Military Contractors Battle Congressional Push for Defense Equipment Right-to-Repair

Congress is advancing ambitious legislation that would force military contractors to provide the Department of Defense with unrestricted access to repair data, parts, and tools—a move that industry groups argue threatens proprietary information and economic viability.

The proposed right-to-repair mandate, embedded in competing versions of the 2025 and 2026 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), would require defense contractors to grant the military the ability to repair and modify weapons systems, aircraft, and equipment independently. While proponents frame it as a cost-saving measure for taxpayers, contractors warn the requirement would undermine innovation, force price controls, and potentially drive companies from the defense market entirely.

The Legislative Push

Senator Elizabeth Warren and Representative Marie Gluesenkamp Pérez have spearheaded the effort, introducing proposals that would require defense contractors to provide “fair and reasonable access” to all repair materials, including proprietary technical data and software. The Senate’s approach introduces a concept called “Instructions for Continued Operational Readiness” (ICOR), modeled after the Federal Aviation Administration’s long-standing Instructions for Continued Airworthiness framework.

The language matters. While the House version emphasizes “fair and reasonable” pricing comparable to reseller rates, the Senate version contains no explicit trade secret protections, a distinction that has alarmed the defense industrial base.

Industry’s Core Objections

Military contractors argue their opposition isn’t about blocking repairs but protecting assets developed at private expense. Industry associations contend that Section 828 of the FY2025 NDAA and related provisions would eliminate trade secret protections, impose price controls, and force contractors to share information with direct competitors.

Key concerns include:

Intellectual property exposure: Contractors would be forced to disclose proprietary technical data that could be shared with competing firms, potentially undermining competitive advantages.

Economic disincentive: By eliminating recurring maintenance revenue streams—a substantial portion of defense business models—the mandate could reduce profitability and discourage companies from bidding on military contracts.

Price control implications: Government-imposed “fair and reasonable” pricing lacks market mechanisms, potentially creating unsustainable pricing structures particularly for smaller defense firms.

The Government’s Perspective

Supporters point to real-world examples where contractor lock-in has created inefficiencies. The restricted ability to repair F-35 fighter jets, certain military vehicles, and equipment requiring contractor technicians at sea are cited as cases where taxpayer interests have been subordinated to contractor revenue models.

A CSIS analysis notes that the government would need to assume significant new responsibilities, including expanded repair capacity, workforce skill development, and liability for any modifications made to systems—raising questions about whether cost savings would materialize.

The Data-as-a-Service Alternative

Industry groups have proposed a middle path: allowing the DOD to contract for “pay-per-use” access to contractor technical libraries, ensuring military readiness while preserving intellectual property protections. This model would grant access when needed without broad disclosure to competitors.

Defenders of existing arrangements argue that current DOD contracts already grant the government “unlimited rights” to operational and maintenance data for fully government-funded development, and “limited rights” for contractor-funded work—suggesting the right-to-repair mandate may be redundant.

What’s at Stake

The debate carries implications far beyond individual contracts. If enacted, the mandate could reshape the defense industrial base by making government sales less attractive to contractors, potentially shrinking the pool of companies competing for military business. Authorized dealers and supply chain participants could see business models disrupted, and unit costs for military equipment may increase as manufacturers adjust pricing to offset lost maintenance revenue.

As Congress continues deliberating the final NDAA language for 2026, the outcome will signal whether policymakers prioritize transparency and military self-sufficiency or maintain contractor-friendly models that preserve innovation incentives and industrial participation.

Photo by TheOtherKev on Pixabay