The bill
Space Exploration Research Act
S. 2351, 119th Congress — read as touching Aerospace (Commercial).
Sponsored by
Sen. Cruz, Ted [R-TX]
ID: C001098
Follow the money
The bill
S. 2351, 119th Congress — read as touching Aerospace (Commercial).
The sponsor
Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.
The money
30 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.
The alignment
This bill's text tracks the "Introduction" section, p. 90-92 of the Mandate for Leadership.
Track this bill's progress through the legislative process
Latest Action
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 369.
April 12, 2026
📍 Current Status
Next: The bill will be reviewed by relevant committees who will debate, amend, and vote on it.
1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.
2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.
3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.
4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.
5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.
6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.
7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!
Another masterpiece of legislative theater, brought to you by the esteemed members of Congress. The Space Exploration Research Act, or S 2351, is a bill that promises to "supplement existing lease authorities" for NASA, because, you know, the previous lease agreements were just so... restrictive. (Sarcasm alert.)
**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The main purpose of this bill is to grant NASA more flexibility in leasing its properties to various entities, including private companies, universities, and state governments. The stated objectives are to promote research, education, and training in the space industry, as well as to facilitate the transfer of technology between the public and private sectors. How quaint.
**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill allows NASA to lease its properties for up to 50 years (down from 99 years, because, you know, that was just too long) to entities that meet certain criteria, such as being a state government, a university, or a private company with a 501(c)(3) exemption. The Administrator of NASA can also delegate these authorities to subordinate officers and employees, because who needs accountability, anyway? The bill also overrides existing laws, including sections of the United States Code, because Congress knows better.
**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The affected parties include NASA, private companies, universities, state governments, and anyone else who wants to get their hands on some sweet, sweet government property. The stakeholders are, of course, the taxpayers, who will be footing the bill for this grand adventure in space exploration. Oh, and let's not forget the lobbyists and special interest groups who will be lining up to influence the leasing process.
**Potential Impact & Implications:** The potential impact of this bill is to further blur the lines between public and private interests, allowing corporations to profit from government property while minimizing their own risks. It's a classic case of privatization, where the benefits go to the few, and the costs are borne by the many. The implications are far-reaching, including the potential for crony capitalism, corruption, and the further erosion of public trust in government institutions.
In conclusion, the Space Exploration Research Act is a bill that promises much but delivers little. It's a Trojan horse for corporate interests, dressed up in the guise of promoting space exploration and research. The real disease here is the corrupting influence of money and power, which has infected every level of government. And we're just along for the ride, folks, as the politicians and their corporate masters continue to fleece us with impunity. Joy.
Sen. Cruz, Ted [R-TX]
Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle
No committee contributions found
No individual contributions found
This bill has 5 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.
ID: P000145
Top Contributors
10
ID: B001319
Top Contributors
10
ID: L000570
Top Contributors
0
No contribution data available
ID: S001150
Top Contributors
10
ID: W000437
Top Contributors
10
Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.
Showing 46 nodes and 42 connections (37 secondary connections hidden)
Total contributions: $1,598,121
Showing top 23 donors by contribution amount
Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 5 helped.
Section 2(a)(1)(B) allows leasing NASA real property to entities for the purpose of educating and training individuals for careers in the space industry, which directly benefits aerospace commercial companies by expanding their workforce pipeline and enabling technology transfer per subsection (C).
Section 2(a)(1)(C) facilitates transfer of aeronautical and space technology between the U.S. public and domestic private sectors, which includes defense contractors that often dual-use NASA-developed technologies for military applications.
Section 2(a)(1) authorizes leasing for the construction and operation of facilities on NASA real property, directly benefiting construction and engineering firms that would build these facilities.
Section 2(a)(1)(D) permits leasing for space-related scientific, engineering, medical, or academic activities, which could benefit big tech firms involved in AI, cloud computing, and data analytics for space missions (e.g., AWS, Azure, Google Cloud).
Section 2(a)(1)(D) allows leasing for scientific and engineering activities, which increasingly rely on AI and cloud infrastructure for processing space mission data, creating opportunities for AI & cloud providers.
For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Sen. Cruz, Ted [R-TX])received from donors associated with that industry during the 2022–present cycles. Donations are not proof of intent — they are a record of who funds the people writing the law.
This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.
— 58 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise space policy reviews, legislative proposals, and regulatory reforms smoothly. The NSpC generally led on space issues within the EOP, but other White House offices also took on space topics. l As a member of the NSpC, and in coordination with other members, the Office of Science and Technology Policy developed a national space weather strategy, research and development (R&D) plans to mitigate the effects of orbital debris, and protocols for planetary protection to avoid biological contamination of celestial bodies. l The Council of Economic Advisers did research on the economic benefits of space property rights. l OMB’s Office of Information and Regulatory Reform updated and streamlined commercial launch licensing and commercial remote sensing satellite rules. During the Trump Administration, if a topic was purely military, such as stand- ing up the U.S. Space Command, the NSC took the lead. If a topic cut across military, civil, and commercial sectors, as was the case with cybersecurity in space, the NSpC and NSC would cochair the policy review groups. Trusted, collegial relationships across the White House complex are critical to successful space policy development, implementation, and oversight. Nowhere is this more important than in the relationship between the NSpC staff and OMB staff who oversee civil and national security–related space spending. Teamwork between the NSpC and OMB staff can communicate clear presidential priorities to departments and agencies, facilitating smooth development of the President’s budget request. The NSpC and OMB have many opportunities to collaborate in promoting presidential priorities while finding offsets in lower-priority programs and funding lines. OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY (OSTP) The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) was created by the National Science and Technology Policy, Organization, and Priorities Act of 1976.33 Before its creation, Presidents received their advice and counsel on such matters through advisers and boards that had no statutory authority. The Director of OSTP is one of the few Senate-confirmed positions within the Executive Office of the President. Consistent with other laws, the President may delegate to the Director of OSTP directive authority over other elements of the executive branch. Other EOP policy officials and organizations such as the NSC and NEC are formally only advisory with relevant agency directives issued by the President. — 59 — Executive Office of the President of the United States The OSTP’s functions, as contained in the law, are to advise the President of scientific and technological considerations, evaluate the effectiveness of the federal effort, and generally lead and coordinate the federal government’s R&D programs. If science is being manipulated at the agencies to support separate political and institutional agendas, the President should increase the prominence of the OSTP’s Director either formally or informally. This would elevate the role of science in policy discussions and subsequent outcomes and theoretically help to balance out agencies like the Departments of Energy, State, and Commerce and the Envi- ronmental Protection Agency and Council on Environmental Quality. The OSTP can also help to bring technical expertise to regulatory matters in support of OMB. The OSTP should continue to play a lead role in coordinating federal R&D pro- grams. Recent legislation, especially the CHIPS and Science Act,34 has expanded federal policy and funding across the enterprise, and there is a need for more sig- nificant leadership in this area both to ensure effectiveness and to avoid duplication of effort. As befitting its location in the White House, the OSTP must be concerned with advancing national interests and not merely the parochial concerns of depart- ments, agencies, or parts of the scientific community. During the Trump and Biden Administrations, there has been a bipartisan focus on prioritizing R&D funding around the so-called Industries of the Future (IOTF). Under President Trump, IOTF priorities were artificial intelligence (AI), quantum information science (QIS), advanced communications/5G, advanced manufacturing, and biotechnology. Under President Biden, this list has been expanded to include advanced materials, robotics, battery technology, cybersecurity, green products and clean technology, plant genetics and agricultural technologies, nanotechnology, and semiconductor and microelectronics technologies. These priorities should be eval- uated and narrowed to ensure consistency with the next Administration’s priorities. Given a long list of priorities, coordinating efforts across agencies and mea- suring success are extremely challenging. The OSTP and OMB are required to work together on an annual basis to prioritize the funding requests and whatever Congress adds on top of them, but there continues to be concern about mission creep and funds expended on nonscientific R&D. The President should also issue an executive order to reshape the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) and related climate change research pro- grams. The USGCRP produces strategic plans and research (for example, the National Climate Assessment) that reduce the scope of legally proper options in presidential decision-making and in agency rulemakings and adjudications. Also, since much environmental policymaking must run the gauntlet of judicial review, USGCRP actions can frustrate successful litigation defense in ways that the career bureaucracy should not be permitted to control. The process for producing assess- ments should include diverse viewpoints. The OSTP and OMB should jointly assess the independence of the contractors used to conduct much of this outsourced
Policy matches are calculated using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text. A score of 60% or higher indicates meaningful thematic overlap. This does not imply direct causation or intent, but highlights areas where legislation aligns with Project 2025 policy objectives.