Two Section 842 Implementation Checkpoints Have Passed. The Public Record Shows Nothing.

The DFARS revision required within 180 days of the FY2026 NDAA's December 18, 2025 enactment was due approximately June 16, 2026. The congressional briefing on the §4864 compliance repository was due May 1, 2026. Federal Register searches return zero results for §4865 implementing language. HASC and SASC public records show no repository briefing entry for the April–June window. Eighteen months remain before the January 1, 2028 new-acquisition prohibition takes effect.

Congressional briefings are not required to be public. A DFARS rulemaking package can move through the Defense Acquisition Regulations Council without any external artifact until it reaches the Federal Register for comment. The finding is opacity. The activity may exist behind the public record's horizon. What follows is an assessment of what that opacity means for anyone planning against the deadline.

Gap Math — As of June 26, 2026

The January 2028 prohibition covers new acquisition programs. The §4865 sourcing exception requires final assembly by a non-FEOC entity, no production under FEOC-licensed technology, and more than 95% of functional-cell-component costs from permitted sources. That 95% test is the binding constraint. It reaches into cathode active material, anode active material, electrolyte, and separator by cost origin.

The gap is static to widening. No new supplier entered qualification in the public record, no DFARS language appeared, and the calendar moved forward by six months since enactment. Eighteen months remain. A 6T battery qualification from first article production through FAT completion runs 12–24 months depending on MIL-PRF complexity and manufacturing process maturity. Programs that have not yet identified a compliant cell supply chain cannot complete qualification before the deadline.

The supply base this test operates against: IEA's Global EV Outlook 2026 puts China above 80% of global battery output in 2025 and above 80% of global nameplate capacity. The United States held 6–7% of nameplate. US production costs ran 50%+ higher than China's before public support. These are aggregate cell-level figures. The component-level picture is worse: China's concentration in cathode and anode active material processing exceeds its share of finished cell production, and the §4865 test operates at the component-cost level. Non-FEOC CAM and AAM supply chains that can satisfy the 95% cost-origin test at the volumes defense procurement requires do not currently exist at scale.

The DFARS Gap

The DFARS revision is the more consequential missing artifact. Without a DFARS clause, contracting officers have no contractual mechanism to flow §4865 requirements to contractors. The statute creates the prohibition. The DFARS clause makes it enforceable in individual procurements. Current DFARS text contains no §4865 language, no "functional cell components" definition, no covered-battery procurement restriction.

The operational consequences are immediate. A battery manufacturer positioning for defense qualification needs to know what cost-origin accounting methodology will be accepted, how the 95% threshold will be audited. A prime contractor writing a DVP for a battery subsystem needs flow-down clause language. A program office drafting a solicitation needs contract terms to reference. None of these actors can currently see the rules they will need to comply with in 18 months.

No public §4865 waiver request or notification has surfaced. No SAM.gov solicitation referencing a §4865 waiver was located. Consistent with the prohibition not yet being in force. Waiver activity will become a more informative signal after January 2028, when it will function as a direct measure of where the mandate exceeds supply reality.

6T Pipeline Stops Before Qualification

The Army's 6T lithium-ion battery program is the strongest domestic qualification signal in the public record, and it is pre-FAT across the board.

Every award in this pipeline is development or prototype work. No FAT completion or MIL-PRF-32565 qualification announcement was located in the public record. No new 6T battery obligations appear in USASpending for calendar year 2026. A manufacturer that received a $2M development contract is not positioned to deliver recurring volume under a production contract governed by §4865. None of these awardees are known to be qualifying against the §4865 cost-origin test specifically.

Other Deadlines

January 1, 2029, standard batteries. Covers procurement outside new acquisition programs. The same DFARS gap applies. No implementation signal beyond the §4865 enactment itself. 30 months remain.

January 30, 2031, existing acquisition programs. The broadest scope, covering batteries embedded in fielded systems and ongoing production. 54 months remain. No public signal located. The extended timeline reflects congressional recognition that requalification cycles in existing programs cannot be compressed below the physics of the testing regime. Whether 54 months is sufficient depends on when the implementing rules become visible and when the §4864 compliance repository, due to be operational by January 1, 2027, gives program offices something to procure against.

No Korean cell maker defense contract award or qualification milestone was located in the public record for this period.

The gap between mandate and qualified domestic supply is not narrowing at a rate visible in the public record. The implementation clock is running, and the qualification clock, for anyone waiting on DFARS language to know what they are qualifying against, has not started.