Photo: Jessica Rodriguez Rivas
In a stunning victory, Democrats have won control of the U.S. Congress, riding a “blue wave” of popular dissatisfaction with the Trump administration. The Democrats’ likely approach to procurement in the new Congress, shaped by the looming 2028 presidential elections, may reflect a mainstream but proactive agenda focused on perceived corruption and radical regulatory change in the Trump administration.
Graphic: National Public Radio
Potential Legislative Reforms
Democrats have signaled that, with control, they will focus on investigations in the new Congress. On a broader scale, reinforcing public criticism of the Trump administration makes political sense. But to demonstrate assured leadership in procurement – a sensitive electoral issue — Democrats may need to point to more concrete legislative measures.
For Democrats, the core problem is time: the 2028 campaign effectively begins now, and Republicans (who retain the necessary 40+ votes to block Senate legislation by filibuster) are likely to oppose any standalone reform legislation. That means that procurement reform legislation in the new Congress is likely to come through the annual defense authorization process, for decades the regular legislative pathway for procurement reform.
Defense authorization legislation is handled through the House and Senate armed services committees, which are likely to be led by Representative Adam Smith (D-WA) and Senator Jack Reed (D-RI). Both previously chaired their respective committees, and both – as leaders of large, very politically diverse congressional committees – are likely to favor mainstream reforms.
The current National Defense Authorization bill for fiscal year 2027 has passed the House. The Senate’s version of the legislation is stalled by policy debates (including over funding for Israel and the war in Iran). The “lame duck” Congress, which Republicans still control, may attempt to pass compromise legislation before the new Congress is sworn in during the first days of January 2027.
The current House and Senate versions of the defense authorization legislation contain procurement reform provisions in Title VIII, the traditional vehicle for reform. The pending House bill under the current Republican leadership, H.R. 8800, already includes modest reform measures. The Senate version, S. 4784, contains more ambitious reforms (such as enhanced transparency for streamlined “other transaction” procurements (Section 817)), but also proposes loosened contracting rules that have raised concerns in the Congressional Budget Office.
Democrats may push for broader procurement reforms, either in a compromise version of the current defense authorization bills or in the fiscal year 2028 authorization legislation which is likely to emerge in the first months of the new Congress. In these (and other) legislative efforts, Democrats may focus on the following:
- Trump administration’s “revolutionary” overhaul of federal procurement rules: In early 2025, President Trump and the White House’s Office of Management and Budget launched the “Revolutionary FAR Overhaul” (RFO), which called for radical streamlining of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and deletion of any rules not explicitly supported by statute. Although normally FAR changes require formal rulemaking in accordance with law, the RFO was initially rushed through unpublished comments and provisional changes. The RFO is now in its second phase, with proposed regulations published for comment. Non-partisan commentators have raised serious issues regarding the proposed rules, such as much broader use of oral presentations in lieu of written proposals. Congress has delayed a parallel Trump administration rulemaking regarding federal grants; Democrats may try to stall the RFO, citing the serious potential impacts of the massive, hurried effort. If the Trump administration pushes forward with the revised rules, opponents may sue to block them. Opponents might argue that the new rules violate Supreme Court precedents which constrain agency rulemaking (Loper Bright), including rulemaking that involves “major questions” that Congress should first address (Learning Resources (tariff decision)).
- Protecting small business: In another major rulemaking, the Trump administration has proposed radically expanding the definitions of “small” businesses to include much larger businesses. As one expert, Steven Koprince, put it: “[T]he U.S. Small Business Administration [has] proposed eye-poppingly enormous increases to its small business size standards. . . . [S]ome common small business size standards would increase by more than 1,000%.” In practice, these “massive” changes to the size standards could overwhelm small business preferences by allowing much larger business to compete as “small.” To address the concerns of the small business community, Democrats in Congress (already concerned by the Trump administration’s impact on small contractors) may try to stop – or at least delay – these changes.
- Addressing alleged corruption: There has been intense public criticism of alleged cronyism in contracting under the Trump administration. In response, leaders in the new Democratic Congress may push for enhanced integrity, transparency and competition in federal contracting. Among other things, Democrats may press the FAR Council to finalize a long-pending rule on corporate (“organizational”) conflicts of interest, which could require vendors to disclose when inside information gives them an unfair competitive advantage.
Conclusion
The stunning shift in the control of Congress in the mid-term elections, and now the pending 2028 general elections, may prompt Democrats to press for broader procurement reforms. Those reforms may prove moderate (to build political consensus), be presented as part of the annual defense authorization process (to be timely), and pivot on points of controversy in the Trump administration (such as deregulation and corruption).
