New Commission Gets $7 Million to Review Defense Production and Targets Federal Regulations for Cuts

The William S. Knudsen Defense Remobilization Act sets up a new 12-member commission tasked with one big job: figuring out why the U.S. can't make enough defense gear and ammunition, and then telling Congress and the President how to fix it. This isn't just a study group; it’s a high-level effort to assess the country’s industrial capacity to fight a major, multi-front war, citing a national security risk because current production is too slow. The commission has a tight one-year deadline to deliver its final report and is authorized to spend $7 million to get the job done.

The 'Arsenal of Democracy' Checkup

Congress is drawing a direct line back to World War II, noting the U.S. needs to rebuild its "Arsenal of Democracy"—the industrial muscle that supplied the Allies. The new William S. Knudsen Commission must analyze everything from current production rates and critical stockpiles to lessons learned from the war in Ukraine. If you work in manufacturing, this bill is aiming to find ways to make your factory floor more relevant to national defense, even if you don't currently make military hardware. The core mission is calculating exactly how fast and how much the U.S. industrial base could ramp up production if a major conflict broke out, identifying every choke point along the way.

Targeting the Red Tape

One of the most critical parts of the Commission's mandate is reviewing federal policies and programs that affect defense manufacturing. Specifically, they are tasked with identifying federal regulations—including rules from agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of Energy (DOE)—that are allegedly slowing down production. For the busy manager or small business owner, this means the commission will likely recommend cutting or streamlining regulations that manufacturers claim make it too costly or time-consuming to expand production. The goal is to make it easier and faster for factories to produce military supplies, but the cost could be less oversight in areas like environmental compliance or worker safety, which are often the first targets when the focus shifts solely to speed.

Transparency Off the Table

Here’s the catch for anyone who cares about how policy gets made: Section 3 explicitly exempts this new advisory body from the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). FACA is the law that usually requires federal advisory groups to hold public meetings, provide advance notice, and keep accessible records. By sidestepping FACA, the Commission can conduct its work—including taking input from industry partners and trade associations—behind closed doors, reducing transparency for the public. This means the defense contractors and industry experts who advise the Commission will have a direct line to influence the final recommendations about which regulations should be cut, without the public having clear access to the discussions or the specific data being used.

The Real-World Stakes

This bill is about more than just tanks and missiles; it’s about industrial policy and regulatory power. If the Commission succeeds, defense manufacturers could see increased funding and significantly reduced regulatory burdens, potentially boosting hiring and production in those sectors. However, the mandate to aggressively seek out and recommend the removal of regulations that impose a “burden” on producers means agencies like the EPA and DOE will be under pressure to roll back rules. For the average citizen, this trade-off means potentially faster production of defense goods at the expense of public transparency in the advisory process and potentially weaker environmental or worker protections down the line.