We need a ‘Buy European Act’, access to capital, and simpler rules, chief executives of Europe’s foremost space companies told Space Commissioner Andrius Kubilius.

The International Space Summit in Paris on 10 September 2026 highlighted a stark reality. Europe possesses world-class technology but lacks the scale to compete with American and Chinese giants. The central question of the summit was how the continent can build and scale fast enough to stay in the game.

European Commissioner for Defence and Space Andrius Kubilius opened the discussion with a warning, by now well-known. He noted that the European market remains deeply fragmented compared to its global rivals. Mr Kubilius argued that a unified market of 450 million people is essential for future global competition.

“Our markets both in defence and space are quite fragmented,” said Mr Kubilius. He believes that the current bottom-up approach lacks the strategic direction found in Washington or Beijing. Europe must address its institutional arrangements to become more effective in governing its space development.

Crisis? What crisis?

Mr Kubilius believes that Europe needs a more effective top-down arrangement. He argued that the current system relies too heavily on national interests rather than a single European vision. The continent needs to become much more consolidated to face competitors like SpaceX or Chinese state companies.

Not everyone on the panel shared this sense of crisis. Marco Fuchs, chief executive officer of OHB, German space and technology company, offered a more optimistic counterpoint. “I don’t believe that the space industry in Europe is so uncompetitive, I think this is the wrong assumption. We all live in a world where we see all kinds of pressures in the car industry, many other industries and transformation that gives us the feeling we’re lagging behind everywhere. I don’t believe that Europe is lagging behind everywhere,” he said.

Galileo has cost a fourth of what the GPS systems has costed and the performance is greater.
— Hervé Drouet, Thales Alenia Space

However, the OHB boss admitted that Europe missed a vital opportunity 12 years ago. The continent chose not to develop reusable rockets at that time. This decision left the field of reusability entirely to SpaceX. “They obviously excelled that and they are very, very effective with it,” noted Mr Fuchs. Europe is now playing catch-up in the launcher market. Despite this, he believes the European response with the IRIS² constellation shows that the industry can still answer global challenges.

A legislative shield

The most contentious proposal involved a ‘Buy European Act’. Giulio Ranzo, chief executive officer of Italian aerospace company Avio, argued that Europe needs a legislative framework to match its rivals. Mr Ranzo believes that Europe must act immediately to close this legislative gap. “Let’s make it simple. We cannot be competitive versus US and China if we use a different legislative framework. In the US, they have what they call the Buy American Act since 1933 that forces the preference of one product or service over another,” he said.

“I don’t need to convince anybody that the same applies in China. So we are the only ones who does not have an equivalent of the Buy American Act. So I don’t know what are we waiting for before we put a place of legislation of this kind in Europe, a European Act,” the Avio executive said.

Access to capital remains a significant hurdle; a single American transaction can dwarf the entire European space budget. Mr Ranzo highlighted the massive disparity in investment between the two sides of the Atlantic. He pointed to the scale of private funding available in the US.

The capital chasm

OpenAI recently raised $122bn in a single day. In contrast, European space and defence firms struggle to raise more than a few billion euros annually. The listing of SpaceX alone raised $85bn in cash. “If on the other side of the world they are investing a few hundred billions, there is a problem with access to capital that we need to fix,” said Mr Ranzo. This gap threatens Europe’s ability to develop downstream services like artificial intelligence and data centres.

The proposed EU Space Act aims to address these structural weaknesses. It would replace 27 national laws with a single set of rules for the entire union. Mr Kubilius argued that this unification is a vital form of simplification. “We need to be very careful not to allow this fragmentation to start to become much deeper also in space,” said Mr Kubilius. The new law must provide a clear framework without adding too much heavy bureaucratic oversight.

I don’t believe that the space industry in Europe is so uncompetitive. I think this is the wrong assumption.
— Marco Fuchs, OHB

Eric Trappier, Chairman and chief executive officer of French aerospace and defence company Dassault Aviation, cautioned against over-regulation. He believes that industry needs innovation budgets more than new layers of control. Mr Trappier argued that excessive norms and standards hinder efficiency.

Industrial evolution

“The simplification is really a need,” said Mr Trappier. He suggested that many existing rules are the speculation of people who do not understand industry. He urged the commission to focus on supporting innovation rather than duplicating controls.

The “geographic return” rule also faced scrutiny during the debate. This policy ensures that countries receive contracts proportional to their financial contributions to the European Space Agency. Some argue it protects smaller nations, while others believe it hurts competitiveness.

Hervé Drouet, president and chief executive officer of France’s Thales Alenia Space, suggested a more nuanced approach. He argued that the rule should not apply to serial production where cost is the primary factor. It remains valid for unique scientific satellites. “What would be needed is a higher level of pooling of programs so that we don’t look at geo-return, let’s say from a program standpoint, but on a larger pool,” he said. This would allow Europe to combine competitiveness with national returns.

Europe’s ambitions are high, but its means are limited by the size of the central budget. The proposed EU budget for defence and space is €131bn for the next period. However, the EU budget represents only one per cent of European GDP.

Budgetary constraints

In the United States, federal spending accounts for roughly 40 per cent of GDP. This gives the American government much more power to drive space development through public money. Mr Kubilius noted that this is the biggest difference between the two regions.

“If we want to be on the same level as Americans, we need to understand what is the difference one and forty per cent of United States level,” said the commissioner. This fiscal gap limits the potential for large-scale European constellations and infrastructure.

I don’t know what are we waiting for before we put a place of legislation of this kind in Europe, a European Act.
— Giulio Ranzo, Avio

Despite these hurdles, Europe has shown that it can deliver superior results with fewer resources. The Galileo navigation system is a prime example of this efficiency. It provides better performance than the American GPS at a fraction of the cost.

“Galileo has cost a fourth of what the GPS systems has costed and the performance is greater,” said Mr Drouet. He urged the continent to be proud of its technological achievements. Europe possesses all the necessary strengths to remain a leader.

Competitive success

The challenge for the next decade is to turn these technological wins into commercial scale. Europe must decide if it will follow the American trend of vertical integration. This model combines launch, satellite manufacturing, and ground operations into a single entity. Currently, Europe is moving in the opposite direction by merging existing satellite manufacturers. Mr Ranzo warned that this strategy might miss the crucial AI and data segments. These technologies are essential for the future of space-based services.

Commissioner Kubilius remains committed to this path of unification. He believes that simplifying the rules will help industries become more competitive globally. The goal is to create a mature market that can attract private investors. By pooling resources and simplifying regulations, the continent can still turn its technological brilliance into something approaching global dominance.