Abundance is having a big moment. The shortages and high prices Americans face when it comes to housing, energy, transportation, medical care, and more are forcing a major reevaluation of government regulations. While often well-intentioned, many rules enacted by local, state, and federal authorities hold back innovation and constrain the supply of essential goods and services. From Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson’s provocative book on the subject to the formation of a bipartisan Build America Caucus in Congress, it is encouraging to see this push to expand production by cutting unnecessary red tape gathering steam.
While it is not often mentioned in discussions of abundance, the drive for less regulation and quicker building has implications for national security. As with many other sectors, the defense industry suffers from serious constraints, some of which could be alleviated by relaxing or eliminating rules that, while they were enacted with the public interest in mind, make it needlessly difficult and expensive to produce the items America needs to defend itself. In an uncertain world full of varied and constantly evolving threats—from powerful nation-state rivals to small groups of deadly fanatics—the United States Armed Forces need the flexibility to quickly procure armaments, equipment, and new technologies. Smart deregulation can help make that happen.
The defense sector’s problems are well-documented. Companies face shortages of skilled workers. Supply chain problems that emerged during the coronavirus pandemic have not completely gone away. Likewise, the Trump administration’s erratic and unfocused use of tariffs as a policy tool creates uncertainty and raises costs for defense production. In this environment, it behooves Congress and the executive branch to seek out ways to lighten the regulatory burdens of those who produce the information systems, ships, planes, vehicles, weapons, and other advanced technologies that help keep America safe.
Deregulation is not the only way to better prepare America’s military for the wide range of threats and challenges it faces. Even if the recommendations below were enacted, the Armed Services would still face pressures in many other areas, such as the difficulty of recruiting enough service members. But given the increasing prominence of abundance as a worthwhile concept in public policy, advancing those ideas within national security circles and pruning back rules that frustrate the defense industry would be a good place to start.
Helping New Companies To Succeed
Some of the most creative and promising technologies that could expand American manufacturing—including for the military—come from small and medium-sized enterprises. Last July, the New American Industrial Alliance—a trade association working to revive manufacturing through innovation—hosted its annual Reindustrialize Summit in Detroit. Defense contractors old and new attended, and Secretary of the Navy John Phelan gave a keynote speech. The defense industry and those who work with it clearly recognize the importance of robotics, artificial intelligence, and other developing technologies whose potential may be most fully realized by engineers and entrepreneurs outside the orthodox defense space.
The war in Ukraine shows the value of quickly developing and deploying a wide range of unconventional weapons to the battlefield. For the last three and a half years, constant innovation has been vital to Ukraine’s ability to ward off Vladimir Putin’s invasion. While Ukraine’s conventional forces were no match for Russia’s in traditional battles, rapid prototyping and deployment of air and sea drones has allowed the Ukrainians to devastate many of their targets.
As with startups in many industries, though, young companies trying to find their footing in the defense realm face high obstacles. The government often finds it easier to deal with established defense contractors—the makers of big traditional systems like tanks and fighter planes—than to take a chance on someone new. This makes it less likely that the military will avail itself of fresh ideas and new tools.
A common problem facing young companies looking to break into the defense sector is that they do not have access to classified facilities where they can display their products and show their potential. Last year, defense technology analysts Jeff Decker and Noah Sheinbaum recommended a way around this problem: let the Department of Defense (DOD) use non-military sites as secure compartmentalized information facilities (SCIFs) that companies can visit. While it is vital to keep national security secrets out of enemy hands, an obsession with security everywhere and in all cases can shut out new ideas and the people who develop them. An institution as large, complex, and well-established as the military does not change rapidly, so the quicker DOD starts letting in new participants in the defense industry, the better.
Streamlining Security Clearances Safely and Effectively
About two million Americans have access to classified information. Security clearances are needed to work in many sensitive jobs, either directly in the public sector or with private contractors. Unfortunately, the time it takes to obtain a clearance can vary widely from person to person. Some must wait a few months; others, more than a year. It is one of the most frustrating aspects of going to work for the federal government in a contracting capacity. If something can speed up the process of background checks without creating a significant new security risk, it is worth doing.
One such change is to be less strict about applicants’ past drug use, something that can be used to disqualify applicants. About half of American adults have used marijuana at some point in their lives. In 2021, nearly one-fifth of adults used it at least once. And if some news reports are to be believed, Silicon Valley (whose innovative spirit can teach the defense community a thing or two) contains more than its share of marijuana consumers. Even though marijuana is still illegal at the federal level, the fact that it has become much more socially acceptable in the early 21st century than it was in the 20th is a reason for federal investigators to disregard it when considering whether to give a person a clearance.
Last year, Senator Gary Peters of Michigan proposed a bill to ensure that applications for federal security clearances would not be denied solely because of past marijuana use. Aptly known as the DOOBIE (Dismantling Outdated Obstacles and Barriers to Individual Employment) Act, it passed the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee but did not come up for a vote in the full Senate. If any member of Congress proposes similar legislation in the future, it would be smart for the House and Senate to pass it and the president to sign it. Whatever one’s stance on legalizing marijuana, a person who’s only smoked a few joints should not have to worry about being denied a chance to do good work in the nation’s defense.
Lawmakers should also take a hard look at how many positions really need a security clearance. While it is common for members of Congress to criticize the high number of Americans holding clearances, a better use of legislators’ time would be to go department by department, agency by agency, speaking to veterans and experts, and learning which positions’ vetting requirements make sense and which do not. It may be true that many public servants and private contractors don’t really need to go through the clearance process to prove their fitness for their jobs, but politicians won’t know unless they look. Congress could also establish a Security Clearance Ready Reserve to let vetted individuals who have left the government move smoothly back in if their skills and experience are in demand. Both these actions would speed up the hiring process for organizations that are key to national security.
Working Better With Reliable U.S. Allies
The Buy American Act of 1933 requires federal agencies to give preference to American suppliers in federal contracts (though some exceptions are allowed). It helps ensure that the U.S. has an adequate domestic supply of materials needed for public purposes. But while it is important for the country to have productive industries that can meet the government’s needs, it is not always necessary to adhere strictly to this practice. In some cases, excessive adherence to a “Buy American” ethos has downsides for national security.
The Jones Act is a frequent target of criticism for fans of the free market. Passed in 1920—after World War I made clear the vulnerabilities of America’s merchant fleet—it requires cargo carried between two U.S. ports to be transported on American-flagged, American-built ships that are at least 75 percent American owned and 75 percent crewed by American citizens. While the Jones Act helps sustain around 650,000 jobs in shipping and related industries, perhaps its biggest benefit is in national security. It provides American merchant mariners with chances to practice their trade. It keeps them ready in case the Merchant Marine is needed during a war—over 90 percent of military supplies and equipment are carried by ships, as aircraft often are not big enough or strong enough.
It is unfair to blame the Jones Act for the cost of shipping. According to analysis by maritime commercial expert John D. McCown Jr., published in Returning From Ebb Tide: Renewing the United States Commercial Maritime Enterprise, the law’s stipulations are responsible for only 9 percent of the cost of shipping between American ports. The small economic benefit of repealing it would be overwhelmed by the loss of the Merchant Marine’s ability to practice and prepare for their vital role in a major war, should one break out.
However, loosening the law’s requirements for shipbuilding could speed up the production of ships needed for national security purposes. Suppose the 75 percent thresholds in the Jones Act were lowered to 50 percent, or even lower, with the requirement that the difference be made up by owners and mariners from treaty allies. That would enable the U.S. to take advantage of allies’ expertise in shipbuilding while maintaining a strong maritime industry of its own. Several of America’s allies with robust maritime sectors provide models of how this could work.
Japan and South Korea—two countries with which the U.S. has bilateral mutual defense treaties that put them on par with NATO members—are among the best and most prolific shipbuilding nations in the world (though China is far and away the top dog in this industry). Last year, South Korean shipbuilder Hanwha purchased Philly Shipyard, which it has begun to modernize in anticipation of increased demand for military and civilian vessels. Meanwhile, the ICE Pact, negotiated last year by the U.S. along with Canada and Finland, provides a framework through which these three NATO members can build icebreakers, ships that help Western allies protect their interests in the Arctic in the face of Russian aggression. Applying these models of cooperation to ships affected by the Jones Act could help America compete with China’s increasing dominance of the maritime realm without foregoing the Jones Act’s benefits for national security.
Americans are right to seek higher quantities and lower prices for the essentials of 21st-century life. Loosening or eliminating old rules to provide such essentials fits America’s proud history of innovation. That includes the items the United States needs to defend itself. When unnecessary red tape and irrational regulations stand in the way of national security, it’s time to bring out the scissors and rethink our governmental approach.
The ideas undergirding the abundance movement, in relation to housing, transportation, and energy policy, are excellent ones to apply to America’s national defense operations. Cheaper, better, more effective defense production will help our military, and U.S. taxpayers.
Michael D. Purzycki is an analyst, writer, and editor based in Arlington, Virginia. He writes The Non-Progressive Democrat on Substack. Follow him on Twitter at @MDPurzycki.
"such as the difficulty of recruiting enough service members"
Really? Not this year. If this is wrong, then why read further?
"Abundance?" Okay, Michael D. Purzycki, 'fess up. Which consultant came up with that one, and how much did someone pay him?