HASC advances right to repair proposal, industry pushes back

The House Armed Services Committee adopted a far-reaching right to repair amendment Thursday over the objections of the committee’s chairman and several Republicans, setting up a major fight with industry over the Pentagon’s access to technical data and software. 

The amendment, offered by Rep. Maggie Goodlander (D-N.H.) and Rep. Pat Harrigan (R-N.C.), would establish government-purpose rights as the default for any technical data, software and software documentation delivered under future Defense Department contracts unless a contractor can demonstrate the need for more restrictive intellectual property rights. 

The measure was adopted by voice vote during the committee’s markup of the fiscal 2027 National Defense Authorization Act, which was approved late Thursday. 

Contractors “asserting less-than-government purpose rights” would be required to provide a detailed list identifying each piece of data or software they believe should receive special protection, evidence that the technology was developed using private development funding and clause-specific, unlimited-rights exclusions. If a contractor fails to provide this documentation, the Pentagon would automatically receive government-purpose rights.

In addition, the measure would grant the Pentagon government-purpose rights to technical data, software and documentation if the defense secretary determines that a contractor improperly marked information as proprietary or failed to exclude unrestricted rights categories.

“For decades, our service members have been forced to rely on a deeply broken system, a status quo that has made repairing equipment on the battlefield impossible,” Goodlander said. “It has threatened our readiness. It has cost American taxpayers billions of dollars, and for this reason, we have seen every service secretary that has come before this committee support our amendment and our effort to try to codify the right to repair and to fix this broken status quo system.”

While the chairman’s mark already has some right to repair language — the bill would create a formal mediation process for IP disputes between the Pentagon and contractors — supporters of the amendment argued the department needs a more comprehensive solution.

“Section 842 … is the version the contractors are comfortable with. It adds language that lets a company tie the department in knots by claiming almost anything is a trade secret. That is not a right to repair, that is a loophole with a help desk,” Rep. Sara Jacobs (D-Calif.) said.

“You’ll hear we’re seizing their intellectual property. We’re not. We’re paying a fair price to fix equipment we already bought. The Army secretary said it plainly, ‘The Pentagon doesn’t want to take the data, it wants to buy it.’ Every trade secret protection stays exactly where it is, and when the Government Accountability Office went looking for a single case where the government compromised a contractor’s IP, it couldn’t find one,” she added.

Meanwhile, Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Ala.), the committee’s chairman, said that the amendment would “force companies to choose” between protecting their IP and working with the Pentagon.

“Many will choose to protect their IP. 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,” Rogers said.

“For these reasons, we’ve heard strong opposition to the amendment 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 many others. There is a more balanced path forward. The chairman’s mark addresses IP concerns through the targeted reforms developed in consultation with the Army, and the Army has indicated its support for that approach,” he added.

Ranking Member Adam Smith (D-Wash.) pushed back, saying the amendment doesn’t strip IP rights — instead, it seeks to strike a balance between protecting companies’ IP and addressing decades-long Pentagon concerns over contract-imposed restrictions on how service members can repair and maintain their equipment.

“The first part of the 21st century — vendor lock was everywhere, IP was a major problem. 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,” Smith said.

“This amendment does not strip IP rights. I am going to support the amendment, because I think it pushes, but not too hard. I think there has been a lot of work here to try and strike this balance,” he added.

Last year, when the right to repair reforms gained momentum and wide support from the Trump administration, the House and Senate, and senior DoD leaders, right to repair language was stripped from the 2026 defense policy bill after strong industry pushback — industry groups spent tens of millions of dollars lobbying against right to repair legislation. 

Following the amendment’s adoption, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce immediately issued a statement backing the chairman’s mark while strongly opposing “any attempt to impose a more expansive right-to-repair framework.”

“The long-term costs of such a policy would far outweigh any near-term operational benefit. Reduced industry participation, diminished innovation, and an erosion of the defense industrial base are consequences no short-term gain can justify,” Keith Webster, president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Defense and Aerospace Council, wrote in a letter to the leaders of the House Armed Services Committee. 

The bill now heads to the House floor — lawmakers are expected to consider the legislation before they leave Washington for the July recess. The Senate Armed Services Committee will mark up its version of the NDAA next week. 

“There will be many, many more arguments about this. We’ll get into conference, we’ll talk about it, but at first glance, it seems like after several years of trying to get this into that very difficult sweet spot — the sponsors of this amendment have accomplished that,” Smith said.

If you would like to contact this reporter about recent changes in the federal government, please email anastasia.obis@federalnewsnetwork.com or reach out on Signal at (301) 830-2747.

Copyright © 2026 Federal News Network. All rights reserved. This website is not intended for users located within the European Economic Area.