If it’s broken, fix it: Let troops repair the military kit they use

If a war broke out tomorrow, US troops may struggle to repair and maintain the assets they need to defend themselves and defeat the enemy—not because they aren’t capable of making those repairs or hiring a third party who can, but because they are contractually forbidden from doing it.

Currently, many Department of Defense contracts reserve repairs for manufacturer-authorized personnel. Such restrictions can apply to everything from backup generators to F-35 fighters. Lacking access to the necessary data, tools, parts and training, troops in the field must either ship broken gear back home or fly out contractors tied to manufacturers—raising costs and imposing potentially dangerous delays.

Also Read: Dual-use warfare: The military-industrial complex is out in the open now

Believe it or not, military members have actually been told that they can’t cobble parts together or do their own repairs. This flies in the face of one of our most storied strengths: American ingenuity. America is a country of fixers. When something is broken, we roll up our sleeves, figure out the problem and get to work fixing it. If we hit a roadblock, we bring in someone as fast as possible to help. It’s part of our spirit and character—yet it’s being denied to those tasked with protecting and defending us.

Troops report having to send malfunctioning drones that could have been fixed with a drop of glue back to the manufacturer at a cost of $26,000 apiece. A Pentagon investigation last year discovered the Air Force had accepted a markup of 7,943% on spare lavatory soap dispensers for Boeing C-17 cargo planes. On a recent visit, Navy Secretary John Phelan found six of eight ovens, meant to produce over 15,000 meals a day, awaiting manufacturer-approved repairs. It’s bureaucracy at its most frustrating—and exorbitantly expensive.

Also Read: Senior officers face a significant change in the Indian Army’s promotion policy

The US Government Accountability Office has estimated that around 70% of the total life-cycle costs of weapons systems goes to operating and support. That’s one reason it has recommended the military take over more sustainment activities for the $1.7 trillion F-35 programme. Depending on where they’re located, contractors tied to manufacturers are often more expensive than civilian Pentagon employees.

This isn’t just about cost. It’s also about combat readiness. Currently there are lengthy maintenance delays that harm US readiness—and that’s during peacetime. Imagine if war breaks out. The stakes will be even higher. In the midst of battle, troops are not going to be able to ship broken gear back to the US, or even to large bases in the region (most of which would be immediate targets). Troops forbidden to do maintenance and repairs in peacetime, and lacking the necessary specs and tools, will struggle to do it under fire.

Relying too much on manufacturers creates unacceptable risks and the problem has been growing since the 1990s, as industry consolidation has boosted the leverage of big defence companies. Of course, firms have a legitimate interest in protecting their intellectual property, but they also have a responsibility not to hamstring the very people they are supposed to be supporting. Plus, competition is healthy. Allowing the military to pursue the fastest, cheapest and best possible solutions will encourage greater efficiency.

Also Read: How Trump is expanding the role of the American military on US soil

As the former chair of the Defense Innovation Board, this was an issue that we examined and highlighted. And the good news is: Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth recognizes the problem and has begun addressing it. In April, he directed the Army to mandate right-to-repair clauses in all new contracts and seek to add them to old ones. Leaders of other services have said they support taking on the issue, too.

A draft of the Senate’s 2026 National Defense Authorization Act requires manufacturers to provide instructions for maintaining covered equipment. In effect, companies would have to allow access to the same manuals, procedures, tools and equipment they use themselves or offer to authorized service providers, either as part of the initial contract or as a negotiated price option. During wartime and combat preparation, the military would have authority and latitude to repair as it sees fit.

Enshrining this in US law deserves bipartisan support. It would expand the Army’s new policy to all services and make it harder for industry lobbies to reverse it in future. It would give the military more options—like continuing to have contractors perform complicated repairs as needed—increase transparency and resiliency and bring down costs. The sooner it happens, the better. ©Bloomberg

The author is the founder and majority owner of Bloomberg LP, the parent company of Bloomberg News.