CONSULT Act of 2023 Combating Obstructive National Security Underreporting of Legitimate Threats Act of 2023
SB2034 would have significant implications for how consulting contracts are awarded and managed within the DoD. It establishes a prohibition on renewing or entering into contracts with firms identified as 'covered consultancies'—those that have worked with adversarial entities in the past year. This regulatory shift aims to enhance transparency in the procurement process and to ensure that U.S. national security is not compromised by conflicting interests. As a result, existing consulting firms may need to reassess their operations in light of these new compliance requirements, which may lead to reduced opportunities for those affiliated with foreign adversaries or sensitive national security interests.
The bill SB2034, formally titled the Combating Obstructive National Security Underreporting of Legitimate Threats Act of 2023 (CONSULT Act of 2023), mandates the Secretary of Defense to establish procurement policies aimed at preventing conflicts of interest among consulting firms providing services related to national security and foreign policy. The bill is a response to concerns that consultants may have business relationships with foreign entities that are adversarial to U.S. interests, thus complicating the mission support services provided to the Department of Defense (DoD). This initiative seeks to safeguard U.S. national security by ensuring that entities with potential conflicting interests do not engage with foreign adversaries while also working with the DoD.
The bill sparks debate regarding its implementation and the extent of its reach. Critics might express concerns about the operational feasibility of policing various consulting firms and the potential for diminishing competition among service providers. Additionally, the definitions outlined for what constitutes a 'covered consultancy'—including extensive criteria related to foreign alignment and affiliations—may lead to ambiguity and challenges in enforcement. Proponents argue that such measures are necessary to protect national interests, while detractors may highlight the risks of unintended consequences, including potential overreach that could stifle legitimate consulting businesses that provide value to the defense community.