Intellectual Property Rules Hamper Military Equipment Repairs

A Navy aircraft carrier, the USS Gerald R. Ford, serves 15,300 meals a day. Six of its eight ovens sat broken, with sailors unable to fix them despite knowing how. Navy Secretary John Phelan shared this frustration with senators in June 2025, highlighting restrictive contracts that reserve repairs for manufacturers. This situation points to a larger question: why can't the military repair its own equipment?

The issue extends beyond the kitchen. Elevators on the ship stood idle until contractors arrived to troubleshoot and repair them. Phelan argued that sailors, trained to handle advanced systems, are capable of maintaining them. Contract clauses protecting corporate intellectual property create delays, raising concerns about readiness when time is critical.

The idea of "right to repair," familiar in consumer battles over phones and farm equipment, now drives Pentagon policy. In April 2025, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth ordered the Army to embed repair rights in all contracts, a move the Navy is considering. Army Secretary Daniel Driscoll told Congress in June that new deals will allow in-house fixes, and existing ones will be revisited. The aim is to let service members maintain equipment without waiting.

Public support is strong. A May 2025 poll showed 74% of voters favor giving the military repair access, with backing from a broad coalition of supporters, including fiscal conservatives and government accountability advocates. Senator Elizabeth Warren's Servicemember Right-to-Repair Act pushes for fair pricing on parts and manuals, aiming to break contractor monopolies and keep gear operational.

Major contractors, like Lockheed Martin and Boeing, defend their stance, arguing that proprietary software and designs fuel innovation. Current rules let them grant the government licenses, unlimited, restricted, or government-purpose, based on development funding. Broader access, they warn, could raise costs or spark legal disputes, threatening their competitive edge.

The numbers tell a story. Operating and support costs eat up 70% of a weapon system's budget, and contractor repairs cost nearly triple what Pentagon civilians would. F-35 maintainers, for example, lack key data, and a drone repair once cost $26,000 for a simple cable fix. These inefficiencies drive the Pentagon's push, but contractors prioritize their bottom line.

Delays are costly and threaten national security. Global supply chains, reliant on foreign parts and vulnerable to cyberattacks, risk disruption. A 2025 Air Force study flagged Chinese alloys in F-35s, despite bans, as a warning sign. If contractors control repairs, a conflict could leave troops with broken gear. The 2025 NDAA's focus on domestic production and repair rights aims to counter these dangers.

History offers lessons. In World War II, the Army trained repair crews to fix gear on the front lines, ensuring agility. Today's systems, like the F-35 with its $1.6 trillion price tag, face delays due to locked proprietary tools. Restoring self-reliance through repair rights balances innovation with the need for readiness.

Reforms face obstacles but gain traction. April 2025 executive orders simplified procurement, pushing cost-saving approaches. The Army's 2018 IP strategy, seeking only essential rights and pricing them fairly, guides the way. Contractors, however, caution that custom data rights could complicate deals, and litigation risks loom if talks stall.

Policymakers and voters align on the goal. Warren emphasizes accountability, while Hegseth prioritizes self-reliance, and voters see both fiscal and strategic benefits. The challenge is crafting contracts that preserve industry incentives while letting troops act fast.

The USS Gerald R. Ford's oven troubles, while seemingly minor, expose a critical issue. Enabling service members to fix their gear could save billions and bolster defenses. Success hinges on balancing public needs with private interests, a test that will define military readiness for years to come.