A version of this story appeared in the daily Threat Status newsletter from The Washington Times. Click here to receive Threat Status delivered directly to your inbox each weekday.
The Air Force Association rebranded itself in April 2022, after 76 years, as the Air & Space Forces Association, a move it said would better reflect its mission to advocate for 21st-century American power in the air and in space.
The reaction to that announcement inside the Colorado Springs offices of the Space Force Association — a separate nonprofit launched in 2019, the same year the U.S. Space Force was founded as a stand-alone military service — landed somewhere between surprise and incredulity.
“You’ve got to be … kidding me,” said one source, describing the reaction among Space Force Association officials who learned of the name change just days before it was announced.
That’s just one example of the complicated and at times tense relationship between the competing organizations. Both lay claim to advocating for the Space Force and its Guardians and to serving as a key liaison between the Pentagon and powerful defense industry companies seeking to do business in the increasingly vital and financially lucrative space domain.
In statements to The Washington Times, both organizations and their leaders stressed that they can work together to advance American space power. Yet sources familiar with the matter described behind-the-scenes dynamics that at times have bordered on acrimony.
This article is based on interviews with more than a dozen sources, including high-level defense industry leaders and Pentagon officials, some of whom were granted anonymity to speak openly about the state of Space Force advocacy and its relevance to U.S. national security.
SPECIAL COVERAGE: Collaboration SPACE
Why it matters
The friction is important for several reasons. The two organizations could, for example, take different positions on a budgetary issue, or the development of a new capability, or the implementation of specific points of national security strategy in space.
That battle of ideas could affect policy debates in Washington at a crucial moment for the Space Force.
At a deeper level, the Space Force Association argues that the Air & Space Forces Association’s advocacy work has a built-in, fundamental conflict of interest that could surface if Defense Department officials or congressional budget writers need to choose between funding Space Force and more traditional Air Force assets, such as fighter jet programs. The Space Force Association says the Space Force needs an organization focused solely on its priorities rather than one that also advocates for the broader Air Force and its needs.
The Air & Space Forces Association rejects that argument. It says both airpower and space power are “foundational to our national defense” and that it effectively advocates for both. The organization and its supporters say the U.S. needs to direct money to modernizing the nation’s Air Force and bolstering U.S. space-based capabilities rather than pitting them against each other.
“Are they supposed to be the only ones who can talk about space?” said an Air & Space Forces Association advocate, referring to the Space Force Association and its position.
Several defense industry sources said the existence of both groups and the conflict between them can present problems. One source said leading defense companies are asking, “Who are we going to be writing a check to?” Both the Space Force Association and the Air & Space Forces Association hold high-level space-centric conferences across the country. Defense industry companies sponsor these events and contribute financially to the groups that organize them.
Pentagon officials and defense industry leaders routinely attend both Space Force Association and Air & Space Forces Association gatherings. Gen. B. Chance Saltzman, Space Force chief of space operations, spoke at the Air & Space Forces Association Air, Space and Cyber Conference in September outside Washington and at Space Force Association’s Spacepower 2025 conference in Orlando, Florida, in December.
One senior defense industry official said companies generally support the Space Force Association’s approach and its “focus on the unique needs of the Space Force.”
Space Force structure
Since its founding, the Space Force has existed as its own military service within the Department of the Air Force, under the authority of the Air Force secretary. It’s largely similar to how the Marine Corps exists as its own branch but is technically within the Department of the Navy.
The existence of the Space Force as a separate military branch without a civilian-led department above it is partially fueling the debate over who can best advocate for the service and whether it needs, or deserves, its own dedicated 501(c)(3) advocacy group.
Specialists say establishing a “Department of Space” or another Pentagon reorganization could make sense in the future if policymakers are clear about their objectives.
“We need to think hard about what problem we are trying to solve with a reorganization like that and how the reorg would bring about the desired outcome. Is a reorganization merely moving around the deck chairs?” said Clayton Swope, deputy director of the Aerospace Security Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
“There will be interservice tugs-of-war about funding no matter who reports to which secretary at the Pentagon,” Mr. Swope told The Washington Times. “We should think about what we are not doing or cannot do with the current structure before we decide we need to change it. It may make sense, but we should be clear about why we are doing it.”
The Space Force Association was established in October 2019, two months before the Space Force, during President Trump’s first term.
It was founded by retired Air Force Col. Bill Woolf, who served more than 24 years in uniform and worked extensively on space and nuclear operations.
Sources said Air & Space Forces Association officials approached Mr. Woolf in 2019 about housing the fledgling Space Force Association under its broader umbrella, with the understanding that it would eventually be spun off into its own entity.
That initial partnership didn’t materialize.
In a lengthy statement to The Times, the Space Force Association explained its rationale.
“SFA was founded on the belief that space is a distinct warfighting domain and has unique challenges and needs, as well as a distinct culture, that is separate from the Air Force,” the statement reads in part. “The relationship between SFA and AFA is best described as friendly competition or a dual-track support system. We are two independent nonprofits that often share the same goals while at the same time having different philosophies.”
Retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Burt Field, president and CEO of the Air & Space Forces Association, said his organization wants the Space Force Association “to be very successful in their support of the Space Force.”
“Ensuring a superior Space Force is a shared mission for our two organizations, and we consider them partners in this endeavor,” Gen. Field told The Times in a statement. “Our organizations have a formal memorandum of understanding, signed nearly three years ago, and we continue to look for ways to strengthen this relationship.”
That memorandum of understanding was signed around the time the Air Force Association changed its name to the Air & Space Forces Association, though it’s unclear what the document meant in practice. One source inside the Space Force Association said “we’ve never had a discussion about the MOU since the MOU” was signed.
Several Pentagon officials said any tension has not affected either group’s work with the Space Force. One defense official, however, described a view inside the Pentagon that the Air & Space Forces Association is the “big brother,” given its long and storied history, while the Space Force Association is seen as the upstart “little brother.”
Several other organizations advocate for the space industry, specifically the U.S. Space Force.
The nonprofit Space Foundation, founded in 1983 and host of the high-level Space Symposium conference each year, said the existence of so many players on the scene is a positive sign.
“Space is genuinely underappreciated and underappreciated by the larger public as to our dependence on it,” Rich Cooper, a spokesperson for the Space Foundation, told The Times. “So whatever these groups can do to help leaders better understand the importance of space to our national and economic security, all the better. That’s critically important for everyone.”
The ideas space
The Space Force Association and the Air & Space Forces Association are also competing in the ideas space.
The Space Force Association recently launched its National Spacepower Center, a think tank and research center that aims to carve out a lane separate from the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies, an Air & Space Forces Association affiliate. The Mitchell Spacepower Advantage Center of Excellence has been the only Washington-based, aerospace-focused think tank for years, and it has built a reputation as a one-of-a-kind headquarters for aerospace research, events and policy papers.
Retired Air Force Lt. Gen. David Deptula, dean of the Mitchell Institute, denied any “adversarial” relationship between the two organizations and said he welcomes serious efforts to advance U.S. space power. He said he sees the opportunity for collaboration.
“At the end of the day, this isn’t about organizations — it’s about ensuring the United States develops the strategies, capabilities and policies needed to achieve space superiority. We welcome additional voices to that effort and believe the conversation is strongest when it’s informed by facts, professionalism and mutual respect,” Mr. Deptula said in a statement.
The first paper from the Space Force Association’s National Spacepower Center examined the degree to which the Space Force and industry partners should pursue “dynamic space operations.”
Such operations involve satellites and other systems that can maneuver, be serviced and refueled in orbit, make rapid orbital changes, and take other steps to make them “dynamic” in the space domain, rather than being stationary and limited to a single parameter.
Some specialists have urged the Pentagon to focus heavily on those capabilities, but the Space Force Association paper, written by retired Air Force Col. Daniel Dant, raised questions about that point of view.
“Many proliferated low-Earth-orbit constellations are designed to be short-lived and cheap, so heavy investment in refuelable or highly maneuverable platforms is not always economical or necessary for these missions,” he wrote. “Moreover, over-reliance on maneuver also risks rapid depletion of valuable propellant and can increase operational complexity, making command and control and space traffic management more difficult under high stress situations.”
That paper and the timing of its release underscored the degree to which the two organizations could present competing ideas.
A month earlier, retired Space Force Col. Charles Galbreath, a senior resident fellow for space studies at the Mitchell Institute, authored his own in-depth paper on the issue.
“Legacy U.S. space system designs were premised on a peaceful, non-hostile space domain and operated static missions in energy-constant orbits,” he wrote. “Space is now a warfighting domain, with new and growing threats to space systems, plus increasing operational demands on U.S. space capabilities. New capabilities that increase the resilience and effectiveness of the U.S. military space architecture are needed. Space operations must similarly transform to one defined by dynamic space operations — employing these new capabilities with the ability to frequently and rapidly change parameters to achieve mission effects.”
After the launch of the Space Force Association, Mitchell Institute leaders reached out to explore collaboration on a research paper. The Space Force Association declined the invitation, sources said, citing a need to “establish its own culture” separate from Mitchell and the Air & Space Forces Association.
• Ben Wolfgang can be reached at bwolfgang@washingtontimes.com.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.