California Rejects Military Plan to Increase SpaceX Launches
State panel denies Musk for a second time.
WASHINGTON, August 20, 2025 – It’s been a turbulent summer for Elon Musk. His most recent political struggle involves the California Coastal Commission.
The state agency responsible for protecting California’s coastline has unanimously rejected a U.S. Space Force proposal to double the number of SpaceX launches from Vandenberg Space Force Base in Southern California.
The military requested to increase the annual launches from 50 to 100, but on August 14, the Coastal Commission vetoed the plan, citing insufficient consideration of potential environmental impacts on local wildlife and neighboring communities.
“There are a number of unanswered questions that make it really quite impossible for us to engage,” said the Commission’s Vice Chair Caryl Hart. “We see no appearance by U.S. Air Force, U.S. Space Force or SpaceX to answer the questions.”
This latest denial escalated the ongoing tensions between Musk and the Coastal Commission, who are currently engaged in a lawsuit.
Last October, the Commission voted 6-4 against increasing SpaceX launches from 36 to 50 per year in Santa Barbara County, ruling that SpaceX required a commercial activity permit.
In response, Musk sued the Commission, alleging that his political views were influencing the decision. California Gov. Gavin Newsom, (D) sided with Musk on the dispute.
“These are good commissioners. But you got to call balls and strikes. And trust me, I’m not big on the Elon Musk bandwagon right now. So that’s me calling balls and strikes,” said Newsom.
Politico reported the CCC’s action might not matter because the SpaceX rocket launches are federal and do not need local permitting.
Notably, Musk’s name was not mentioned in the most recent rejection, which focused mainly on environmental concerns.
“There’s a possibility of causing irreversible harm to our coastline and our coastal resources,” said Commissioner Raymond Jackson. “We owe it to the public and to the future to insist on data-driven, transparent decision making.”
Member discussion