The successful Artemis II trip around the Moon was a historic achievement 鈥 the first crewed lunar fly-by in more than 50 years, and the greatest distance yet travelled by humans from our 鈥溾.
The mission was by engineering, scientific and technical feats, by the astronauts and team at NASA and , who got the crew there and back safely.
With the technical achievement came , too. The first woman and the first person of colour to orbit the Moon. As astronaut Victor Glover it, 鈥減eople need to be able to see themselves in the things that they dream about鈥.
Artemis II deserves celebration. But the celebration should not crowd out political scrutiny.
Power and resources on the Moon
Artemis II is one mission in a broader US to start establishing a permanent Moon base by 2030.
This is about more than exploration. As US President Donald Trump has said, it is about 鈥淎merican space superiority鈥, establishing a 鈥渟ustained American presence鈥 and developing a lunar economy. The US colonial thinking of a 鈥溾 returns.
The bigger picture is that the US sees itself in a 鈥渟pace race鈥 with what NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman has called its 鈥溾, China.
One point of conflict is access to finite, valuable resources at the lunar south pole, where could sustain life and provide rocket fuel for missions to Mars. More speculative, profit-driven visions also play a part, from mining to extracting resources from and bringing them to Earth.
Global rules 鈥 beyond the globe
International space treaties, largely forged during the 20th century Cold War, have little to say about appropriating resources off-Earth.
The US wants to shape the rules, and the US-led are part of that effort. They are non-binding principles, but consequential.
Grounded in the of 1967, they offer a 鈥溾 for how resource activities, and other unsettled topics, may be governed.
Many observers see the Artemis Accords as than China鈥檚 counterpart, the . However, critics argue the Artemis Accords multilateral, consensus-based processes.
Sixty-one countries have signed the Artemis Accords. Only have joined since Trump鈥檚 return as US president, versus 19 in the year prior. It remains to be seen if the trend continues.
Why US leadership in space demands scrutiny
US leadership in space is often discussed . This binary view can help the US escape scrutiny, especially in allied nations.
Consider America鈥檚 recent actions here on Earth. As Artemis II drew our gaze skyward, the US鈥揑srael war on Iran was intensifying.
In an expletive-filled , Trump with a threat that 鈥渁 whole civilization will die tonight鈥 unless Tehran reopened the Strait of Hormuz.
The US also threatened to target , after one strike hit a , reportedly killing more than 150 people.
All of this occurred amid the and in Gaza, where Trump鈥檚 鈥淏oard of Peace鈥 has faced for seeking to function as an 鈥渁lternative UN鈥.
Trump has also territorial ambitions toward Greenland, saying: 鈥淲e need it鈥. He floated Canada as the fifty-first US state. He of the 鈥渉onour of taking Cuba鈥. He he would 鈥渞un鈥 Venezuela.
All of these places have natural resources that would give the US strategic advantages, including in critical minerals and oil.
This conduct has raised concerns from and . Even US allies have spoken up, for not joining the Iran war.
Hard questions about a US-led future in space
A disregard for international law on Earth leads us to question how the US will ultimately act in space.
Scholars from the Global South, notably law professor , have long argued that the US uses international law selectively and in line with its own interests. This is not new with Trump, even if the pattern has now become more visible and more intense. What may be changing is that more of the world is taking notice, including states that once benefited from that status quo.
At the World Economic Forum in Davos this year, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney the 鈥渞ules-based order鈥 as 鈥減artially false鈥, in which 鈥渋nternational law applied with varying rigour depending on the identity of the accused or the victim鈥. He was not speaking about space 鈥 but his point applies here too.
This puts question marks over US leadership in space 鈥 and whether it will abide by agreed rules when control over lunar resources is no longer just a hypothetical question. Even America鈥檚 own Artemis Accords principles may prove optional if they stop being convenient to US interests.
That question is worth considering, given Trump has already justified for this reason. Even NATO .
No superpower should be immune from scrutiny 鈥 on Earth or beyond.
, Postdoctoral Fellow, Faculty of Law & Justice,
This article is republished from under a Creative Commons license. Read the .
