On March 13, 2026, President Trump issued an Executive Order (EO) titled “Adjusting Certain Delegations Under the Defense Production Act.” As we have covered in prior blog posts, the Defense Production Act (DPA) has traditionally been considered the primary federal means to manage and support defense production.
Continue Reading “Adjusting Certain Delegations”: New Executive Order Aims to Streamline and Clarify Delegated Authorities Under the Defense Production ActSupply Chain
FAR Council Issues Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to Implement Prohibition on Acquisition of Certain Semiconductors
On February 17, 2026, the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, proposing amendments to the FAR to implement Section 5949 of the FY23 National Defense Authorization Act (“NDAA”). Section 5949 prohibits executive agencies from obtaining semiconductor parts, products, or services traceable to certain named Chinese companies – currently, Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corporation (“SMIC”), ChangXin Memory Technologies (“CXMT”), and Yangtze Memory Technologies Corp (“YMTC”) – subject to limited exceptions. In accordance with the statute, the proposed amendments to the FAR would become effective on December 23, 2027. The proposed rule is not yet final and is open for public comment until April 20, 2026.
Continue Reading FAR Council Issues Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to Implement Prohibition on Acquisition of Certain SemiconductorsFederal Push for Critical Minerals Stockpiling: 2025 in Review and Outlook for 2026
By Peter Terenzio & Eunsun Cho on
As the federal government focuses on securing reliable supplies of critical minerals, stockpiling has emerged as a key policy tool, alongside direct investments in private enterprises and expanded funding programs for industry. The National Defense Stockpile (“NDS”) currently serves as the federal strategic reserve of materials needed for national defense, including critical minerals, and the growing policy attention has prompted new proposals and initiatives for upgraded federal stockpiling capabilities. This blog post reviews the NDS and its activities last year and offers an outlook for critical minerals stockpiling in the year ahead.
Continue Reading Federal Push for Critical Minerals Stockpiling: 2025 in Review and Outlook for 2026BIOSECURE Act Moves Closer to Enactment with Inclusion in FY 2026 NDAA Text
By Jennifer Plitsch & Jennifer Bentley on
After failing to be included in the Fiscal Year (“FY”) 2025 National Defense Authorization Act (“NDAA”) or passed as a standalone piece of legislation, the BIOSECURE Act has moved closer to finally being enacted after it was included in the final FY 2026 NDAA text released by Congress on December 7, 2025. Section 851 of the FY 2026 NDAA is titled “Prohibition on Contracting with Certain Biotechnology Providers,” but includes in substance what was previously introduced and considered in Congress as the BIOSECURE Act.
The bill has the potential to impose significant restrictions on the use of certain Chinese companies in the supply chain for products procured by the U.S. Government and accordingly has been of interest to industry over the last few years. This blog post summarizes the scope of the bill, highlights the changes in the FY 2026 NDAA text as compared to prior iterations of the bill, and flags key considerations for government contractors in the life sciences space.
Continue Reading BIOSECURE Act Moves Closer to Enactment with Inclusion in FY 2026 NDAA TextFirst Order Issued under the Federal Acquisition Supply Chain Security Act, Triggering Immediate Requirements on Contractors
Posted in Supply Chain
On September 15, 2025, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (“ODNI”) issued the first public exclusion and removal order (the “Order”) under the framework established by the Federal Acquisition Supply Chain Security Act of 2018 (“FASCSA”). The Order applies to all products and services produced or provided by Acronis AG as well as all subordinate, subsidiary, or affiliated organizations doing business under various names in support of Acronis AG. The exclusionary Order has two immediate impacts on the federal supply chain. First, federal contractors entering into new contracts or following contractual modifications are prohibited from supplying products or services from Acronis to agencies that are either subject to the Order or that have otherwise adopted it (“Covered Agencies”). Second, contractors are prohibited from using products or services from Acronis in the performance of new and modified contracts with Covered Agencies. In addition, certain agencies must remove these products and services from particular information systems.
Although the prohibitions apply to new contract awards, all contractors to Covered Agencies that have the applicable FASCA FAR clause (FAR 52.204-30) in their agreements must conduct diligence to determine whether they have provided or used any prohibited products or services in the performance of their contracts. Following this review, the clause requires contractors to report the use of prohibited products or services to Covered Agencies.
Additional detail on the FASCSA exclusionary process and this first public Order is provided below.
Continue Reading First Order Issued under the Federal Acquisition Supply Chain Security Act, Triggering Immediate Requirements on ContractorsForging a Modern Strategic Production Base: Senate Proposes Stand-Alone Defense-Production Powers for the Pentagon
By Stephanie Barna, Scott A. Freling & Nooree Lee on
The Defense Production Act (DPA) has long been viewed as the primary federal mechanism for managing and supporting defense production. Since it was enacted in September 1950—just months after the Korean War began—the DPA has armed the President with wartime-style powers to prioritize contracts, allocate scarce materials, and finance surge defense production capacity. These DPA industrial authorities are subject to periodic reauthorization, with the current sunset set for September 30, 2025. While the reauthorization of the DPA remains pending, the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) has advanced a new NDAA provision that would convert the extant Industrial Base Fund (IBF) (10 U.S.C. section 4817) into a Pentagon-controlled toolkit that closely mirrors—but is not identical to—DPA’s Title III authorities. The introduction of section 849A of the FY 2026 NDAA suggests that the SASC is no longer willing to entrust the re-armament of the Pentagon and revitalization of the Defense Industrial Base (DIB) solely to reauthorization of the DPA—a process that lives or dies in other committees’ jurisdictions.
Continue Reading Forging a Modern Strategic Production Base: Senate Proposes Stand-Alone Defense-Production Powers for the PentagonTrump Administration Issues AI Action Plan and Series of AI Executive Orders
On July 23, the White House released its AI Action Plan, outlining the key priorities of the Trump Administration’s AI policy agenda. In parallel, President Trump signed three AI executive orders directing the Executive Branch to implement the AI Action Plan’s policies on “Preventing Woke AI in…
Continue Reading Trump Administration Issues AI Action Plan and Series of AI Executive OrdersTrump Administration Issues Executive Orders that Seek to Shape CHIPS Program and Promote Domestic Mineral Production
President Trump recently issued two separate Executive Orders (EOs) that will have implications for how federal agencies seek to promote the administration’s goal of attracting domestic and foreign investment to industrial projects in the United States, with particular implications for the semiconductor and critical minerals industries.
- An EO on March 31st establishes an “Investment Accelerator” office within the Department of Commerce that will be responsible for overseeing the implementation of the CHIPS Program—including the negotiation of agreements under the CHIPS Act. This office will also provide technical and regulatory support for investors, and seek to facilitate research collaborations between private industry and national labs.
- An earlier EO issued on March 20th seeks to mobilize federal lending and leasing authorities at the Department of Defense (DoD), the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation (DFC), and other federal agencies to support the development of domestic critical mineral projects. Per an accompanying fact sheet, the White House is taking a broad interpretation of covered minerals under this March 20th Order and will seek to include materials such as coal.
Both EOs are notable efforts by the White House to align federal spending and financial assistance programs with the Trump Administration’s priorities, which have variously included calls to promote self-sufficiency in critical materials and promoting “energy independence” and “energy dominance.” These efforts come against a backdrop under which the Administration is also pursuing the use of tariffs to promote U.S. manufacturing, and taking steps to review and in some cases modify or terminate infrastructure or energy-related grants from the Biden-era. More details are provided below.
Continue Reading Trump Administration Issues Executive Orders that Seek to Shape CHIPS Program and Promote Domestic Mineral ProductionDOD Office of Strategic Capital Begins Its Direct Lending Efforts to Secure U.S. Industrial Base
The Office of Strategic Capital (“OSC”) within the Department of Defense (“DOD”) has launched a Credit Program, under which it will provide debt financing in critical technology areas that drive national and economic security. As an initial step, OSC is soliciting applications for equipment loans, which may be submitted between…
Continue Reading DOD Office of Strategic Capital Begins Its Direct Lending Efforts to Secure U.S. Industrial BaseFederal Court Enjoins DOT Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program On Equal Protection Grounds
In the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College, there has been an increase in legal challenges to race and gender-based programs and initiatives in multiple contexts, including within government contracting. While the holding of Students for Fair Admissions did not address public contracting or disturb existing case law that considers the validity of similar government contracts programs, the decision has informed and reshaped the landscape for strict scrutiny challenges to these programs, and there has been a significant uptick in challenges to diversity-focused government procurement regulations.
Last month, in Mid-America Milling Company, LLC, et al., v. U.S. Department of Transportation, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky temporarily enjoined the Department of Transportation (“DOT”) from mandating the use of race- and gender-based presumptions for DOT contracts impacted by Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (“DBE”) goals. The court found, among other things, that while DOT’s DBE program intends to combat historical discrimination and its lingering effects on the ability of disadvantaged businesses to equally compete for government contracts, the plaintiff was likely to prevail on the merits of its argument that the program’s “race and gender classifications” violate the Equal Protection clause.
Although the preliminary injunction currently remains geographically constrained to Kentucky and Indiana, the case is an important development for government contractors that are impacted by DBE related contracts. We summarize the key takeaways from the court’s holding, as well as its implications for government contractors, below.
Continue Reading Federal Court Enjoins DOT Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program On Equal Protection Grounds