"Space Law Is The First Domain Where Nations Agreed On Rules Before Having Practice": Military JAG-Turned-Attorney Trevor Hehn On Navigating The Legal Frontier Between Cold War Treaties And Commercial Space Ventures

The year is 2025, and humanity stands at the precipice of a new frontier. As private companies race to mine lunar resources and satellites maneuver in increasingly crowded orbits, the Cold War-era treaties governing space no longer suffice for an era where commercial interests push beyond Earth's atmosphere. Trevor Hehn, founder of Hehn Law PLLC, brings a unique perspective to this uncharted legal territory. As a former Army infantry officer and JAG with extensive operational law experience, combined with his role as co-founder of OrbitsEdge (a space edge compute company), Hehn now advises innovative ventures in emerging and dual-use technologies from his practice in Maine.

In this exclusive interview, Hehn discusses the evolving legal landscape of the space economy, from the Artemis Accords to nuclear propulsion. Drawing on his interdisciplinary background in philosophy, law, military operations, and technology, he offers valuable insights into practicing law where traditional regulations haven't caught up to rapidly advancing commercial space ventures. Beyond space, his expertise extends to AI, new nuclear technologies, and defense applications, positioning him as a strategic advisor for clients operating at the intersection of cutting-edge innovation and public interest.

What sparked your interest in space law, and how did your journey from military service to becoming a specialized space attorney unfold?

“My interest in space goes back to childhood. I went through a phase of wanting to be an astronaut in middle school, participated in the Science Olympiad with a focus on astronomy, and chose astronomy as my science requirement during my philosophy degree in college. I've always been fascinated with the night sky and experiencing the awesome wonder of our universe.

When my family moved to Maine in 2020 during COVID, breaking into the legal industry was challenging. While exploring career options, I spoke with a senior Coast Guard JAG who suggested checking out the Artemis Accords. He told me, "Where the internet industry and e-commerce is today, that's where space is going to be in another decade." Looking at the Accords, I realized this was an opportunity to have a career in space—something I never thought possible.

Before focusing on the law, I became a co-founder of OrbitsEdge, an edge compute company for space applications, to help bring the potential of space to more people. I later narrowed my focus to the practice of law within the space industry, recognizing my passion for policy and seeing how it all comes together when the rubber meets the road. I wanted to ensure contracts would reflect what parties actually intend when the facts of the agreement take place outside Earth's atmosphere, and how regulatory requirements flow down into those contracts.

My background as a military attorney in the JAG Corps proved tremendously beneficial. As a JAG, I practiced operational law, which includes the law of armed conflict, a focus area within international law, federal and some state law, and administrative regulations—all instrumental to success as a space lawyer. I realized I had the tools to master this emerging field, especially given how new commercial space law is. I stepped back from a more active role with OrbitsEdge to focus primarily on building my law practice for the space industry.” 

As a co-founder of OrbitsEdge and space attorney, what do you see as the most significant gap in the current international space law framework, particularly as it relates to private companies seeking to commercialize space resources?

“The international space law framework is really a work of art. I make this analogy because it wasn't predicated on a long history of practice like the Law of the Sea, the governance of the electromagnetic spectrum, or aviation law. Space is really the first domain where countries came together and said, "We want to operate in space in a way that makes sense to all of us, so what are the minimum points of agreement we need?"

It took ten years for the original space treaty, referred to as the Outer Space Treaty, to be negotiated and signed during the height of the Cold War, when Soviets and Americans were extremely antagonistic toward each other. Yet we still came together to make an agreement. That history is important looking forward because it allows people entering the space domain to recognize that space isn't a forbidden place anymore—it's approachable, even if implementation is challenging.

One significant gap the treaties left concerns mining in space, or "in situ resource utilization." If there are no claims of sovereignty in space—a bedrock principle of the Outer Space Treaty—how can a country or private company mine lunar regolith and extract useful resources? How can they gain economic benefit without territorial claims?

That's where the Artemis Accords come in. They provide a framework that doesn't contradict the Outer Space Treaty but informs practices as humanity builds a space economy, allowing for the use of those resources. By working within the existing framework, companies can navigate these gaps and begin operations.

A key difference of space operations that distinguishes them from terrestrial ones is the degree of planning and preparation required. The amount of planning, research, capital, and accounting for any number of unknowns necessitates that space companies be much more deliberate about their activities than they would be on Earth. There's a baseline of safety and concern for others that must be factored in for economic and mission success.

I think there's already much built into the process, and imposing specific international guidelines at this point might actually stifle development and prevent space from becoming a place of human flourishing.

Take OrbitsEdge as an example: the company enables terrestrial computing capabilities to operate in space environments. Space has historically suffered from outdated computing technology which limits spacecraft capabilities and tethers them to ground control. The James Webb telescope, which took decades to develop, relies on computing technology from the early 2000s because the flaws with that technology were known and could be controlled for. OrbitsEdge offers the ability to use today's technology for tomorrow's space missions, enabling activities like lunar mining, on-orbit manufacturing, and spacecraft maneuvering without excessive delays from Earth-based commands.”

The DoD and Space Force strategy documents suggest a shift in how commercial space assets integrate with national security. How do you navigate the legal complexities when advising clients whose technologies might serve both commercial and defense purposes?

“From my vantage point with my experience and background, I don't really see it as that complicated. I've spent considerable time focusing on the operational aspects of military action, so I can more easily distinguish between commercial and military uses of space services or spacecraft. I don’t mean to downplay how difficult this issue can be, it’s indeed highly sensitive because of the potential risks involved, I’m just comfortable with my background and experience and being able to readily parse the nuances to achieve clarity for my clients.

Where I find this intersection of commercial and defense uses gets complicated in practice is determining what does the distinction actually look like? That's where the conversations with clients become important. We discuss what is technically possible to distinguish the commercial use of their craft or service from military use.  

Take Earth observation or remote sensing, for example. How do you distinguish that from a spy satellite, which does similar things but is owned and operated by a government? If you want to provide farmers with information about their fields, how do you differentiate that from satellites used for combat purposes?

One technique to consider is to deliberately present the service to the public in a way that demonstrates the peaceful, aka the commercial, use of the satellite is to provide farmers a service which enhances the management of their crops. It could also include a technical distinction, such as a particular approach to transmitting the data through the use of the electromagnetic spectrum in a certain way.  There is no one right answer, so it requires both a deep understanding of the clients’ goals and the relevant regulatory environment.  

There are other steps companies can take in the way they are structured, such as housing military-specific product or service lines in a separate entity specifically designated for military use. Then, all contracts with military entities—US or foreign governments—would flow through that military entity. This allows a company to distinguish military uses from non-military ones, shifts liability to that entity, and creates a clear separation.

These are just a couple ways to help clients grow their businesses without impeding technological development.”

With regulatory changes on the horizon, how do you advise clients to navigate potential shifts in their operational landscape?

“When it comes to regulatory risk, it's a matter of looking at the impact on operations. If a change is going to significantly impact a business model, the key is identifying those challenges early so clients can participate in the conversation about resolving the issues.

This means talking with FAA, NOAA, FCC, and other relevant regulators to communicate the potential impact on their business. These conversations might not change anything directly, but they let regulators know there's a risk to industry from making certain changes.

The federal comment process through the Federal Register is one avenue for input on rule changes. Guidelines without the force of law are less concerning than actual regulations, which derive their authority from federal law.

If it's a business risk, companies might need to talk directly with their Congressional representatives or their staff—not just large defense contractors but smaller companies too—explaining how regulatory changes would impact them. They might speak with staff members on the committees that oversee the relevant executive branch work.

Another approach is publicizing the issue—getting it out for public consumption to build support around the impact of the proposed changes.

At the end of the day, my role is to provide advice. The decision on how to move forward remains with the client.”

How has your perspective informed your approach to emerging questions like space debris conflicts, orbital positioning, or other geopolitically contested issues?

“This is my favorite question! I love emerging issues—it's what interests me most in space and really beyond space, because it applies to any emerging technology. How do you navigate the regulatory landscape when technology doesn't fit neatly into existing regulations?

My approach combines the broad view I developed through my philosophy degree with the pragmatism I learned in the military. The military doesn't like to operate without authority, so knowing what authority exists is critical to successful military operations. I practiced this in the military—looking at the authorities for both combat and non-combat activities, understanding where to find those authorities, and presenting the requirements in those authorities as a way to get to “yes”.

Take space debris remediation. Is a US company prohibited from collecting debris? I don't know of a US law that prohibits this. What are the international risks? Well, the US government might provide "top cover" for that company, saying they're supervising it and fulfilling their obligations under the Outer Space Treaty.

The issue of space debris is deeper than simply identifying what law there is. It gets more complex because of the history of space being used for military purposes. A company lawfully operating under US supervision might risk losing its space debris collection spacecraft because the debris it’s after conceals another country’s military spacecraft. To avoid detection, the other country renders the US company’s spacecraft inoperable, thus causing its loss. That said, there’s less risk in the collection of smaller pieces of space debris because it’s technically more challenging to hide spacecraft in space debris.

Emerging technology might not require new regulations—a Cabinet Secretary could authorize implementation of the technology so long as it isn’t otherwise prohibited by law. And if the President supports the technology, the President could authorize its implementation if it’s not otherwise prohibited. The point is that knowing exactly which levers to activate to put emerging technology into practice is crucial. Regulations are certainly helpful, but moreso once the technology has sufficiently matured to a point where regulator oversight both ensures the continued operations of the technology and regulation actually contributes to increased adoption/implementation of the technologies.

Space nuclear technologies offer another compelling example. From science fiction, we know the future of space involves nuclear power in some form. More realistically, advances in material science and our understanding of nuclear reactors suggest that a space nuclear future is closer than people think.

Space nuclear encompasses nuclear thermal propulsion (where reactors heat propellant to generate thrust), nuclear electric propulsion, and radioisotope thermal power generators. The real issues concern public safety—how to protect the public from adverse effects.

Understanding the regulatory landscape requires looking at what Congress has done or said, whether there have been hearings or not, and at what the President has authorized. For space nuclear, there's an executive order directing federal agencies on how it can happen. So while there might not be a federal regulation in the Code of Federal Regulations, there is a known path forward.

An enterprising company developing space nuclear technology can take that path, though someone has to be first. I know of companies working on radioisotope thermal generators for applications like providing power on the moon after lunar sunset. These emerging technologies are coming to the forefront, and navigating them requires critical advice from attorneys familiar with bringing such technologies to market.”

About Trevor Hehn

Trevor Hehn is a forward-thinking legal strategist and founder of Hehn Law, a boutique law firm designed for today’s most innovative ventures. With a practice deeply rooted in emerging and dual-use technologies—including AI, new nuclear, space tech, and defense applications—Trevor serves as a critical legal partner for startups, growth-stage companies, and investors operating at the cutting edge of science and engineering.

Before founding Hehn Law PLLC, Trevor served as both an infantry officer and a Judge Advocate (JAG, aka military attorney) in the U.S. Army—experiences that continue to inform his practice with a deep understanding of national security, operational risk, and the regulatory landscape surrounding defense and dual-use technologies. He later co-founded OrbitsEdge, a space edge compute company, where he led legal and operational strategy during a period of reduced investment across the space sector. This dual exposure—military operations, law, and leadership plus startup life—gives Trevor practical insight into military operations, investor relations, government contracting, and compliance regimes such as ITAR, EAR, and evolving industry standards, positioning him uniquely to advise clients operating at the nexus of innovation and public interest.

Trevor’s legal career has been defined by his commitment to bridging the gap between transformative technologies and the complex legal frameworks that govern them. With experience spanning private practice, public interest law, venture-backed startups, and interdisciplinary research, he draws on a cross-disciplinary foundation in philosophy, law, and science and technology policy to help clients navigate high-stakes legal, regulatory, and ethical challenges. He regularly advises both U.S. and international clients seeking to comply with U.S. export, investment, and regulatory frameworks.

In addition to his deep sectoral expertise, Trevor counsels on a broad range of business law matters, including corporate formation, due diligence, compliance, internal governance and investigations, licensing, and commercial contracting. He partners closely with founders and executives not just as legal counsel, but as a strategic advisor who understands the demands of building in fast-moving, high-consequence environments.

A recognized voice on the legal and policy dimensions of space and dual-use technologies, Trevor has been invited to speak at the inaugural Commercial Space Law Symposium at Catholic Law, the Maine Space Conference, SpaceCom 2023, the Nuclear Emerging Technology for Space (NETS) 2025 Conference, and the upcoming  III Seminar Series on International Space Law: “Space Sustainability: Shaping an International Legal Framework for the Security, Safety, and Peaceful Uses of Outer Space” in Leicester Space Park, UK.

At the core of Trevor’s work is a strong ethical commitment to enabling technologies that promote human flourishing while managing risk. He is an advocate for responsible innovation, emphasizing transparency, accountability, and long-term thinking. Trevor is passionate about empowering visionary entrepreneurs to build the future—securely, sustainably, and in service of the public good.