due to budget constraints (Babin, 2025).

The potential transfer of some responsibilities to the U.S. Space Force has garnered support from figures such as Peter Garretson, a senior fellow at the American Foreign Policy Council. Garretson posits that planetary defense should be formalized as an operational mission under the Space Force, integrating capabilities from various sectors including NASA, the Department of Energy, and the Department of Defense. He argues that given the Space Force's expanding budget, it could develop operational capabilities for planetary defense at a relatively low cost (Garretson, 2025).

However, this perspective is not universally accepted. Rusty Schweickart, an Apollo 9 astronaut and advocate for planetary defense, strongly opposes the militarization of Earth’s defense against asteroids. He asserts that public confidence in the agency responsible for planetary defense is paramount, suggesting that military control would engender public skepticism and suspicion. Schweickart emphasizes that asteroid threats and their responses require a global, cooperative approach rather than competing national interests (Schweickart, 2025).

As the debate continues, NASA's recent initiatives, such as the Double Asteroid Redirection Test (DART), demonstrate the agency's commitment to developing and testing planetary defense technologies. DART successfully altered the orbit of the asteroid Dimorphos in 2022, marking a significant milestone in active planetary defense strategies (NASA, 2022). Nevertheless, the future of the NEO Surveyor mission, designed to identify and characterize hazardous asteroids, hangs in the balance amidst ongoing budget discussions (NASA Fiscal Year 2026 Budget Technical Supplement, 2026).

Internationally, the landscape of space cooperation could also influence the future of planetary defense. The United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space has increasingly focused on the need for collaborative global efforts in addressing asteroid threats. The importance of maintaining a non-militarized approach to planetary defense aligns with the broader goals of international cooperation in space (United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs, 2025).

Ultimately, the decision over whether NASA or the Space Force should oversee planetary defense will have profound implications not only for national security but also for global collaboration in safeguarding Earth. As budgetary challenges persist, stakeholders from various sectors must engage in a comprehensive dialogue to ensure that the approaches undertaken will effectively protect humanity from the existential threats posed by asteroids.

In conclusion, the question of who should lead planetary defense remains unresolved. Experts from diverse fields advocate for differing pathways, highlighting the necessity of a balanced approach that respects both scientific integrity and national security imperatives. As the situation evolves, it is crucial for policymakers to prioritize effective communication, transparency, and international cooperation to enhance public trust and ensure comprehensive planetary defense strategies.