Defense & Regulated Manufacturing
NDAA-Compliant 3D Printing for the Defense Supply Chain
The FY2026 National Defense Authorization Act (Section 849) bars the Department of Defense from procuring or operating additive manufacturing systems that are manufactured in, have software developed in, or are networked through China, Russia, Iran, or North Korea. The prohibition takes effect approximately one year after the December 2025 enactment — expected around December 2026. If your team prints parts on DoD work, now is the window to review your fleet.
Engineered to support your §849 compliance review
Designed & built by Prusa Research — Czech Republic, EU
US assembly & support — 100,000 sq ft Wilmington, DE facility
Open firmware
Offline / LAN operation (PrusaLink)
TAA-compliant supplier
What Section 849 Says
In plain English: the FY2026 NDAA treats additive manufacturing as critical defense infrastructure. Once the prohibition is in effect, the Secretary of Defense may not enter into contracts to procure — or operate — a “covered additive manufacturing machine,” defined as the integrated hardware and software used to carry out an additive manufacturing process, including material deposition and post-processing. A machine is covered if it triggers any of three tests tied to a “covered nation” (China, Russia, Iran, or North Korea):
Manufactured in
The system is produced by a company domiciled in — or under unmitigated foreign ownership, control, or influence by — a covered nation.
Software developed in
The system’s software is developed in a covered nation. Hardware and software are treated as one integrated machine.
Networked through
The system is networked through a covered nation — for example, routing operation, control, or telemetry through infrastructure in one of those countries.
Timeline & who’s affected
Enacted: The FY2026 NDAA was signed into law in December 2025.
Effective: Section 849 specifies the prohibition begins approximately one year after enactment — expected around December 2026 — creating a defined compliance window.
Who it hits: The Department of Defense directly, and the contractors and subcontractors who propose or use additive manufacturing equipment on DoD work. The statute focuses on the machine provider, not the parts produced — so compliance attention shifts upstream to equipment sourcing.
Limited exception: Section 849 does not apply to systems procured for intelligence, electronic warfare, or information warfare operations, or the testing, analysis, or training related to those uses. Reporting indicates it contains no general waiver authority beyond that carve-out.
This is not legal advice. This page summarizes publicly reported analysis of Section 849 to help you scope a review. Statutory text and its implementing regulations (DFARS) govern, and details may be clarified during rulemaking. Confirm how §849 flows down to your specific contracts with your contracting officer and counsel.
Fleet Compliance Checklist
Questions to ask about every additive manufacturing system in your shop before the deadline. If you can’t answer these confidently for a machine, it belongs on your review list.
- Where is the machine manufactured, and who owns the manufacturer? Identify the company’s country of domicile and whether it is subject to foreign ownership, control, or influence by a covered nation.
- Where is the firmware and slicing/control software developed? Section 849 treats hardware and software as one machine — software developed in a covered nation is a trigger on its own.
- Does the machine require cloud connectivity, and where does that traffic route? Determine whether operation depends on a vendor cloud and whether any control or telemetry path runs through a covered nation.
- Can the machine run fully offline / air-gapped on your own LAN? Mandatory cloud dependence is a risk; local-only control is easier to document and defend in a review.
- Do you have supply-chain and origin documentation on file? Keep manufacturer, country-of-origin, software-origin, and supplier records so you can substantiate a machine’s status.
- Which contracts carry §849 flow-down clauses? Map which of your DoD contracts and subcontracts reference the prohibition, and confirm applicability with your contracting officer.
How Original Prusa Hardware Fits Your Review
We do not claim any “NDAA certification” — no such certification exists, and anyone offering one is overstating the law. What we can do is lay out the factual posture of Original Prusa hardware so your compliance team can evaluate it against Section 849’s three tests.
- Designed and manufactured by Prusa Research in Prague, Czech Republic — an EU country, not a covered nation.
- US assembly, configuration, and support from Printed Solid / Prusa USA at our 100,000 sq ft facility in Wilmington, Delaware — CORE One+ and MK4S printers are assembled in the USA there (CORE One L assembly coming soon), backed by a US-based repair center and US-based fulfillment.
- Prusament filament manufactured in the USA — select Prusament lines, including Made in USA PLA and PETG SKUs, are produced domestically alongside imported Prusament materials.
- Open firmware and open-source software heritage — inspectable rather than a closed black box.
- Fully offline / LAN operation available via PrusaLink — monitor, upload, and control each printer locally over Wi-Fi or wired Ethernet with no internet connection required. Air-gappable, with no mandatory vendor cloud.
- TAA-compliant supplier supporting GSA and federal procurement paths, with purchase orders and tax-exempt accounts accepted.
- Documentation available on request — safety data sheets (SDS), material certifications, and origin information to support your file.
Manufactured in allied nations. Assembled and supported in the USA.
Original Prusa hardware is designed and manufactured by Prusa Research in the Czech Republic, an EU ally nation. CORE One+ and MK4S printers are then assembled in the USA at our 100,000 sq ft Wilmington, Delaware facility (CORE One L assembly coming soon), backed by a US-based repair center and US-based support team. Select Prusament filament — including Made in USA PLA and PETG lines — is manufactured domestically. Printed Solid / Prusa USA is a TAA-compliant supplier.
Framing note. The above is a factual posture to support your own compliance determination — not a legal guarantee that any machine meets §849 for your specific contract. Final applicability depends on your contract clauses and the implementing regulations.
The Practical Task: Replacing Affected Machines
Many of the popular desktop and prosumer 3D printers now common on engineering teams are manufactured in China and default to cloud-connected operation — exactly the profile Section 849 puts under scrutiny for DoD work. This isn’t a knock on those machines’ capability; it’s a sourcing reality. Between now and the effective date, the concrete job for many defense-adjacent shops is to inventory their fleet, flag machines that trip any of the three tests, and standardize replacements on hardware they can document.
Because the statute keys on the machine’s manufacturer and software origin rather than the parts it makes, you can’t remediate an affected machine after the fact — the practical remedy is to plan replacements early, before procurement timelines compress against the deadline.
Machines to Standardize On
EU-designed and -built, open, and air-gappable — a clean baseline for a fleet you can document. Talk to our Delaware-based team about fleet configuration and volume pricing.
Original Prusa CORE One+ (Gen 2)
Fully enclosed CoreXY workhorse with active chamber control — the everyday machine for a documentable, standardized fleet.
CORE One L Critical Infrastructure Edition
Large-format enclosed platform configured for regulated, defense-adjacent, and critical-infrastructure environments.
Prusa Pro HT90
High-temperature production machine for PC, PA-CF, and PEI/ULTEM super-polymers — functional and flight-adjacent end-use parts.
Section 849 FAQ
Answers reflect publicly reported analysis of the FY2026 NDAA. This is not legal advice — confirm specifics with your contracting officer and counsel.
Does Section 849 apply to subcontractors?
The prohibition targets Department of Defense procurement and operation of covered additive manufacturing machines, and reporting indicates it shifts compliance attention onto the contractors and subcontractors who propose or use that equipment on DoD work. How it flows down to your tier depends on your specific contract clauses and the implementing DFARS rules — confirm applicability with your contracting officer.
What does “networked through” a covered nation mean?
Reporting describes the prohibition as covering systems that are manufactured in, have software developed in, or are networked through China, Russia, Iran, or North Korea. “Networked through” is generally understood to mean the machine’s operation, control, or data path routes through infrastructure in a covered nation — which is one reason cloud connectivity and where that traffic terminates matter in a review. The precise operational definition may be clarified in rulemaking.
Is there a waiver or exception?
There is a limited carve-out: Section 849 does not apply to systems procured for intelligence, electronic warfare, or information warfare operations, or the testing, analysis, or training related to those uses. Beyond that carve-out, reporting indicates the section does not include a general waiver authority or phased implementation mechanism — compliance is assessed at the point of procurement eligibility.
Are EU-made printers allowed?
The statute’s tests key on covered nations — China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea — not on non-covered allied countries. A printer designed and manufactured in an EU country such as the Czech Republic, with software developed outside a covered nation and no covered-nation network dependency, does not trip the three tests on those grounds. This is a factual observation, not a legal opinion on your specific procurement; your contract terms govern.
What documentation should I keep?
Maintain records that let you substantiate each machine’s status: manufacturer and country of domicile, ownership/control information, firmware and software development origin, network/cloud architecture, and supplier documentation. Vendors can typically provide safety data sheets, material certifications, and origin information on request to support your file.
When exactly does the prohibition take effect?
Section 849 specifies the prohibition begins approximately one year after enactment. With the FY2026 NDAA signed into law in December 2025, that points to an effective date around December 2026. Treat the exact date and any implementing-regulation milestones as items to confirm against the statute and DFARS as rulemaking proceeds.
Does “NDAA compliant” certification exist for a 3D printer?
No. There is no government “NDAA certification” program for additive manufacturing machines, and any vendor claiming a certified stamp is overstating the law. Compliance is a determination you make about a machine against the statute’s tests and your contract. What a supplier can responsibly provide is the factual posture — manufacturing origin, software origin, network architecture, and documentation — to support that determination.
Review your fleet before the deadline
Our Delaware-based team will walk your current machines against the §849 tests, flag what needs replacing, and spec a documentable Original Prusa fleet with volume pricing.
This page is provided for general information about FY2026 NDAA Section 849 and is not legal advice. Statutory text and implementing regulations govern.