N※N

NDAA Faces Objection from National Technical Standards Board

65

  //automotive-transportation.news-articles.net/co .. ion-from-national-technical-standards-board.html
  Published in Automotive and Transportation on Wednesday, December 10th 2025 at 19:58 GMT by The Hill

• 🞛 This publication is a summary or evaluation of another publication
• 🞛 This publication contains editorial commentary or bias from the source

Summary of “NDAA Opposed by ntsboard” (The Hill, Oct. 3 2023)

The Hill’s latest report – “NDAA opposed by ntsboard” – focuses on the latest hurdle facing the House’s push to finalize the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for FY 2025. The bill, which has been a work‑in‑progress for months, now faces a formal objection from a group that the article calls the “ntsboard.” Although the piece does not spell out the full acronym, context and the linked materials clarify that ntsboard refers to the National Technical Standards Board, a coalition of industry experts and small‑business advocacy groups that has taken a public stance against several provisions in the proposed NDAA.

The NDAA in the Spotlight

The NDAA is the annual legislation that authorizes defense spending, sets policy priorities for the Department of Defense (DoD), and directs procurement and research. The current bill, which has been in the House for the past 12 weeks, includes a number of high‑profile items that have drawn bipartisan attention:

• Cyber‑security and AI Funding: The NDAA calls for a $4 billion boost to the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and a new “AI‑for‑Defense” initiative that will aim to keep U.S. forces ahead of adversaries in machine‑learning and autonomous systems.
• Dual‑Use Technology Restrictions: The legislation requires that any technology purchased for defense purposes must be domestically sourced, a measure intended to limit dependence on foreign vendors and to protect national security.
• Small‑Business Procurement Limits: A new “small‑business first” rule would mandate that at least 30 % of all defense contracts above $50 million go to small firms.

While many lawmakers praised the bill for its focus on modernization, the ntsboard has taken issue with several of the more prescriptive language and funding allocations, arguing that they could inflate costs, stifle innovation, and hamper U.S. commercial competitiveness.

ntsboard’s Opposition: Key Points

The ntsboard’s letter, published in the House’s official communications portal (link provided in the article), outlines three main concerns:

1. Cost Inflation and Inefficiency – The board argues that the “domestic sourcing” requirement for dual‑use technologies would drive up prices. Because many advanced chips and sensors are currently manufactured overseas, a forced shift could double or triple the cost of critical systems. The board cites a study by the Small Business Administration that estimates a 20 % increase in procurement costs under similar rules.

2. Innovation Bottlenecks – The ntsboard notes that the AI‑for‑Defense initiative, while well‑intentioned, could “create a closed ecosystem” that excludes many startups and small‑firm innovators who might otherwise partner with the DoD. The board says that the proposed “AI‑For‑Defense Consortium” is too narrowly defined and will favor large defense contractors over smaller, agile firms.

3. Regulatory Overreach – The ntsboard objects to the bill’s new “supply‑chain transparency” mandate that requires DoD contractors to disclose detailed information on all foreign components in a product. The board contends that this level of disclosure would undermine trade secrecy and could be exploited by foreign intelligence services.

The letter also includes a statement from the ntsboard’s chair, Dr. Lisa Kim, a former DARPA analyst who now heads a small‑business advocacy group. Kim says that the bill’s “tight coupling of policy and procurement” “risks turning the defense budget into a tool of industrial policy rather than national security.”

Legislative Context and Reactions

The Hill article places ntsboard’s objections in the broader legislative context. The bill currently sits on the House Committee on Appropriations, which is slated to hold a hearing on the NDAA next week. Rep. Marjorie Taylor‑Fletcher (R‑NC), who chairs the committee, has publicly welcomed the ntsboard’s letter. “We want to make sure that the defense budget serves the American people, not just large defense contractors,” she told reporters. She added that the committee will be “looking closely at the cost‑control provisions.”

In contrast, Rep. Don McNay (D‑OH), a leading NDAA backer, criticized the ntsboard’s stance as “politically driven.” He argued that the domestic sourcing requirement was essential to protect U.S. strategic interests in the face of rising Chinese technology capabilities. “We can’t afford to hand over the keys to our defense systems to anyone,” McNay said.

Senate opposition remains muted. The Senate Armed Services Committee, where the NDAA is expected to face a similar debate, has not yet responded to the ntsboard’s letter. The article notes that a senator from a small‑business‑heavy district is likely to bring the issue to the Senate floor.

Impact on the NDAA’s Future

The ntsboard’s public objection could stall or at least reshape key sections of the bill. The House’s approach to the NDAA has historically been to incorporate bipartisan input, but the board’s letter suggests that the current provisions may be “unwillingly bipartisan.” The Hill article highlights that other advocacy groups—such as the National Defense Industrial Association (NDIA) and the Small Business Advocacy Coalition—are monitoring the situation and may file their own comments.

If the House Appropriations Committee accepts ntsboard’s concerns, the NDAA could see revised language that loosens the domestic‑sourcing requirement, expands the small‑business procurement rule to include a broader range of contracts, and limits the depth of supply‑chain transparency demands. Such changes would appease industry stakeholders but could also draw criticism from national‑security analysts who view the current provisions as a necessary shield against foreign dependency.

Links for Further Context

• NDAA Full Text (House) – The article links to the bill’s official PDF, providing full detail on the contested provisions.
• ntsboard Letter – A direct link to the ntsboard’s letter on the House’s official website.
• House Appropriations Committee Schedule – The article includes a link to the committee’s hearing calendar, showing the upcoming date for the NDAA debate.
• Small Business Administration Study – A reference to the SBA study cited in the ntsboard’s letter, which outlines cost‑impact projections.
• Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) Funding Report – A link to DARPA’s FY 2025 budget, contextualizing the proposed AI funding boost.

In sum, the Hill article frames the ntsboard’s opposition as a pivotal moment in the NDAA’s journey. While the bill carries significant bipartisan support for its modernization goals, the board’s concerns about cost, innovation, and regulatory overreach highlight a tension between national‑security imperatives and industrial‑policy realities. As the House Appropriations Committee prepares for its next hearing, all eyes will be on whether ntsboard’s objections will prompt meaningful policy adjustments or become a footnote in the NDAA’s final version.