‘Right To Repair:’ Law of Unintended Consequences

Whether aboard ship at sea, deployed on a forward operating base, or in the middle of contingency operations, U.S. service members deserve every tool to maintain and repair their equipment quickly. No one disputes this, which is why proponents of so-called “right to repair” in the defense acquisition world have been so quick to use it.

And, in truth, the proposal pushed by Reps. Maggie Goodlander and Pat Harrigan in NDAA deliberations highlights real frustrations – delayed repairs, flown-in contractors for simple fixes, and degraded readiness. People of goodwill on all sides want troops to be able to fix what they are trained to fix and save time, money, and lives; but this “right to repair” legislation is a blunt instrument that overshoots its stated goal and risks harming the very readiness it claims to protect.

Counterproductively, however, this proposal imposes a default of “government purpose rights” for virtually all technical data, computer software, and documentation delivered under future War Department contracts, unless a contractor meets a high evidentiary bar with clear and convincing proof of more restrictive rights, plus a compliant assertions table, private-funding documentation, segregable exclusions, and portion markings.

The consequences of such new federal power will be bad for business, bad for innovation, bad for competition, and bad for the U.S. warfighter.

Right to repair

This attempt to legislate greater federal control over intellectual property and data is not targeted relief for warfighters; it is a blanket presumption that shifts the burden dramatically and opens the door to broader sharing of contractor data with third parties for government purposes.

While rhetoric focuses on troops repairing gear in the field, the bill text creates default rights that apply across competitive and non-competitive procurements, with limited carve-outs and significant new obligations on industry.

The real barriers to readiness are often not intellectual property at all. Many units and ships operate with inaccurate manifests and missing parts because of longstanding logistics and IT system shortcomings.

These are problems of data management, forecasting, and supply chain execution, and granting broader data rights does nothing to fix these root causes. Instead, such a course of action would only pretend to solve readiness while leaving the actual bottlenecks untouched.

Worse, the new law will likely raise costs for taxpayers. Contractors facing the prospect of losing control over privately developed IP – and potentially seeing it shared with competitors – will rationally and obviously price that risk into every proposal.

As Minnesota Rep. Brad Finstad observed during debate, companies will no longer sell just a product, they will be forced to sell their IP as well. This will lead to higher prices. Businesses are not going to give up their IP for free.

More so, the size of the Defense industrial base will see counterproductive effects. “This will drive commercial companies out of the defense industrial base because they'll no longer be competitive in the commercial market if they give up the rights to their IP,” Finstad said. “This amendment will also enable the department to share an original manufacturer's privately funded manufacturing trade secrets with any competitor for any government purpose, including to compete against the original manufacturer.”

The Defense business model breaks down further under a right to repair approach. Companies invest in R&D expecting returns from initial sales, sustainment work, and licensing of their innovations, but the proposal effectively tells them, “Design and deliver affordably for us, then hand over the data so we no longer need you for maintenance and repair.”

Remove those three revenue opportunities and rational firms, especially smaller innovators and commercial companies the War Department is trying to attract, will either raise prices dramatically or exit the defense market altogether.

DoW already has what it needs.

What makes this attempt at state-control of data all the more stupefying is that the War Department already possesses the tools to acquire the rights it needs. Under existing law, including 10 U.S.C. § 3771, the Secretary of War must prescribe regulations balancing government needs with contractors’ legitimate proprietary interests. Section 3771 protects incentives for private investment in innovation while ensuring the government obtains necessary data rights for national defense, competition, and sustainment.

Rules turn on funding source: government-funded items generally yield unlimited rights; privately funded items allow contractors to restrict release outside the government, with targeted exceptions (including operation, maintenance, installation, or training data, excluding detailed manufacturing or process data). Specially negotiated licenses provide additional flexibility to buy exactly what is required on a case-by-case basis.

The Army itself demonstrated this works. In May, Army Materiel Command leadership highlighted successful renegotiation of IP sharing with industry partners, enabling organic 3D printing of critical helicopter components like control knobs—reducing costs and speeding repairs without blanket defaults. Commanding general of Army Materiel Command

Lt. Gen. Chris Mohan noted that renegotiating how the Army and industry share intellectual property unlocks advanced manufacturing at the tactical edge. “By renegotiating how the Army and industry share intellectual property, it gives us the ability to unlock the true potential of advanced manufacturing at the tactical edge, ensuring that Soldiers can fix what’s broken and return to the fight faster than ever before.”

Government purpose rights carry real consequences. Even when a contractor proves private development, the framework can still grant the government rights to detailed manufacturing and process data in certain cases, and allows release or disclosure to others for U.S. government purposes. The gap between the amendment’s “troops fixing their own gear” messaging and these operational realities is substantial.

An IP ombudsman to help resolve disputes constructively is a reasonable step. Binding mediation panels, however, where the Department can unilaterally determine the outcome if agreement cannot be reached, tilt the field too far and discourage good-faith negotiation.

Last year, Congress asked the Department to identify specific IP gaps so targeted solutions could be crafted. As of June 2026, that report remains outstanding. Rushing to default rights before receiving that analysis is the opposite of deliberate policymaking.

The defense industrial base is already under pressure. Our research has found the Department now engages with roughly 40% fewer small suppliers than a decade ago. Adding uncertainty over control of proprietary data will only accelerate that contraction, deterring the very commercial innovators and mom-and-pop manufacturers the U.S. industrial base and armed forces need for resilience and competition.

Our forces deserve better than a false choice between readiness and innovation. The solution is straightforward: the Department should use its existing authorities – including specially negotiated licenses and the balanced framework in 10 U.S.C. § 3771 – to identify precisely what data rights it requires for specific systems and negotiate fair terms upfront.

By safeguarding American innovators’ property rights, lawmakers shield and incentivize the development and integration of new approaches and tools that leverage our nation’s industrial might. Such protection and rewards are what engineers and entrepreneurs need to deliver capabilities that improve and speed sustainment for U.S. warfighters.  

Jeff Kojac was a Marine Corps officer for 30 years and is now Director of Studies at the Baroni Center for Government Contracting, Costello College of Business, George Mason University.

image: U.S. Army Spc. Jacarius Jones, assigned to the 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment, conducts maintenance on a high-capacity wireless mesh platform, during Project Convergence Capstone 6 (PC-C6) on Fort Irwin, California, July 24, 2026. PC-C6 is focused on experimenting with future warfighting capabilities, demonstrating interoperability, and integrating joint and multinational participants and systems across vast distances and multiple domains. (U.S. Army photo by Spc. Nathan Benson)