Right-to-repair proponents remain cautiously optimistic that the final version of the 2027 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) will allow military service members to have more control, therefore improving national security while simultaneously saving American taxpayers a lot of money.
This year’s major defense legislation is still in the drafting stages, though right-to-repair provisions were included Thursday as part of a bipartisan amendment approved by the House Armed Services Committee (HASC). However, those who want right-to-repair included in the final version are pushing hard considering that similar actions occurred as part of the Fiscal Year 2026 NDAA negotiation process but were ultimately stripped when the final bill was adopted.
Current law allows for contracts that often force the military’s highly capable service members to rely on contracting personnel to repair equipment, which critics claim bloat costs, cause major product delays, give a financial advantage to defense contractors, and puts the financial onus on U.S. taxpayers who collectively subsidize national defense.
“It was great to see right-to-repair provisions be included as an amendment during the House Armed Services Committee’s markup,” Virginia Burger, senior defense policy analyst at the government watchdog POGO, told Military.com. “Allowing the military the right to repair its own equipment is common sense: it benefits taxpayers, service members, and the country’s national security as a whole.”
Army Secretary Daniel Driscoll, while testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee in May 2026, called right-to-repair “one of the most important things, and I don’t say this to be over the top.” He said during the same hearing that its inclusion “could be the decisive point between us being successful somewhere 6,000 miles away in the Indo-Pacific or failing our mission.” Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth endorsed that trajectory.
Nearly a year before that, in June 2025, then-Navy Secretary John Phelan said he was a “huge supporter of the right to repair.” Phelan was removed from his position in April 2026, becoming the first top military official to depart during President Trump’s second term.
Burger cited the “intense” debate surrounding its inclusion, believing that support expressed by Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.), the Democratic ranking member of the HASC, helped push it across the line. It remains to be seen whether it will last in the long term.
During last year’s NDAA negotiations, lawmakers in both the House and Senate voted to include right-to-repair provisions in each respective chamber’s draft. However, those provisions were ultimately removed from the compromise bill drafted by the conference committee even as the Trump administration signaled support for its inclusion.
“I still remain skeptical,” Burger said. “This time last year, right-to-repair in some capacity was reflected in the House and Senate versions of the bill, but was still ultimately stripped out in conference. We still have a long way to go before this is concretely codified into law.”
How Right-to-Repair Was Included in NDAA Draft
As more than 900 amendments were deliberated by the HASC on Thursday and into last Friday morning, right-to-repair was one of the few issues that moved beyond party politics and gained common ground.
The amendment was introduced June 4 in bipartisan fashion by Rep. Pat Harrigan (R-N.C.), a former Green Beret, and Rep. Maggie Goodlander (D-N.H.).
“Right to repair is in the House’s final version of the NDAA, and every service that asked us for it is going to get it,” Harrigan said in a statement. “When you are contemplating a protracted conflict in a far-off contested environment, where access to contractors may be limited and rapid organic maintenance is critical to mission success, this is a readiness requirement, not a nice to have.”
Goodlander, in her own statement upon the amendment’s introduction, called it “both common sense and deeply American” to give U.S. service members the tools and ability to fix and maintain their own equipment.
“For decades, our military has been forced to operate under a broken system that makes even routine repairs unnecessarily difficult, threatens readiness, and costs taxpayers billions of dollars,” Goodlander said. “This amendment cuts red tape, closes loopholes, and helps ensure our warfighters can do the jobs we’ve asked them to do.”
Biggest Reasons Cited for Right-to-Repair Inclusion
Proponents of the right-to-repair inclusion in the FY27 NDAA cite how higher-ups within the Trump administration have openly endorsed such provisions.
There’s also the effects on the military itself, of course. One example advocates point to is the link between repair limitations and military readiness, compounded by ballooning budgets, such as how the $2 trillion F-35 program faces delays and costly maintenance problems.
In both 2023 and 2024, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) cited concerns regarding delays in setting up military service depot to complete complex repairs, inadequate equipment to keep aircraft operational, and maintenance and supply delays affecting aircraft readiness. The F-35 fleet mission capable rate, or the percentage of time the aircraft can perform one of its tasked missions, was about 55% in March 2023, per the GAO.
By 2024, the office said that both the Air Force and Navy reduced their projected annual flying times by 19% and 45%, respectively, due in part to technical issues like software stability combined with operating and support costs.
Burger told Military.com that right-to-repair is the right route moving forward due to an amalgamation based on military readiness, cost and national security. She used an example of a Marine deployed on an island in the Pacific whose generator knob breaks off and prevents a Combat Operations Center tent from staying upright.
“Wouldn’t it be handy if you could just fix that yourself?” Burger said. “However, when you purchased or procured that piece of equipment, it was written into the contract that only the defense contractor you purchased it from can fix it or replace that.
“You are then left in a lurch. Where are we sending this generator, back to stateside? Are we shipping out a new one? What are the costs of that, right? That’s a simplified example, but this is the reality of what happens. The U.S. military pays to fly out contractors, civilian sourced repair officials, to fix stuff on deployed ships.”
She also cited the ongoing conflict in Iran, and how if a U.S. ship deployed in the Strait of Hormuz has a part that needs replacement, sailors on board cannot fix it. Instead, the military has to pay to fly out a defense contractor like Raytheon or Lockheed Martin and then incurs those additional costs.
Dissent Among Ranking Members
The legislators’ measure, adopted by voice vote during the committee’s markup session, calls on contractors that “assert less-than-government purpose rights” to be required to provide a comprehensive list including claimed data or software; factual documentation of private development funding; and clause-specific, unlimited-rights exclusions.
Those contractors who fail to comply “shall result in the deliverable being treated as provided with government purpose rights.”
But Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Ala.), the chair of the HASC, said that the amendment would “force companies to choose” between protecting their IP and working with the Pentagon, according to the Federal News Network.
He claimed that the right-to-repair inclusion has drawn “strong opposition” from the Aerospace Industries Association, the National Defense Industrial Association, the National Association of Manufacturers, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Association of Equipment Manufacturers, and others. “There is a more balanced path forward,” Rogers said.
“Many will choose to protect their IP,” Rogers said. “The result will be fewer innovative companies in the defense market, and thus fewer cutting-edge capabilities available to the warfighter. Also, those companies that do continue to work with the department will charge more to account for the loss of their IP, reducing the department’s buying power.
That was when Rep. Smith chimed in, saying that the amendment doesn’t strip IP rights.
“The first part of the 21st century—vendor lock was everywhere, IP was a major problem,” Smith said. “Industry took complete advantage of defense contractors who negotiated horrific deals and wound up locking us into things that caused massive increases in costs.
“I think it’s also worth noting that IP is important. And I do understand private industry—they’re very twitchy about this, and for understandable reasons. That’s their secret sauce.”
The Senate Armed Services Committee is deliberating on the NDAA this week.
Read the full article here