Executive Actions Archives - Government Contracts Navigator

Is This the End of Cost-Type Contracting? What Federal Contractors Should Know About a New Executive Order Making Fixed-Price Contracts the “Default”

Stephanie M. Harden, Dominique L. Casimir, Elizabeth N. Jochum, and Sara N. Gerber ●

On April 30, 2026, President Trump signed another executive order (“EO”) that may significantly impact how the government buys goods and services. The target: cost-reimbursement contracts, which let contractors bill the government for their “allowable, allocable, and reasonable” costs incurred, plus some pre-established or earnable profit. According to the EO, in Fiscal Year (“FY”) 2024, the government spent roughly $120 billion on cost-reimbursement consulting contracts. The EO seeks to significantly reduce that figure by making fixed-price contracts the default for federal procurement—meaning prices are locked in up front and contractors, not taxpayers, bear the risk of overruns.

What does the executive order require agencies to do?

Agencies that want to use structures other than fixed-price will begin to face real hurdles as agencies implement the EO’s directives. Nearly every exception from the “default” fixed-price model will require the contracting officer to provide written justification not just to someone senior within the contracting authority, but to the head of the relevant agency, and bigger-ticket exceptions—at thresholds of $100 million (Department of Defense (“DoD”)), $35 million (National Aeronautics and Space Administration), $25 million (Department of Homeland Security), and $10 million (everyone else)—need the agency head’s sign-off, not just notification.

New Suit Seeks to Enjoin EO 14398: Implications for Government Contractors

Dominique L. Casimir and Shane M. Hannon ●

Less than one month after the issuance of Executive Order 14398 (“EO 14398”), “Addressing DEI Discrimination by Federal Contractors,” a coalition of academic and contractor organizations has filed a lawsuit in federal court seeking to have it enjoined. See National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education v. Trump, No. 8:26-cv-01532 (D. Md. filed Apr. 20, 2026). Here is what government contractors need to know.

As we have previously covered, EO 14398 is a critical new development for government contractors. It introduces a new concept of “racially discriminatory DEI activities,” defined as “disparate treatment based on race or ethnicity in the recruitment, employment (e.g., hiring, promotions), contracting (e.g., vendor agreements), program participation, or allocation or deployment of an entity’s resources.”

The plaintiff organizations are challenging EO 14398 on three grounds.

An Overview of the New DEI Executive Order: Scope and Limitations

Dominique L. Casimir ●

On March 26, 2026, President Trump signed Executive Order 14398 (“EO 14398”) titled Addressing DEI Discrimination by Federal Contractors, taking aim at the diversity, equity, and inclusion (“DEI”) practices of federal contractors. EO 14398 ventures into territory already covered by the President’s prior DEI-related executive orders (“EOs”), in particular EO 14173, which requires a contractor certification regarding “illegal DEI,” but goes further. It directs federal agencies to include a mandatory contract clause prohibiting “racially discriminatory DEI activities” in all covered contracts and subcontracts, requires prime contractors to police the DEI practices of subcontractors at every tier, imposes new reporting requirements, and threatens a panoply of consequences for noncompliance, including contract termination, False Claims Act (“FCA”) exposure, and suspension and debarment. Like EO 14173, it also requires the government to “identify economic sectors that pose a particular risk of entities engaging in racially discriminatory DEI,” signaling the Administration’s ongoing desire to stamp out DEI. The accompanying White House Fact Sheet declares that the EO will ensure “merit-based and efficient contracting and employment.”

EO 14398 is likely to be challenged in court on a variety of theories, similar to the ongoing wave of EO 14173 litigation. Contractors will almost certainly question the EO’s scope and the ambiguity in its key terminology, as well as its enforcement assumptions.

To read the full alert, please visit our website.

Decoupling from Chinese Chips: Unpacking the Proposed Section 5949 Supply Chain Ban

Robyn N. Burrows and Samarth Barot ●

In December 2022, we discussed the passage of Section 5949 of the Fiscal Year 2023 National Defense Authorization Act (“NDAA”), which introduced prohibitions on certain semiconductor products and services from designated Chinese manufacturers. At the time, the statute’s scope remained unclear, particularly regarding whether the restrictions would apply only to federal sales or extend to contractor “use” of covered technologies, similar to Section 889’s Part B prohibition. On February 17, 2026, the Federal Acquisition Regulatory (“FAR”) Council released a proposed rule that provides important clarity on these questions and establishes a compliance framework for government contractors.

Understanding the Potential Anthropic Ban: Key Considerations for Federal Contractors

Robyn N. Burrows and Merle M. DeLancey, Jr. ●

On February 27, 2026, President Trump posted on Truth Social directing all federal agencies to “immediately cease” use of Anthropic’s artificial intelligence (“AI”) technology. Simultaneously, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced on X he was designating the company a “supply chain risk to national security” and prohibiting federal contractors from doing any business with Anthropic. This unprecedented action against a domestic company has significant supply chain implications for government contractors. Below, we summarize what led to this development, the legal authorities pertaining to supply chain bans, and practical guidance for contractors navigating this evolving situation.

1. Background: From Contract Dispute to Presidential Directive

The conflict between Anthropic and the federal government emerged from a contract dispute over the company’s AI usage restrictions. Anthropic, which holds a $200 million Pentagon contract and was the first frontier AI company to deploy its models on classified government networks, maintained two “red lines” in its contract negotiations: it refused to allow its AI model, Claude, to be used for mass domestic surveillance of Americans or in fully autonomous weapons systems.

The Pentagon demanded that Anthropic agree to “all lawful use” of its technology without Anthropic’s proposed restrictions. Anthropic’s refusal led President Trump and Secretary Hegseth to announce their decisions against Anthropic on social media. Secretary Hegseth stated that Anthropic would be “immediately” designated a supply chain risk, prohibiting any federal contractor working with the military from “any commercial activity with Anthropic.”

Anthropic has announced it will challenge the supply chain risk designation in court, calling it “legally unsound.”

Top 10 Points for Contractors from DOJ’s February 19 Comments on “DEI” Enforcement

Luke W. Meier ●

Yesterday, Brenna Jenny, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Commercial Litigation Branch, Department of Justice (“DOJ”) Civil Division, offered remarks on False Claims Act enforcement related to so-called “illegal DEI.” Other outlets have broadly recapped these remarks, a rare opportunity for direct insight into DOJ’s thinking on these issues.

Below are 10 key points for government contractors from the remarks of Ms. Jenny (who spoke for herself, and not officially for the DOJ).

Prioritizing the Warfighter in Defense Contracting—What Does the New EO Mean for Contractors?

Scott Arnold ●

President Trump issued an Executive Order (“EO”) on January 7, 2025, that seeks improved performance of defense contracts and enhanced contractor investments in production capacity through measures that would impose limits on executive compensation when contractor performance or investment levels are deemed inadequate. The EO, Prioritizing the Warfighter in Defense Contracting, appears predicated on the belief that “after years of misplaced priorities, traditional defense contractors have been incentivized to prioritize investor returns over the Nations’s warfighters.” To address this, the EO states that “[m]ajor defense contractors will no longer conduct stock buy-backs or issue dividends at the expense of accelerated procurement and increased production capacity.” While the desire to improve defense contract performance is understandable, the attempt to do so through regulation of executive compensation is unprecedented.

What Does the EO Require?

The EO sets forth two key mechanisms through which the new priorities will be implemented.

Where Grant Litigation Stands After the Supreme Court’s Jurisdictional Ruling in NIH

Dominique L. Casimir●

The Supreme Court issued a fractured, 4-1-4 ruling on its emergency docket in National Institutes of Health v. American Public Health Association, No. 25A103, 606 U.S. ____ (2025) (per curiam) (“NIH”) on August 21, 2025.

The Court’s ruling left behind a complex legal landscape, because four justices wrote that a district court has jurisdiction to hear both a challenge to agency guidance alleged to be arbitrary and capricious, and challenges to grant terminations based on that guidance. Four other justices wrote that the entire case (i.e., both the challenge to the agency guidance and the challenge to grant terminations based on that guidance) belongs in the Court of Federal Claims. In the end, the outcome was controlled by a single justice (Justice Barrett), who decided the jurisdictional issue in a manner inconsistent with the views of eight justices. In her controlling concurrence, Justice Barrett ruled that a district court has jurisdiction to hear a challenge to agency guidance, but lacks jurisdiction to hear challenges to grant terminations based on that guidance because grant termination challenges are subject to the Tucker Act and therefore belong in the Court of Federal Claims.

Two lower opinions handed down since NIH show lower courts falling in line with Justice Barrett’s ruling in NIH:

Supreme Court Weighs in for a Second Time on Jurisdiction over Grant Termination Cases

Dominique L. Casimir and Sara N. Gerber ●

The Supreme Court recently ruled for the second time that federal district courts likely lack jurisdiction under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) to hear challenges to terminations of federal grants. The first such ruling came in April of this year, when the Court granted an emergency stay in California v. Department of Education. On August 21, 2025, the Supreme Court issued another emergency stay, in NIH v. American Public Health Association, reaffirming the view that challenges to grant terminations are, in substance, breach of contract actions for money damages that belong in the Court of Federal Claims under the Tucker Act.

Since California, several lower courts have nevertheless asserted jurisdiction over grantee lawsuits seeking reinstatement of terminated grants, often distinguishing California on procedural or factual grounds. We have previously written about some of those cases (including Massachusetts v. Kennedy, which was later consolidated with NIH). Although the Supreme Court’s decision in NIH is an interim order, the jurisdictional question may now be functionally settled, particularly given Justice Gorsuch’s admonishment to lower courts that even if they “sometimes disagree with this Court’s decisions…they are never free to defy them. When this court issues a decision, it constitutes a precedent that commands respect in lower courts.” Following NIH, we expect terminated grantees will largely be forced into the Court of Federal Claims, which generally does not have authority under the Tucker Act to grant the equitable relief—reinstatement of grants—that many of them are seeking.

Trump Administration Increases Oversight of Federal Grants

Dominique L. Casimir and Shane M. Hannon ●

President Trump issued an Executive Order (“EO”) on August 7 that overhauls the federal grantmaking process. Titled “Improving Oversight of Federal Grantmaking,” the EO identifies deficiencies in the federal government’s current approach to issuing discretionary grants. The EO criticizes some existing federal grants as an “offensive waste of tax dollars” and promoting “anti-American ideologies,” and contends grants have been issued to “organizations that actively work against American interests abroad.” It also identifies defects in the grant approval process, noting that drafting grant applications is “notoriously complex” and therefore too costly for smaller institutions. The EO seeks to align federal grants with the Administration’s policy preferences and give the Administration greater control to select grant recipients. Here are the relevant highlights and takeaways:

The EO expands the federal government’s ability to terminate grants.

A core feature of the EO is requiring all discretionary grants, current and future, to include termination for convenience clauses. Discretionary grants are those where an agency exercises its own judgment to select both the funding amount and the grantee, such as by basing award on the merits of grant applications via a competitive process. Historically, discretionary grants have not included termination for convenience clauses. For example, the Uniform Guidance, 2 C.F.R. § 200, does not include a provision that permits the federal government to terminate a discretionary grant at its leisure. This is in contrast to typical federal contracts, which invariably include termination for convenience provisions, such as FAR 52.249-2.

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

1. Background: From Contract Dispute to Presidential Directive

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: