Defense Act Mandates Annual Review to Speed Up Arms Sales to Allies

The Made-in-America Defense Act is essentially a mandate for an annual efficiency audit of how the U.S. sells military equipment to its allies. The core idea is simple: speed up the process. This bill requires the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense to team up and annually review all defense items currently restricted to the government-run Foreign Military Sales (FMS) program. The goal is to see which of those items could be sold faster and more effectively through direct commercial sales (DCS) instead.

The Government vs. The Commercial Fast Lane

Right now, the U.S. government has two main ways to sell defense gear to allies. The FMS system is government-to-government, which provides oversight but often involves a lot of red tape and delays. The alternative is DCS, where the ally buys straight from the U.S. company. Congress believes the FMS system is unnecessarily slowing down critical deliveries, which is why this bill focuses on finding items stuck on the “FMS-only list” that are better suited for the commercial lane. Think of it like comparing the DMV line (FMS) to buying a car directly from a dealership (DCS).

The Annual Efficiency Audit: What They Have to Check

The bill (SEC. 3) lays out three specific metrics the State and Defense Departments must use when reviewing each item on the restricted list. First, they have to run a time comparison: How long does it take under FMS versus how long would it take under DCS, measuring from the initial request to final delivery? Second, they must analyze the workload impact—how would shifting that item to DCS affect the administrative burden on State and Defense Department staff? Third, and most importantly, they must assess the benefits to U.S. national security and the global competitiveness of U.S. defense companies if the item were sold commercially. This is where the rubber meets the road for manufacturers; shifting items to DCS could help them compete better globally by cutting down on waiting times.

Transparency and Real-World Impact

Every year, the Secretaries must report their findings to Congress and, crucially, make the report public (SEC. 3). This transparency is significant. The report must detail the average transfer times for both FMS and DCS, the specific reasons for any delays, and any changes made to the FMS-only list. For U.S. defense companies, this could mean faster sales cycles and fewer administrative hurdles, potentially boosting export revenue and jobs. For allies, it means getting the equipment they need, faster, which is the bill's stated goal for enhancing U.S. security. While the bill aims to streamline processes, the review criteria—especially assessing 'national security benefits' and 'workload'—are subjective (Vagueness Level: Medium). This gives the Secretaries significant discretion, meaning the outcome relies heavily on their interpretation of what constitutes a beneficial shift, rather than just raw speed data. It’s a step toward efficiency, but the devil will be in the annual review details.