The Military’s Fight For The Right To Repair Is One It Can’t Lose

The United States military has been quietly engaged in a fight that it can’t afford to lose. It isn’t facing off against a near-peer adversary or even a rogue state. Instead, this fight is about how it can maintain its equipment and hardware, rather than relying on contractors.

The situation the Pentagon faces is one not all that dissimilar from the milkshake machines at McDonald’s. Anyone looking to top off their burger meal at the Golden Arches with a frozen drink may have gone to discover they’re out of luck, as the machines are broken. It isn’t due to laziness on the part of the employees; however, until recently, they weren’t allowed to repair the milkshake machine.

The United States military faces a similar challenge due to the issue of “Right to Repair,” a concept that is often not granted to the end user. The problem has impacted farmers, who find that their expensive tractors and other equipment can only be serviced by the manufacturer. Consumers have seen similar issues with electronics and automobiles.

Intellectual Property Rights

The root of the problem is about manufacturers retaining intellectual property rights, which for the Pentagon restricts service members from repairing crucial systems. In theory, this was actually meant to benefit the manufacturers, who have seen their profits erode.

Another aspect is that today’s high-tech systems can be much more challenging to repair, requiring specialized tools and even specialized training.

“The reason why vendors don’t want you to mess with their products falls into two categories, one is they don’t want to deal with people returning products or asking for warranty coverage when the repair attempt did more damage than good,” explained technology industry analyst Rob Enderle of the Enderle Group.

“The other is they want the service revenue associated with the repair,” Enderle added.

He acknowledged that this has been problematic because it can lead vendors to intentionally create flawed products to maximize service revenues. In other cases, it is about ensuring that hardware can’t be easily reverse-engineered.

“Apple, John Deere, and McLaren are all infamous for not wanting people to work on their products,” said Enderle.

For the military, its platforms are also highly classified, so there is no concern that a sailor could reverse-engineer the equipment while being trained to work on it.

The Military Needs The Right To Repair

Having a tractor sidelined can be costly for a farmer, but having a key system on a warship out of service creates a very modern “For Want of a Nail” scenario. No one wants to see a warship sunk “For Want of a Technician.”

To address the issue, lawmakers introduced bipartisan legislation, dubbed the “Warrior Right to Repair Act of 2025,” which seeks to prohibit the United States Department of Defense from entering into contracts for goods unless the contractor agrees to provide access to the necessary parts, tools, software and technical information to diagnose, maintain and most importantly repair the particular piece of equipment.

“The Pentagon’s move to secure the right to repair is not just about cost savings; this is about sovereignty and resilience. When critical systems break, the ability to repair, adapt, and restore them should not depend on a single vendor or proprietary code. For the military, that is not just inefficient; it is a strategic vulnerability. And it is clearly a national security risk,” warned Angeli Gianchandani, global brand strategist and adjunct instructor of marketing and public relations at New York University and a graduate of The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy.

Gianchandani said the issue mirrors the broader shift across industries, such as agriculture, automotive, and aerospace; namely, as systems become more software-driven and complex, organizations are realizing they need more control.

However, the military can’t be dependent on the OEM’s teams to handle these repairs. It is a situation that is impractical in peacetime and utterly unimaginable in wartime.

Battles Aren’t Delayed By Broken Systems, They’re Lost

The Federal News Network recently reported on the “countless examples of how restricting service members from repairing their own equipment” has impacted military readiness. It cited contractors who were flown out to sea, and how the Marines were forced to ship broken engines back to the United States.

This is unacceptable, primarily since the service invests billions in equipment and boasts some of the best training programs in the world.

“The military typically can and has people with sufficient training, more importantly, the military deploys its people into war zones and areas where a vendor repair team would be either unwanted or that would put that team at mortal risk,” suggested Enderle.

The military needs platforms that its personnel can maintain and repair without having to call tech support, as has been the case with reports of Ukrainian soldiers needing to call tech support. In at least one case, the call was made to a Russian company.

“Thus products with this restriction should be failed out of the bid process unless the military can show a critical need for it that can’t be met by anyone else, and the vendor can accurately and honestly report that the military lacks the skills, tools, experience, or safety protocols that make such work viable,” Enderle continued. “So this rule might successfully apply to a unique or experimental offering, but for anything that is widely deployed, no right to repair should be a non-starter.”

AI To The Rescue

One solution could be greater use of artificial intelligence and machine learning to help maintain and, when necessary, repair key systems.

“That is where AI could be a game-changer,” said Gianchandani. “The Pentagon cannot afford to take a reactive stance. They need to plan forward to embed repair intelligence into every layer of the system. AI is the perfect enabler. It can detect issues before they escalate, guide in-field repairs, and reduce dependence on OEMs. This is the future of readiness.”