Terry Gerton The right to repair is a topic we’ve talked about on this show many times related to defense equipment. But it’s a movement that’s gaining traction across the country and certainly within the Trump administration. Why do you think there’s so much public interest in advancing right to repair equipment?
Justin Rzepka Yeah, it’s a great question, Terry. I think that the issue that I focus on is automotive right to repair. And I think the reason why it comes up so much with the American public is because of the cost issue, right? Everyone knows costs are rising and auto repair costs are raising specifically so much higher and quicker than all other costs. And so I think that’s why it’s resonating with people because it’s coming directly out of their pocketbooks.
Terry Gerton And so back to my defense question for a minute, people really thought that the right to repair was a guaranteed provision in the NDAA, and it did not make it in. What does that tell you about maybe the strength of the industry lobbyists and the challenge that even automotive right to repair might face when it comes to getting statutory coverage in Washington?
Justin Rzepka Yeah, Terry, the Warrior Right to Repair Act was widely supported by both parties. When Senator Tim Sheehy (R-Mt.) and Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) Agree on something, you know that this is a special case. And so it did not make it in the final product. That’s sort of part of the sausage making here in Washington, but I do think that there is such momentum here that they will take another run at it at next year’s NDAA. And again, to answer your question, I think that really just speaks to how the vested interests in preventing sort of right to repair on a whole host of issues including autos are going to make it very challenging, you know, for the folks to win on this. I do think, you know, that this consumer issue is on our side on this and I think will ultimately prevail, but the opposition is strong as reflected in Warrior Right to Repair.
Terry Gerton Well, as you said, your organization is specifically focused on the individual’s right to repair their own automobiles. Tell us more about what’s really at stake here. How did the lack of national right to repair laws affect individuals’ costs, choices, and maybe even safety?
Justin Rzepka Yeah, Terry, so the Consumer Access to Repair Coalition, or CAR Coalition, where I’m the executive director, our mission is to lower the cost of auto repairs, and we think a national standard is really what’s needed. There’s been a long history of auto rights repair in the United States, people popping the hood on their own car, getting that fixed. We think that’s been eroding, and that’s due to some technological issues. Nowadays, your car — Again, in a good way, right, it’s safer, it lasts longer; those are all really good things — but they’re becoming harder to repair because of the technological sophistication of the cars. There’s a piece of legislation that Dr. Dunn of Florida has introduced and it simply empowers car owners to have access to information in order to get their car repaired. This is information that they need to fix it, diagnose information, repair information, things like that. That’s all the bill does, basically allows the consumer to make a choice if they want to fix it themselves Take it to the local mechanic down the street or to the dealership and those things have been eroded over time due to technological barriers and we think this legislation is needed and states like Massachusetts and Maine already have state laws on the books, and we think those are great, but driving your car around the country, you shouldn’t have to go through different state laws. So we think one national standard is the appropriate vehicle here.
Terry Gerton Would you be concerned about safety, automobile safety, if individuals are doing their own repairs?
Justin Rzepka Absolutely not, Terry. Safety is paramount for everyone, right? Nobody wants to support a piece of legislation where safety is in question. You know, for 70, 80 years, people have been able to fix their cars at their house or at the local mechanic, and there’s never been any safety issues or liability issues with those repairs, right. The car companies have no issue with it now, and this won’t change anything. All we’re doing is maintaining the right of the car owners to make their decisions. You know, unfortunately, right now, there’s really not much of a choice with newer cars. You can either take it back to the dealership and that’s really the only choice you have. We want to keep those choices, your local mechanic or again, if you’re a gear head and you want to fix your own car, we think that also should remain an option for the American car owner.
Terry Gerton I’m speaking with Justin Rzepka. He is executive director of the Consumer Access to Repair Coalition. Well, talk to me a little bit more about the rising costs of automotive repair. Your group makes the contention that limiting repair options actually contributes to rising costs. So how would you go about reversing that trend?
Justin Rzepka Yeah. Well, I’m not an economist, but I think, you know, we all know that when there’s less choice, right, prices go up. And so over the last five years, Terry, general inflation is up about 20%. You know, those are numbers from the BLS and they change, you know, up and down all the time, but that’s a general number. Auto repair costs have gone up 53% in those same five years. So we’re talking over a 30% delta in the cost increase in auto repairs. And we just don’t think that’s tied to inflation. We think there’s a couple of things. There’s lack of parts availability, right? Car companies and others restricting what parts the public can and can’t buy, as well as restricting this access to vehicle data. That’s the bill that I talked about, the Repair Act, where back in the day you could pop open the hood, you could visualize what’s wrong. You used to be able to plug in a tool and sort of get information. Now this information is being transmitted wirelessly and a car owner who spends more than $50,000 on average for a new car today, doesn’t have access to that information. And when you don’t have that access, you don’t have choice. And when don’t you have choice, costs go up.
Terry Gerton It seems like the Federal Trade Commission and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration are involved in this. What kind of position are they taking on right to repair?
Justin Rzepka Yeah, so in a bipartisan, unanimous way, the FTC, both Republican and Democratic commissioners have weighed in on right to repair issues. They published a seminal report called ‘Mixing the Fix,’ where they talked about a lot of industries, and specifically, the automotive industry. They talked a lot about how having lack of access to this information can drive up costs. The GAO, Terry, has done reports on this. The Congressional Research Service has done work on this as recently as June of 2025. Commissioner Mark Meador of the FTC talked about right to repair issues and then Administrator Jonathan Morrison at NITS also talked about auto right to repair and what a critical issue this is and how consumers having access to information is really important to make sure they can get their vehicles repaired.
Terry Gerton The issue really goes beyond automobiles even, it’s consumer electronics, it’s home appliances, it’s all kinds of things out there. How does your effort here in automotive right to repair extend to other sectors?
Justin Rzepka Yeah. Terry, we’re really happy to see that rising tide lifts all boats. When I started working on this issue almost six years ago, you had to really kind of explain what right to repair was or sort of how the consumer owns a product and they should be able to fix it how they want. And through the years, because of it, you mentioned Terry, cell phones and dishwashers, things like that, more and more Americans are starting to understand the right to repair issues and their lack of ability to fix these issues. What I would differentiate on automotive issues, Terry, is if you… If you break your cell phone, or your washing machine goes on the fritz, that’s really unfortunate and that’s not a small expense. But you know what, you can go out and replace those. An auto repair cost, the average repair costs are over $5,000, $6,000. This is a critical thing in most people’s lives, right? Besides their house, this is the most expensive thing that an American will buy. And so you’ve got to take your kids to school, you’ve gotta buy groceries, you have to drive to work. This isn’t something that can be easily replaced. Your car needs to be able to be fixed affordably and reliably. And that’s why we think this is a special issue among the right to repair issues.
Terry Gerton One of the concerns that I’ve heard is that individuals repairing their own equipment will violate the manufacturer’s warranty. Any provisions for protecting that kind of warranty coverage if somebody, you know, breaks a screw or misconnects a cable.
Justin Rzepka There are already laws on the books like the Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act that protects warranties. And what I would say, Terry, is that if you don’t really control something, do you really have ownership over it? So the average price of a new car in America is more than $50,000. And if you drive that car off the lot and you don’t have the ability to fix that car because of lack of information, do you own that car? If we want to have a discussion in America about a lease or a rent model or as a service model, that’s something to discuss. But right now, if you own something, you should be able to do what you want with it when you want with it. And so I fundamentally reject those arguments. And so, and again, we’re talking about repair and maintenance information. We’re not talking about other parts of the car or proprietary softwares. We’re talking the ability for a car owner to get their car fixed, how they want to, where they want to, and their choice.
Terry Gerton So what should people be watching for as this conversation moves forward in 2026?
Justin Rzepka Yeah, well, our understanding, Terry, is that the Energy and Commerce Committee is going to have a hearing next week on auto issues. And we are understanding that Dr. Dunn’s bill, the Repair Act, HR 1566, will be considered. So there’s going to be a great opportunity for the American public to tune in and watch Congress do what they’re supposed to do, which is discuss possible legislation and talk about the merits of the bills and how it affects consumers. So that’s going to be a huge opportunity for pro-right to repair advocates to weigh in and talk to their members of Congress on why this issue is important and why it’s something that Congress should consider. So we expect that hearing to be next week and we’re really excited about it, Terry.
The post Ever tried fixing your own car? The right-to-repair fight is heating up as costs soar and Congress weighs a national law first appeared on Federal News Network.
© The Associated Press
Lawmakers said the fiscal 2026 defense policy bill that became law earlier this month would deliver “the most significant acquisition reforms in a generation.” But some of the more sweeping proposals introduced in the House and Senate versions of the bill were ultimately scaled back or dropped entirely from the final version of the legislation.
A similar dynamic played out inside the Pentagon. A draft acquisition memo circulated prior to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s speech to defense executives and senior military acquisition officials outlined a far more aggressive overhaul of how the department would develop and buy military capabilities than what emerged in the final version of the memo and the Acquisition Transformation Strategy.
But a number of provisions from the House’s SPEED Act and Senate’s FoRGED Act that survived negotiations are still expected to be impactful, including measures aimed at streamlining prototyping, accelerating the transition of technologies into production and expanding opportunities for small businesses and new entrants.
The bill, for example, exempts nontraditional defense contractors from some of the Pentagon’s accounting, audit and compliance requirements, lowering barriers to entry for new defense technology companies. A nontraditional defense contractor is defined as a contractor that hasn’t held a Cost Accounting Standards-covered contract in the last year, which is the vast majority of the defense industrial base — George Mason’s Baroni Center for Government Contracting estimates that only 7.5 percent of the defense companies fall outside that definition. The Senate also pushed to expand the definition of nontraditional defense contractors, but the provision was dropped from the final version of the bill.
The legislation also expands the type of past performance that may be considered — the department is required to issue guidance on when it should accept a wider range of past performance, including commercial or non-government work as valid past performance. It also requires the Defense Acquisition Regulations Council to “identify and eliminate specific, unnecessary procedural barriers that disproportionately affect the ability of small business concerns and nontraditional defense contractors, to compete for contracts with the Department of Defense.”
Small and medium-sized Defense Department contractors will also gain access to an online platform offering digital resources, training and services aimed at increasing awareness of and facilitating compliance with defense acquisition requirements.
The bill also expands the Pentagon’s ability to use Commercial Solutions Openings — a competitive process used to acquire innovative technologies. CSOs are typically difficult to transition, but the legislation allows the department to move successful CSOs into production, including through sole-source contracts. The provision also expands CSOs to include commercial products, commercial services and nondevelopmental items instead of limiting their use to “innovative” technologies.
Another provision raises the minimum award for the Accelerate the Procurement and Fielding of Innovative Technologies program to $10 million.
The bill also gives combatant commanders the authority to experiment with, prototype and demonstrate new technologies and allows a successful experimentation to serve as justification for moving directly into production.
Stan Soloway, president and CEO of Celero Strategies and federal acquisition expert, said the provisions aimed at accelerating the transition to production and giving officials clearer authority to favor small businesses and new entrants reflect the department’s long-standing effort to work around traditional program processes and system integrators. But given the complexity of many programs, “it remains to be seen how much it actually changes on major systems, but it could definitely impact smaller ones” he told Federal News Network.
At the same time, there is a seeming contradiction in the bill.
Despite broad bipartisan support, right-to-repair provisions were stripped from the final version of the bill, but “provisions like the one that talked about DoD having the authority to re-engineer components when it thinks doing so will be quicker and less expensive than having additional units produced by the original equipment manufacturers, is sure to raise hackles,” Soloway said.
“IP and technical data rights are hugely important issues. And it is fair to say that both government and industry have tended to view them as zero sum games. But if DoD wants to build meaningful bridges to emerging (and existing) firms and technology, the answer lies in both sides being willing to negotiate, at the very beginning of a program, how those questions will be handled. It is hard … but simply stating that DoD can do this when they think it is in their best interests, is probably not the most balanced path forward,” Soloway said.
Despite some of the significant acquisition changes, the legislation barely addresses the workforce — a gap Soloway said could undermine the reforms.
The success of these reforms will hinge on whether the department can equip its workforce with the skills needed to operate differently. Otherwise, the system can quickly revert to its old ways.
“Without an aggressive, broad-based and sustained workforce initiative, it is hard to see the workforce having the tools or the confidence to take the kind of reasoned risks the legislation, and Secretary Hegseth, claim to want them to take,” Soloway said
“Overall, workforce morale and trust in leadership is at a very low ebb. If change is going to happen, dealing with that reality is job one. But, to date, nothing this administration has done would suggest they have any plan on how to do that,” he added.
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.
The post NDAA scales back ambitious acquisition reforms, offers little on workforce first appeared on Federal News Network.
© The Associated Press
Login