Congress Quietly Strips Right-To-Repair Provisions From US Military Spending Bill (theregister.com)
- Reference: 0180348695
- News link: https://yro.slashdot.org/story/25/12/09/2123219/congress-quietly-strips-right-to-repair-provisions-from-us-military-spending-bill
- Source link: https://www.theregister.com/2025/12/09/us_military_right_to_repair_stripped/
> The House and Senate versions of the NDAA passed earlier both included provisions that would have extended common right-to-repair rules to US military branches, requiring defense contractors to provide access to technical data, information, and components that enabled military customers to quickly repair essential equipment. Both of those provisions were stripped from the final joint-chamber reconciled version of the bill, [3]published Monday, right-to-repair advocates at the US Public Interest Research Group (PIRG) pointed out in a [4]press release . [...]
>
> According to PIRG's press release on the matter, elected officials have been targeted by an " [5]intensive lobbying push " in recent weeks against the provisions. House Armed Services Committee chair Mike Rogers (R-AL) and ranking Democrat Adam Smith (D-WA), responsible for much of the final version of the bill, have received significant contributions from defense contractors in recent years, and while correlation doesn't equal causation, it sure looks fishy. [Isaac Bowers, PIRG's federal legislative director] did tell us that he was glad that the defense sector's preferred solution to the military right to repair fight -- a "data as a service" solution -- was also excluded, so the 2026 NDAA isn't a total loss for the repairability fight. "That provision would have mandated the Pentagon access repair data through separate vendor contracts rather than receiving it upfront at the time of procurement, maintaining the defense industry's near monopoly over essential repair information and keeping troops waiting for repairs they could do quicker and cheaper themselves," Bowers said in an email.
>
> An aide to the Democratic side of the Committee told The Register the House and Senate committees did negotiate a degree of right-to-repair permissions in the NDAA. According to the aide and a review of the final version of the bill, measures were included that require the Defense Department to identify any instances where a lack of technical data hinders operation or maintenance of weapon systems, as well as aviation systems. The bill also includes a provision that would establish a "technical data system" that would "track, manage, and enable the assessment" of data related to system maintenance and repair. Unfortunately, the technical data system portion of the NDAA mentions "authorized repair contractors" as the parties carrying out repair work, and there's also no mention of parts availability or other repairability provisions in the sections the staffer flagged -- just access to technical data. That means the provisions are unlikely to move the armed forces toward a new repairability paradigm.
[1] https://www.theregister.com/2025/12/09/us_military_right_to_repair_stripped/
[2] https://yro.slashdot.org/story/25/07/08/226213/the-military-might-finally-win-the-right-to-repair
[3] https://armedservices.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=6359
[4] https://pirg.org/media-center/statement-congress-strips-bipartisan-military-right-to-repair-provisions-from-defense-bill/
[5] https://tech.slashdot.org/story/25/11/27/095202/defense-contractors-lobby-to-kill-military-right-to-repair-push-pay-per-use-data-model
Re: (Score:3)
> In fact, they have guns, and could theoretically take them out and threaten to shoot the salesmen as traitors to the country when they mention requiring repairs to be done by the vendor.
No, the military cannot take a US citizen out and threaten to shoot them as a traitor.
That would involve a lot of people going to jail.
Re: (Score:1)
Serious question, who would stop them?
Re: (Score:2)
Police. They would be breaking the law.
If you are asking who would stop them if they decided to overthrow lawful authorities? That's a different, and frankly stupid question.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure to your scared little brain, that's exactly what's going on. Fortunately for you, FSM invented benzodiazepines.
The political situation in the US is pretty fucked at the moment, but court tolerance of the shooting of civilians is the lowest it has ever been.
Re: Does not require the pentagon to sign up for i (Score:2)
> If the supreme court tells a branch of government to do someting and they ignore it, who enforces that?
They've never had that power to begin with. The executive brings both prosecution AND enforcement. The job of the courts is to interpret the laws. They can issue an injunction, but they do not and never have enforced it. The executive has the explicit power to commute and pardon, thus nullifying injunctions. However, the legislative has the power of impeachment.
It has always been like this. You'd know this if you had ever bothered finish middle school, rsilvergun.
Re: (Score:2)
That one's a little tickly.
You're undeniably right that the pardon power definitely makes it so that consequences of ignoring an injunction are nil, I personally wouldn't test it to too much extent. It's basically a constitutional crisis. If the Supreme Court considers an injunction legal, then it is, by definition, legal. If the President ignores this, he is, by definition, a criminal, and has violated his oath of office. Not saying it can't technically happen- but realistically- it doesn't happen.
There
Re: Does not require the pentagon to sign up for (Score:2)
True, though governors often do.
Checks and balances usually have to come down to a game of rock paper scissors.
Re: (Score:3)
Soldiers who take their oaths seriously, and remember their (mandatory, annual) training on disobeying illegal orders.
Re: Does not require the pentagon to sign up for i (Score:2)
poeâ(TM)s law, true as ever
Re: (Score:2)
For sure.
Re: (Score:2)
Defense contractor lobbyists and executives are people. There's your problem
Re: (Score:2)
History has taught me that it's unwise to declare groups of people unpeople by fiat, as it seems that I myself belong to one or more groupings of people.
look at Ukraine battlefield (Score:2)
The Ukraine battlefield is filled with stories of piecemeal drones and all sorts of other tech mashups that would probably violate this "right to repair". Critical tools should be able to be repaired. Two thirds of these businesses won't exist in a couple years and the other third will want to drum up crazy contracts to support legacy hardware. At least put a clause in for abandoned tech or when it's out of warranty etc. So dumb that we let this continue to happen.
Tax payers will get left holding the bag on
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure looking at the battlefield between two crumbling post-soviet republics tells us a lot about ourselves.
How many drones has it taken the Houthis to hit an Israeli or US target? 1000? More?
Re: (Score:1)
If we start losing a war we will resemble them.
Re: (Score:2)
Na.
If we start losing one bad enough, in that it results in mass destruction of our domestic capacity- then ya, I'd agree with that.
That's uhhh, well the end stage of us losing WW3, though.
Re: (Score:2)
> https://www.timesofisrael.com/... [timesofisrael.com]
Ballistic missile. Not drone.
> https://www.newsweek.com/israe... [newsweek.com]
Actually a drone. Notable undetected by air defenses.
> https://www.timesofisrael.com/... [timesofisrael.com]
Ballistic missile. Not drone.
> https://www.aljazeera.com/tag/... [aljazeera.com]
This page contains 2 references to 1 event, which funny enough is the event in link 2.
So, what you've got here is 1 drone strike. No casualties.
320 drones.
As for their strikes against US targets, we've got 0 successful hits out of 170 drones.
Combined, 1 hit, no casualties, for 490 drones.
So it's not quite 1:1000, but 1:490 is still just as laughable.
You have got to he the laziest fucking at
But of course! (Score:1)
What's the point of having a national military if you can't use it to pump taxpayer dollars into corporate coffers?
*scenario*
"Fox company, we'll airdrop a licensed mechanic and a licensed parts salesman onto your position around 0930, as soon as they finish repairing some stuff the enemy captured last year and make their way back to our side of the lines. Division says hold your position as best you can until then -- and remind the riflemen not to use their weapons as clubs, as that will void their warrant
Re: (Score:1)
Corporations are people and also a superior form of person! They deserve the $$$.
Campaign donations & lobbying (Score:5, Insightful)
...paid off. Our Bribeocracy in action.
Re: (Score:3)
We are already a Kakistocracy with a side of oligarchy.
Re: (Score:2)
The best government money can buy.
What a bunch (Score:2)
of idiots.
Re: What a bunch (Score:2)
> of idiots
If only that were true. They are very smart at acquiring wealth and influence off the backs of regular, honest folk.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you mean the politicians or the corporations?
yes they do (Score:3)
All they have to do is write it into their procurement contracts.
Shakedown cruise (Score:2)
If lawmakers were serious and believed in the provisions they must have had a good idea in advance what reaction to expect from industry so why have they folded so easily?
I sometimes get the distinct impression lawmakers don't even care and just dangle the threat of promulgating good reasonable provisions just to rake in corrupt political contributions.
Unfortunate; Missing opportunity costs of time (Score:1)
Lots of time, the cost of waiting for the contractor to show up to perform his repair was the constraint.
In times of war, contractor personnel are already 'all hands on deck' without having to travel to off site to perform the repair.
Congress: are you hearing me?
Warfighting capability (Score:2)
Worth noting that this is one of the worst things for warfighters. In any actually intensive peer to peer conflict (i.e. not uncontested death from above a la GWOT), hardware will have a lot of damage and breakages. That must be repaired ASAP in the field.
This is notably how US won war in the pacific against Japan. "Cruiser got hit by a torpedo under B turret, whole bow blew off" didn't mean a dead cruiser or even a write off. It means cruiser gets emergency repairs right on site, then goes to a nearby port
"despite bipartisan and Pentagon support." (Score:2)
Which disappeared once the congressional campaign accounts and public servants bank accounts were properly greased with cash.
Corruption stifling battle readiness (Score:1)
This congress is owned. This completely stifles field readiness.
In their corruption, they are un-American.
Does it matter? (Score:2)
I am not so sure the military feels all that constrained on such things. They already have the ability to ignore IP and contract laws, handing anything to anyone they like. They have a long history of taking products from one contractor and handing it over to another, or just taking things in house.
Re: That's right (Score:1)
The term is featherbedding.