The Government Doesn't Want You To See the Unused Space Force Logos
It took the Air Force four years to release redacted records of its quest to create spiffy new uniforms for the newest branch of the military.

As Sunshine Week 2024 draws to a close, the Air Force has marked the occasion by hiding the draft designs of logos and uniforms for the Space Force.
Reason filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the Air Force in January 2020 for drafts or alternate designs for the logo of the nascent Space Force, one of the Trump administration's more expensive and whimsical farces.
A quick four years later, the Air Force released 122 pages of communications between the public servants who designed the uniforms, logo, and seal for Star Fleet—excuse me, Space Force.
Unfortunately for everyone who was looking forward to seeing Project Runway: Department of Defense Edition, the Air Force redacted all images of the draft versions, citing Exemption (b)(5) of the FOIA.

Exemption (b)(5) is also known as the "deliberative process" exemption. It protects discussions between bureaucrats about policy decisions, under the reasoning that bureaucrats wouldn't be as frank if everything they said got dragged into the public eye (by annoying reporters like myself).
Congress amended the FOIA in 2016 to state that agencies should operate with a "presumption of openness" and only withhold documents when there is a "foreseeable harm," not out of fear of embarrassment. Despite that, federal agencies still regularly abuse exemptions, especially (b)(5). In this case, the Air Force seems to be claiming that its staff would be afraid to design uniforms if their mock-ups were public. Sorry, but fashion's a tough business.
All is not lost, though. Some tidbits slipped by the censors.
For example, the communications include a scene of senior military officials scrambling to alter the uniform of Gen. John W. Raymond, the first chief of space operations, after President Donald Trump chose blue thread stitch for Space Force's new uniforms.
"Not sure if Gen. Raymond already reached out to you, but he wanted to see the possibility of getting his uniform turned to the blue thread stitch that was chosen by POTUS today ASAP," a message forwarded to numerous Air Force staff on January 15, 2020, read.
An Air Force brigadier general coordinating the response to the blue thread emergency replied:
"This is history in the making, and we get to play a part! Imagine the stories we'll get to tell future generations and to say we were there. Can't wait to read about this in textbooks on American history. What an honor! For now, immediate action please."
Is that sarcasm I detect, general? Surely not about something as serious as American space dominance.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
In any event, the Space Force is unconstitutional.
On what basis is the Space Force unconstitutional while the Air Force and Coast Guard are not?
All three are ghey.
Oh, the USAF is also unconstitutional. The Coast Guard, I'm not sure about.
Not so sure? You seem overly confident about your other opinions, why wavering on this one?
I am not "overly confident". I am appropriately confident. As we all agree, the Constitution is a delegation of power from the people to the Federal government, and powers not delegated are reserved, etc .etc.
Congress has delegated powers under Art 1 S8 over the army and navy:
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
So no authority over air or space.
Under Art 2,
The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States
So he's not c-in-c of the USAF or the UFP, er, USSF.
Now, all that is required is a remedying Amendment, which would pass in about 5 minutes - but until that amendment comes into existence, the Constitution is clear. Of course if you want to adopt a living constitution interpretation, which is generally opposed by conservatives and the right, then you might be able to squeeze the USAF and USSF in - but then you'd have to accept the general principle.
FWIW the first flights preceded the drafting of the Constitution, and both Washington and Franklin were well aware of them.
“So no authority over air or space.”
So, what about Army helicopters, Navy and Marine fighters, bombers, and attack aircraft? They spend time in the air.
But this is really just a rehash of “The 2nd Amendment only allows citizens to carry muskets”, or “Freedom of the press only covers manually operated printing presses.”
But this is really just a rehash of “The 2nd Amendment only allows citizens to carry muskets”, or “Freedom of the press only covers manually operated printing presses.”
It isn't, for reasons which you will, or at least, should, accept after I've laid them out.
Rights of the People are not analogous to powers of the government. Constitutionally, the People have fundamental power, and the Federal government has no powers except those which the people have explicitly delegated to them. The Constitution, however, nowhere grants rights - it merely recognises or enumerates some rights that the People already possess and elsehwere notes that other rights - unenumerated - exist.
This means that expansive readings of rights elements of the Constitution are to be preferred, while we should prefer restrictive reading of delegations of power or authority.
interpretation.
(But you're required to take the rough with the smooth. Hence if you don't restrict 2A to arms in existence in 1789, nor do you restrict 8A to what was regarded as cruel and unusual then either.)
The Air Force started out as the Army Air Corps, for that reason.
Well said. Give them an inch and they will take a million kilometers.
The Coast Guard is an evolution of the Revenue Service, which is a recognized federal function. Additionally, national defense is a recognized federal function, and the Constitution doesn't specify that the only armed forces are the USN and US Army, but specifically granted powers to Congress to fund those two services, it doesn't say these were the only services that could be funded. As they were the only two services in existence, with the USMC falling under the USN, I doubt they would have specified funding for a force dedicated to aerospace warfare one hundred and twenty years before powered flight
it doesn’t say these were the only services that could be funded
Yeah, unfortunately that argument allows Congress to do pretty much anything when the Constitution doesn't say they can't do it.
You can't even use an intention argument - because the same argument would require that the US not have a standing army.
Is it because the Constitution of the United States only gives to Congress the power to establish, support and maintain the armed forces of the United States, or because orangemanbad?
Nothing to do with superannuated pols of any party. I have used this point to argue against a textualist position pretty much since Scalia's heyday. All textualists find a way to explain why somehow the armed forces are different and a textualist reading uniquely does not apply in this case.
I see it as an argument FOR the textualist interpretation. You pointed out that the Constitution only grants the federal government the power to organize and fund land and sea forces. They should have added the amendment about air and space forces.
IT's not so much an argument for textualism, but pointing out that textualists , if they truly believed in it, would agree and hence push for an amendment, as yet not forthcoming. Instead, when textualism leads to quixotic outcomes, why then the case is alter'd.
The Constitution specifically grants the power to raise and find and Army and a Navy but doesn't necessarily limit the armed forces to only those two branches.
The constitution hasn’t been able to stop any stupid idea.
I agree. We may each regard the other as the stopped clock.
It does because powers not specifically delegated to Congress are not supposed to be grabbed by them. This is basic US Constitutional jurisprudence.
SRG2 explained this already:
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
So no rules or regulations for the Air Force or Space Force are authorized.
Just call it a branch of the Navy.
The Army is unconstitutional too. It's been around for way more than 2 years.
Spoilers: I have found the other logo designs.
https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Starfleet_insignia
Winnebago Eagle 5 was one. Another was a giant dildo crushing the sun.
They must not be very proud of the woman with a penis fucking an alien baby?
Who holds the copyright to the uniforms before selection? Might that also figure into it?
If they are created by a contracted professional design firm, it depends on the contract. Usually the federal agencies will put language in there that stipulates that they (the government) own basically everything created as part of the design process. I've had to hand over files like 3D models used to create architectural renderings, or unflattened photoshop documents due to contractual language, which I would never hand over to a private sector client.
If it's created by a federal employee, then the public should own it. I don't believe that the government can copyright anything for themselves.
ChatGPT?
SPACE FORCE! FUCK YEAH!
Join me, and together we can rule the galaxy!
SPACE FORCE
"We are so high!"
UK's DragonFire laser is said to cost $13 per shot.
A spokesman for the Pentagon said if they could bring the cost up to $15,000 per shot they would be interested in the program.
Meanwhile, California is still planning a high speed train at infinite dollars per mile of track laid.
Here's my suggestion for Space Force uniforms:
https://i.pinimg.com/236x/0e/6a/ee/0e6aeebe2860afff2350bb3ef4ffce2d.jpg
What exactly does this individual identify as? Wouldn't want to misgender.
It's an Olympian. My guess is ATM.
Anyway, FTD florists got there first.
Was Trump responsible for moving the Project Runway Fashion show from the Air Force Academy to Bergdorf Goodman ?
Was the Surgeon General allowed into the Dressing Room?
the nascent Space Force, one of the Trump administration's more expensive and whimsical farces.
Probably true. Yet the Biden administration hasn't folded the Space Force back into the Air Force. And as time goes on, it will become more and more difficult to do that. Perhaps at some point they could be recombined into an "Air and Space Force"?
A lot of phony baloney jobs at stake.
The US military has had a space program for over 70 years. Given where orbital technology is going and our dependence on it, and the increasing presence in orbit of hostile or potentially hostile countries, it's not a bad idea and certainly not a "farce" for the US orbital military presence to be made a separate command.
Whimsical? It's not guarding against aliens (though it may someday). It's guarding against China and Russia arming their satellites in space.
Remember the panic like 3 weeks ago when when the IT alerted congress about Russian Nukes In Space!? Yeah me neither. But I feel safer just knowing SPACE FORCE is out there somewhere saving democracy.
I hope they got approval from Desilu and the Roddenberry estate for that seal, it looks mighty similar to the starfleet insignia if you ask me.
"Unfortunately for everyone who was looking forward to seeing Project Runway: Department of Defense Edition, the Air Force redacted all images of the draft versions"
You just know it involves rainbows and unicorns.
Rainbows and unicorns are critical components of green energy. They should be front and center.
>spiffy new uniforms for the newest branch of the military.
The uniforms are cringe AF, ugly, and not even their fucking Generals can get them tailored properly.
The President is choosing the color of thread in uniforms? WTAF?
Nixonian
Probably featured Trump taking the lizard-people masks off Obama and Clinton.