President Donald Trump took aim at defense contractors Wednesday, announcing new restrictions on executive pay and stock buybacks as part of the administration’s push to speed procurement and revitalize the defense industrial base.
In an executive order issued late Wednesday, Trump said companies “are not permitted in any way, shape, or form to pay dividends or buy back stock, until they are able to produce a superior product, on time and on budget.”
The order directs Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to identify defense contractors providing critical weapons, supplies and equipment that are “underperforming, not investing their own capital into necessary production capacity, not sufficiently prioritizing U.S. government contracts, or whose production speed is insufficient as determined by the Secretary,” while simultaneously engaging in stock buybacks or corporate profit distributions.
Contractors identified under the review must be notified and given an opportunity to submit a remediation plan within 15 days to address performance issues.
]]>
If disputes over underperformance issues cannot be resolved within 15 days or the remediation plan is deemed inadequate, the defense secretary “may initiate immediate actions to secure remedies for the secretary that will expedite production, prioritize the U.S. military and return the contractor to sufficient performance, investment, prioritization and production, to the maximum extent permitted by law.”
The executive order also directs the Defense Department to ensure that future contracts with new or existing defense contractors include provisions prohibiting stock buybacks and corporate profit distributions during periods of underperformance, contract noncompliance, insufficient investment, or “insufficient production speed as determined by the secretary.”
The government already has a whole set of tools in its toolbox to incentivize, reward or penalize companies based on their performance, and the executive order relies in part on mechanisms the Defense Department already uses. What is different, however, are the remedies the administration is focusing on — and the main challenge in implementing this executive order will be defining the key parameters contractors are going to be held accountable for, Protorae Law member Alan Chvotkin said.
“The remedies of no stock buybacks and caps on executive compensation — that’s not a remedy that the government already has available to it,” Chvotkin told Federal News Network. “It’s not so binary to say it’s 100% of contractor’s problem or zero of the contractor’s problem, and that’s where the hard work is going to come on each of these major programs — defining the specific parameters that the department is expecting.”
Stan Soloway, president and CEO of Celero Strategies and federal acquisition expert, said the executive order seems to presume that any cost overrun is the fault of the contractor without recognizing that “not all cost overruns are created equal.”
“The [executive order] is full of vagaries and ambiguity. It is going to be very interesting to determine how they measure whether a company is performing … There’s no mention about the responsibility the Defense Department has for cost overruns and program delays. While companies are far from perfect, all too often, the delays are driven by changing requirements, by requirement rigidity, lack of flexibility in the requirements and by budget uncertainties,” Soloway told Federal News Network.
Back in 2007, the Defense Science Board, for instance, examined three troubled programs — the Littoral Combat Ship, the presidential helicopter and the Army’s Comanche helicopter — and found that constantly changing government requirements were a major driver of cost overruns and schedule delays. The Packard Commission reached the same conclusion two decades before the Defense Science Board issued its report.
]]>
“Accountability is key here, but there is a shared responsibility between the government and contractors. There are many tools to hold contractors accountable, but way fewer tools to hold the government accountable. This EO doesn’t do anything to make the government more accountable,” David Berteau, former president and CEO of the Professional Services Council and now president of David Berteau & Associates, told Federal News Network.
“The disconnect of this EO is if the desired outcome is better contract performance, how can implementing this EO produce better results? That isn’t clear to me. Someone will have to write implementation guidance that does that. I spent a lot of my career writing implementation guidance, and I have a hard time seeing implementing this in such a way that it produces better performance quickly,” he added.
If the goal of the executive order is to push companies to invest in production capacity and capability rather than shareholder returns, that approach only works if there are returns on that investment, Berteau said.
Lockheed Martin’s recent deal with the Pentagon to increase Patriot missile interceptor production to about 2,000 missiles a year is a significant step toward that approach, Berteau said. Lockheed agreed to fund an expansion of its Patriot missile factory in exchange for a seven-year commitment from the Pentagon.
“We have to wait to see the implementation guidance to get a sense of what the real goal is, better contract performance leading to faster deliveries or what,” Berteau said.
“It is critical that the relationship between the government and contractors be one of shared responsibility and partnership, particularly around defining and deciding what the contract will give you and the structure of the contract to make sure the government will get what it needs. There is a lot about this EO that doesn’t seem to be about strengthening that partnership. It seems to be more about punishing one side of the equation,” he added.
The Defense Department did not respond to questions about whether contractors should expect formal guidance in the coming weeks or how many underperforming contractors it has already identified.
“After numerous years of failing to meet contractual obligations, under President Trump’s order, defense contractors will no longer be allowed to leave our warfighters behind while giving themselves massive payouts from stock buybacks. This will give Department of War the ability to meet national security objectives and ensure efficiency and accountability. Our obligation is to our warfighters; not Wall Street,” Chief Pentagon Spokesman Sean Parnell told Federal News Network in a statement.
Executive pay
In one of his Truth Social posts, Trump said no executive should be allowed to make more than $5 million, but the figure did not make it into the executive order.
]]>
Instead, the president directed the defense secretary to ensure future contracts require executive compensation to be tied to performance — such as on-time delivery, increased production and “all necessary facilitation of investments required to rapidly expand the United States stockpiles and capabilities” — rather than short-term financial metrics like cash flow or earnings per share driven by stock buybacks.
If a contractor has “engaged in underperformance, non-compliance, insufficient prioritization of the contract, insufficient investment, or insufficient production speed,” the department could cap executive base salaries at current levels.
Executive compensation was a contentious issue in 2013, when President Barack Obama called on Congress to cap executive pay at $400,000.
A cap on executive compensation already exists in some form — contractors can pay their executives whatever they choose, but the government only reimburses costs up to a certain limit.
The executive order, however, goes a step further — it’s shifting from how much the government will reimburse the contractor to limiting how much the company can pay its executives.
“Pretty significant difference, but maybe they’ll fall back on the same mechanisms. I don’t know that yet. Nobody in the department is talking yet about how they’re going to implement this. I’m sure they’re still trying to work that out,” Chvotkin said.
“I think there’s a fair question, broadly speaking, in commerce, generally, not just in the government market, about executives having the right incentives to drive long-term performance and excellence. But I don’t know what the standards are going to be, what the metrics are going to be. There’s a ton of ambiguity in here,” Soloway said.
Who does the EO apply to?
While the executive order targets contractors that provide “critical weapons, supplies and equipment,” it doesn’t clearly define the term “critical.”
Chvotkin said new contracts could easily specify which vendors qualify as critical suppliers or require all new contracts to include the provisions laid out in the executive order.
And while the executive order is broadly aimed at “all contractors,” Chvotkin said its likely target is traditional defense contractors rather than the commercial firms the Pentagon has been trying to attract.
“I think it’s all contractors, but fixed-price contractors — less likely, they’re going to have binary decision. Commercial contractors, where the effort is to bring more of them in, but probably not as many of them have the triggers, the buyback, the sort of where the government is reimbursing for executive compensation as they do for many of the traditional defense contractors,” Chvotkin said.
What’s next?
Chvotkin said the Defense Department is likely to issue general guidance to programs on how to carry out the secretary’s review.
“I think they’ve already done quite a bit of that, but I would expect [the undersecretary for acquisition sustainment office] to lead a fair amount of that responsibility to describe what those contracting provisions are relating to critical weapon systems and supplies and equipment. They’ve got to identify those first, then catch up with everybody else on a rolling basis,” Chvotkin said.
“From the contracting folks, I would expect a broad set of contract provisions, both modifications to existing contracts, as well as provisions to go into new solicitations and new contracts to be awarded. That includes the identification of the key performance parameters for each solicitation and new award, the requirement for the company if notified by the Department of Defense or the contracting officer of the failure to adequately meet the performance objectives, the requirement for the remediation plan and then the additional remedies that the department might ask for as part of either the failure of the contractor to meet the original contract performance of projections or the remediation plan,” he added.
Jason Miller contributed to this report.
If you would like to contact this reporter about recent changes in the federal government, please email [email protected] or reach out on Signal at (301) 830-2747.
Copyright
© 2026 Federal News Network. All rights reserved. This website is not intended for users located within the European Economic Area.
