Photo of Alex Major

Alex Major

Subscribe to Alex Major's Posts

Mr. Major is a partner and co-leader of the firm’s Government Contracts & Export Controls Practice Group. Mr. Major focuses his practice on federal procurement, cybersecurity liability and risk management, and litigation. A prolific author and thought leader in the area of cybersecurity, his professional experience involves a wide variety of litigation and counseling matters dealing with procurement laws and federal regulations and standards. His diverse experience includes complex litigation in federal court under the qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act and bid protest actions. He counsels all sizes of companies on issues relating to compliance with government regulations including, among other things, cybersecurity (NIST, FIPS, FedRAMP, and DFARS) requirements, multiple award schedule compliance, Section 508 issues, country of origin requirements under the Buy American and Trade Agreements Acts, cost accounting, and small business requirements. He also regularly conducts internal investigations to assist companies ensure that they are in full compliance with the law.

Follow:Read more about Alex MajorAlexander's Linkedin Profile

The biggest danger may be misreading the order—and creating new exposure in the process.

On March 26, 2026, President Trump issued an executive order (EO) titled “Addressing DEI Discrimination by Federal Contractors.” Read at the headline level, the order can sound like another broad anti-diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) pronouncement. Read as a procurement directive, however, it is something more concrete and more consequential: a command to federal agencies to begin inserting a mandatory clause into covered contracts and contract-like instruments, including subcontracts and lower-tier subcontracts, within 30 days. That shift, from messaging to mechanics, is the real story.Continue Reading Beyond the Headlines: The Real Contractor Risks in the New DEI Executive Order

In every crisis, half the room runs in circles while the other half picks up a clipboard and starts taking stock. The Anthropic-Pentagon dispute is that crisis, and defense contractors are deciding which half they want to be in.

The short version: The government designated a FedRAMP-authorized, facility-cleared American AI company a national security supply chain threat, via social media, after the company refused to remove safety restrictions on autonomous weapons and mass surveillance. Anthropic sued days later, with the Pentagon’s own officials on the record stating the designation was “ideologically driven” with “no evidence of supply chain risk.”Continue Reading Don’t Panic! How Federal Contractors Should Navigate the Anthropic Designation

In a previous posting, we flagged how the BIOSECURE Act (enacted as Section 851 of the Fiscal Year 2026 National Defense Authorization Act) reflects a growing focus on biotechnology supply chains within federal procurement. The statute is designed around a simple premise: Biotechnology risks rarely appear at the level of the final product. Instead, the risks tend to emerge through tools, platforms, and service providers embedded in the performance of federally funded work.

Nowhere is that observation more apparent than in industries adjacent to biotechnology that rely heavily on biological data, specialized testing infrastructure, or outsourced research capabilities. Examples include pharmaceutical and biologics developers, medical device and diagnostics manufacturers, contract research organizations (CROs) and specialized laboratory providers, healthcare and academic research institutions participating in federally funded programs, and technology companies supporting biological data analytics or laboratory automation. For these sectors, biotechnology may not define the business model, but it plays a quiet yet significant operational role in how products are discovered, validated, and manufactured. The BIOSECURE Act brings those operational dependencies into sharper focus.Continue Reading The BIOSECURE Act and the Expanding Life Sciences Supply Chain: Practical Considerations for Research-Driven Industries

“I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced.”

When Obi-Wan Kenobi says this in Star Wars: Episode IV – A New Hope, he senses that something profound just changed in the galaxy. A powerful presence has vanished. The balance of power shifting in ways that will ripple far beyond the immediate moment. As Yoda later describes the Force: “Life creates it, makes it grow. Its energy surrounds us, binds us.” In this way, artificial intelligence (AI) is beginning to play a role for the US Defense Industrial Base (DIB) not unlike the Force itself—quietly enhancing the capabilities of engineers, analysts, and compliance professionals across thousands of organizations supporting national defense programs.

So what could happen if a major AI player suddenly disappears from the board?Continue Reading Orbiting A.I.-deraan? A Disturbance in the Force for the Defense Industrial Base

The Department of Justice (DOJ) recently announced that False Claims Act (FCA) settlements and judgments exceeded $6.8 billion in fiscal year 2025. This massive haul is the largest annual recovery in the statute’s storied history. Although health care enforcement continues to account for the majority of recoveries, DOJ’s annual statistics confirm that procurement fraud, cybersecurity compliance, pandemic-program enforcement, and trade-related fraud remain core enforcement priorities that government contractors should not ignore. The FY 2025 numbers reinforce a familiar message: FCA enforcement remains one of DOJ’s most powerful tools for policing federal spending, and contractors should expect continued scrutiny of their certifications, representations, and contract compliance systems.Continue Reading Now That’s a Lot of Money: DOJ’s Record-Setting FCA Year Reflects Intensifying Enforcement Pressure on Government Contractors

Remember in Coming to America when Eddie Murphy’s Prince Akeem shows up in Queens full of charm, optimism, and big dreams and somehow it all works out? Fast-forward 38 years (yes, it’s been that long) and European companies looking to sell into the US Department of Defense (DoD) and Department of Homeland Security supply chains will need much more than charm. Instead, they’ll need real strategy, a focused structure, and readiness for regulatory scrutiny that doesn’t end with an award notification. In the current climate, with a heightened domestic preference policy, new executive directives such as the “Prioritizing the Warfighter in Defense Contracting” executive order, and renewed focus on supply chain security and performance, it is essential for foreign companies and their counsel to clearly understand the terrain before landfall.Continue Reading Coming to America (the Government Contracting Edition): Ownership, Compliance, and Shifting Policy

The BIOSECURE Act in the FY 2026 NDAA is a quiet, sweeping shift in federal supply-chain enforcement that reaches beyond “biotech” and into the tools most companies barely think about like software, AI, data platforms, and third-party services used behind the scenes. As Alex Major and Franklin Turner write in The Government Contractor, BIOSECURE Act…

Here we are again. With federal funding for fiscal year 2025 lapsed, all government contractors now face potential stop work orders and financial disruptions. Below are key considerations and steps to mitigate potential risk and maximize cost recovery:Continue Reading Key Steps for Government Contractors During the Federal Shutdown

The DoD has finally crossed the CMMC finish line, but for contractors, the race is just beginning. With the Final Rule effective Nov. 10, award eligibility will hinge on a “current” CMMC status in SPRS, backed by annual affirmations and strict compliance. The next two months are critical for getting race-ready. In this Featured Comment…

Government procurement is essential to modern governance. But when firms rig bids, allocate markets, or otherwise collude, taxpayers pay more, honest competitors are shut out, and trust erodes. In recent months, US agencies have continued to emphasize the importance of fair competition in government procurement, scrutinizing regulations that may favor incumbents or unfairly limit competition and expanding whistleblower options.Continue Reading Rigging the Game? Antitrust Risks in the Public Contracting Arena