Executive Order 14372: Prioritizing the Warfighter in Defense Contracting
President: Donald J. Trump
Directed Defense to prioritize delivery, readiness and production capacity in major contracts and address contractor buybacks, dividends, underperformance and executive incentives.
Status: In effect. Is Executive Order 14372 still in effect? Yes. Executive Order 14372 remains in effect. See Federal Register record.

What does Executive Order 14372 do?
The text directs Defense to identify underperforming major contractors and programs, and Acquisition officials to use performance, incentive and capital-allocation terms.
Reading the operative provisions of Executive Order 14372
EO 14372 directs the Defense Department to prioritize delivery, readiness and production capacity when overseeing major defense contracts. It calls for scrutiny of contractor performance and capital distributions such as buybacks and dividends when a company is failing to meet obligations. The Federal Register text assigns DoD review and reporting tasks; it does not cancel every contract or prohibit all shareholder returns.
Defense contracts can involve long production timelines, specialized suppliers and significant testing. A contractor’s ability to meet delivery schedules can affect military readiness, but the government must assess the contract terms, performance data and available remedies. The order’s emphasis on executive compensation or dividends does not replace contract law, procurement regulations or the rights of shareholders under corporate law.
When a contractor underperforms, DoD may use performance improvement plans, contractual remedies or other authorities, subject to the specific agreement and applicable rules. A review of capital allocation is not proof that a company diverted funds unlawfully. Implementation should be traced through DoD guidance, contract modifications, production schedules and delivery data. The stated goal is to put mission needs first, while each procurement action must remain tied to evidence and legal authority.
The department’s reviews should distinguish a general corporate financial decision from conduct that undermines performance on a government contract. Contract terms, delivery records, production capacity and quality findings provide the relevant evidence. Any restriction or remedy should identify the contract, the obligation missed and the legal basis. This approach lets DoD address poor performance while avoiding an unsupported blanket prohibition on all dividends or share repurchases.
Before and after
Before the order
Defense contractors operated under negotiated contracts, the FAR/DFARS, securities law and existing industrial-base authorities.
After the order
Defense incorporated the policy into acquisition and industrial-base planning, including 2026 shipbuilding expectations; contract-specific changes require lawful clauses or agreements.
Who had to do what
| Agency / office | Action | Timing / position |
|---|---|---|
| Defense | Identify underperforming major contractors and programs | 60 days |
| Acquisition officials | Use performance, incentive and capital-allocation terms | Ongoing |
| Defense | Develop industrial-base accountability measures | 180 days |
What happened next
EO 14372 signed.
Legal and source detail
How it works legally
Procurement statutes, FAR/DFARS, existing contracts, due process, securities law and appropriations constrain implementation. The order cannot unilaterally rewrite a vested contract.
Sources by type
If a source is unavailable, first check the cited publisher or another official repository. The cited publisher remains the authority.
Primary and official sources
Orders, laws, court records and official implementation material.
- Navy 2026 shipbuilding plan (opens in a new tab) Official record
How we checked this
Last checked against the sources above on September 9, 2026. How we research →