Why silence from industry advocates threatens the future of America’s most critical small business programs, and what must happen now.
I am perplexed and deeply concerned by the apparent silence surrounding the threats to the 8(a) and small business socio-economic programs, to include veteran-owned small businesses. If the leading advocates for these initiatives are engaged in meaningful efforts behind the scenes, their work must be conducted with extraordinary discretion, as it remains largely unseen. Our recent engagements on Capitol Hill have revealed only one other organization actively raising these alarms.
To state the matter plainly: this Administration’s objective is to terminate the 8(a) program, if not by statutory change, then through death by a thousand cuts. As I have emphasized previously, these developments are not coincidental. The recent controversy over ATI represented merely the initial maneuver in a broader strategy, which encompasses revisions to the Federal Acquisition Regulation, ongoing court challenges, a comprehensive and burdensome audit now underway, delays in processing applications for new 8(a) participants, stalled issuance of sole-source offer letters, and the unprecedented turnover of three Associate Administrators for the 8(a) and set-aside programs within less than ten months. These elements form a deliberate pattern, targeting what this administration perceives as an extension of diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives.
What remains most striking is that these programs align precisely with the administration’s—and the nation’s—core priorities: fostering a robust small business economy, strengthening a diverse and resilient supply chain, and bolstering the defense industrial base. At their foundation, the small business programs advance these objectives and contribute far more. Yet, they have been misconstrued as little beyond symbolic DEI measures, a narrative that undermines their essential value.
Regarding the current audit, serious questions arise about the Small Business Administration’s authority to demand certain requested documents. It falls to the relevant associations and advocates to confront these encroachments publicly—through challenges, injunctions, and legal action. Regrettably, the response has been one of profound quietude, with many opting to avoid scrutiny altogether.
I recognize that some may view this assessment as overly emphatic, perhaps even suggesting that I have overstated the case. But the choice is stark: to yield passively or to resist with resolve. The path selected speaks volumes about one’s commitment to these vital programs and the communities they serve. It is time for the advocates to step forward, for the participants to mobilize, and for all of us to defend what has proven indispensable to our economic strength.
Warmly,
John Shoraka, Chairman
