Lawmakers are considering proposals intended to make it easier to repair military equipment and improve readiness. No one questions the importance of readiness. Our military must have the tools, technical information, and support necessary to keep equipment operating whenever and wherever our forces are called to serve.

But good intentions do not always produce good policy.

Some proposals now under consideration would go well beyond addressing legitimate maintenance challenges. It’s not just hardware manufacturers who are understandably concerned. For example, if an innovative small software company makes an administrative error in identifying privately funded software to be delivered with restrictions, the government would be able to take broad “government purpose rights” in the software, with no recourse for the small business to correct the administrative error. The government would then be able to share that privately funded software with outside third parties for any government purpose, including competing against the small business. 

This is known as “right to repair,” and if policies under this legislation are passed with a broad brush, the lifeblood of innovative American businesses would be at risk. 

The sweeping legislation would also apply to manufacturers and some of America’s most innovative technology companies because the Department of War typically extends technical data rights policy to software. Right-to-repair legislation, with software under its umbrella, would encompass artificial intelligence and software algorithms developed by startup companies. 

That would have consequences far beyond military maintenance.

What began as a discussion about giving the military access to the information needed for repair has morphed into a self-defeating barrier to expanding the defense industrial base. Right-to-repair legislation, as currently written, would lead to the broad disclosure of commercial and privately funded manufacturing trade secrets and software design, testing, and qualification artifacts. Once that information is out, all competitors can access it. How does any company — especially startups and their backers — continue to justify investment in the tech that our warfighters need if they are at risk of their trade secrets being handed to competitors, including larger businesses? This result would be inequitable and undermine efforts to incentivize private investment in defense technology. It’s also irresponsible for the government to take a risk with American innovations and safety. 

Adversaries have developed state-backed corporate espionage strategies to get their hands on American companies’ IP. Now, instead of thousands of different companies to hack, will there be a single government repository with the crown jewels of defense tech IP? The expanded disclosure of trade secrets heightens the risk that they will fall into the hands of foreign adversaries. This isn’t just a slippery slope; it is an IP cliff with national security ramifications.

Concerning right-to-repair policies, the question becomes: how much control over private investment and innovation are we willing to cede to the federal government?

Innovation is not free. Developing advanced, next-generation defense technologies requires enormous investments. Companies spend years — and often billions of dollars — bringing new ideas from the drawing board to the battlefield. They do so because they believe they will have a reasonable opportunity to earn a return on those investments.

If government policy makes it easier for competitors to benefit from those investments without any risk, the incentive for companies to innovate evaporates. 

That doesn’t just affect America’s largest defense contractors. Many of the most important breakthroughs in defense technology come from small businesses, startups, and commercial technology firms. Often, a single proprietary technology is a company’s greatest asset. If working with the government on defense platforms means risking the loss of that IP, many innovative companies will simply decide the risk isn’t worth it.

That is the opposite of what Congress has spent years trying to achieve.

Policymakers across both parties have recognized the need to strengthen America’s defense industrial base by encouraging more competition, attracting new entrants, and expanding domestic manufacturing. Weakening protections for privately developed IP would move the country in the opposite direction. Instead of encouraging innovation, it would discourage investment and make defense work less attractive for many of the companies Congress hopes to recruit.

The stakes are especially high today.

America is engaged in an intense strategic competition with China. Chinese leadership is investing heavily in advanced military technologies while aggressively seeking to acquire American IP through cyber espionage and other means. Congress should be strengthening incentives for American companies to invest in next-generation technology, not creating uncertainty about whether those investments will be protected.

Congress does not have to choose between military readiness and innovation. We need and can achieve both.

If the Department of War faces specific sustainment challenges, Congress should address those problems directly through targeted, evidence-based reforms. There are existing processes for the government to negotiate for the technical data it needs to support military operations. Where genuine gaps exist, lawmakers should craft specific, narrowly tailored solutions that solve those problems without undermining the broader innovation ecosystem.

OPINION: CLARENCE THOMAS JUST STRIPPED PENTAGON CONTRACTORS OF THEIR BATTLEFIELD ALIBI

America became the world’s defense and technology leader because inventors, engineers, entrepreneurs, and manufacturers knew their ideas would be protected. That system has produced capabilities that give our service members an unmatched advantage and have helped deter conflict for generations.

Congress should preserve that system, not weaken it. Military readiness and American innovation go hand in hand. We can — and should — protect both. 

George Landrith is the president of the Frontiers of Freedom Institute and the author of Let Freedom Ring … Again: Can Self-Evident Truths Save America from Further Decline?