Right to Repair Gains Ground on Three Fronts as State Laws Multiply, EPA Backs Farmers, and Congress Stalls on Military Equipment
Seven U.S. states now enforce consumer electronics right-to-repair laws, the EPA has clarified that farmers can fix their own diesel equipment, and defense contractors blocked military repair provisions from the 2026 defense bill.
Overview
The right-to-repair movement in the United States is advancing on multiple fronts simultaneously, but with sharply uneven results. At the state level, a wave of consumer electronics repair laws has taken effect in 2026, covering more than a quarter of the American population. In agriculture, the Environmental Protection Agency issued guidance in February clarifying that the Clean Air Act cannot be used to prevent farmers from fixing their own diesel equipment. Yet in the defense sector, bipartisan provisions that would have given the military the ability to repair its own weapons systems were stripped from the fiscal year 2026 National Defense Authorization Act after an intensive lobbying campaign by defense contractors.
The result is a movement that continues to build legislative momentum in statehouses and executive agencies while encountering entrenched resistance in Congress, where industry spending remains a decisive factor.
State Laws Reach Critical Mass
As of January 1, 2026, seven states enforce some form of consumer electronics right-to-repair law: California, Colorado, Minnesota, New York, Oregon, Washington, and Massachusetts. Colorado and Washington’s laws, both of which took effect at the start of this year, represent a new generation of repair legislation that directly targets parts pairing, the practice by which manufacturers use software locks to ensure that only authorized replacement components will function in a device.
Colorado’s HB24-1121 prohibits manufacturers from using parts pairing to prevent installation of functional replacement components, reduce device performance, or display misleading warnings about unidentified parts. The law covers cell phones, computers, and televisions, and treats violations as deceptive trade practices carrying penalties of up to $20,000 per violation. Washington’s law, signed by Governor Bob Ferguson in May 2025, mirrors these provisions and makes the state the third, after Oregon and Colorado, to explicitly ban parts pairing.
The legislative pipeline continues to grow. More than 33 right-to-repair bills were introduced across 13 states in the first weeks of January 2026. Connecticut will enact right-to-repair provisions through a consumer protection omnibus bill in July, and Texas will bring its consumer electronics repair law into force in September. Once those laws take effect, more than 35 percent of Americans will live in a state with right-to-repair protections, according to advocacy organizations tracking the legislation.
Enforcement mechanisms vary considerably. California allows state civil actions with penalties up to $5,000 per day for repeat violations. Minnesota classifies violations as deceptive trade practices, with fines up to $25,000. New York relies on Attorney General enforcement with penalties capped at $500 per violation. Oregon assigns enforcement to its Attorney General with penalties of up to $1,000 per day, according to a Crowell & Moring analysis of the compliance landscape.
For manufacturers selling products across state lines, this patchwork of requirements creates significant compliance challenges. Each state defines covered devices, enforcement timelines, and penalty structures differently, forcing companies to develop state-specific strategies or adopt the most restrictive standard nationwide.
EPA Clarifies Farmers’ Right to Repair
On February 2, 2026, the EPA issued guidance clarifying that the Clean Air Act permits temporary overrides of emission control systems when performed “for the purpose of repair.” The move targeted a longstanding practice by equipment manufacturers, most prominently John Deere, that invoked anti-tampering provisions in the Clean Air Act to justify restricting access to diagnostic software and repair tools, effectively forcing farmers to use manufacturer-authorized dealers for routine maintenance.
EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin stated that the guidance protects “every American’s right to repair” and is intended to secure “a stronger, more independent future.” Agriculture Secretary Brooke L. Rollins said the change is “expected to save our farmers thousands in unnecessary repairs” by eliminating the requirement to transport heavy equipment to distant dealer facilities.
The guidance does not alter the Clean Air Act itself, weaken emission standards, or reduce compliance obligations. It clarifies existing law rather than creating new authority. Independent estimates cited by the Small Business Administration suggest that farmers could save approximately $33,000 per repair by avoiding mandatory dealer service, with an additional $3,000 to $4,000 in time and transportation costs.
The EPA’s action follows the Federal Trade Commission’s January 2025 antitrust lawsuit against John Deere, filed jointly with Minnesota and Illinois, with Michigan, Wisconsin, and Arizona subsequently joining. The complaint alleges that Deere’s proprietary diagnostic tool, Service ADVISOR, is only fully functional for authorized dealers, creating a repair monopoly that violates federal and state antitrust laws. A federal judge denied Deere’s motion to dismiss in June 2025, clearing the case for trial, though no date has been set.
Defense Contractors Block Military Repair Rights
The contrast between the agricultural and defense sectors is stark. Both the House and Senate versions of the fiscal year 2026 NDAA contained bipartisan provisions that would have required defense contractors to provide the military with access to technical data, repair tools, and maintenance instructions for weapons systems. The House provision, known as Data-as-a-Service Solutions for Weapon System Contracts, would have required the Department of Defense to negotiate access to technical data and software before signing contracts. The Senate version required contractors to provide detailed repair and maintenance instructions.
Both provisions had broad support. The Trump administration endorsed them. Army Secretary Dan Driscoll criticized defense contractors for charging excessive repair costs. Senators Elizabeth Warren and Tim Sheehy co-sponsored the Warrior Right to Repair Act of 2025, which aligned with the House language. The provisions passed through both Armed Services Committees with bipartisan votes.
None of it survived the conference committee. After what advocates described as an intensive lobbying campaign by defense industry groups, both provisions were removed from the final bill. The National Defense Industrial Association argued the requirements would “hamper innovation.” Eric Fanning, CEO of the Aerospace Industries Association, claimed they would “cripple” warfighter innovation.
The final legislation instead requires the Pentagon to develop a digital system to track technical data compliance and review existing contracts, a measure that advocacy groups described as toothless because it addresses only cases where contractors have already failed to deliver required data.
“Despite support from Republicans, Democrats, the White House, and key military leaders, troops will keep waiting for repairs they could perform themselves,” said Charlie Schuyler, a legislative associate at the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, as reported by Engadget.
The financial stakes are considerable. Sustainment costs comprise roughly 70 percent of total weapon system lifecycle costs, according to a CSIS analysis. In documented cases, a UH-60 Black Hawk helicopter fin that costs $14,000 from a vendor was produced by the DOD as a prototype for $3,000 while proving 300 percent stronger. The Army was quoted $990 million for data rights to a single helicopter rotor blade design.
The Broader Pattern
The right-to-repair movement’s progress reveals a consistent pattern: it advances most effectively where industry lobbying faces countervailing pressure from consumers, farmers, or state attorneys general, and it stalls where concentrated corporate spending can target a small number of congressional decision-makers. State legislatures, closer to constituent concerns and less susceptible to national lobbying campaigns, continue to pass laws at an accelerating pace. Federal agencies like the EPA and FTC have used existing authority to challenge manufacturer restrictions. But in Congress, where defense contractors spent heavily to protect repair monopolies worth billions in sustainment contracts, the movement’s broad bipartisan support proved insufficient.
The next major tests will come later this year, as Connecticut and Texas laws take effect, the FTC’s case against John Deere proceeds toward trial, and advocates begin pushing for repair provisions to be included in other legislative vehicles after the NDAA setback.