Published: April 15, 2026

Registered Apprenticeship (RA) is having a moment.  In fiscal year 2024, the United States counted roughly 680,000 active apprentices, a 114% increase over the count a decade earlier.  Annual completions rose even faster, climbing 143% over the same period.  Policymakers across the political spectrum have embraced apprenticeship as a solution to skills gaps, and federal investment has followed.  By almost every national metric, the system is thriving.

Almost every metric, that is, except the one that matters most to the defense industrial base: participation by the manufacturers who actually build the platforms, components, and munitions the Department of War (DoW) depends on.  Despite a decade of growth, Registered Apprenticeship remains largely a construction story.  Manufacturing’s share of active apprentices is growing in absolute terms but continues to trail construction, educational services, and public administration.  For the small and mid-sized manufacturers that form the backbone of the defense supply chain, the barriers to entry remain stubbornly high.

A System Built for the Building Trades

---

The numbers tell the story.  Construction accounts for roughly one-third of all active apprentices in the United States, with 26.6 apprentices per 1,000 jobs, the highest rate of any industry.  The five most common apprenticeship occupations are all building trades: Electricians (71,812 active apprentices), Carpenters (29,800), Plumbers (21,971), Sprinkler Fitters (17,595), and Construction Craft Laborers (15,009).  This is not an accident.  Registered Apprenticeship was designed around the construction model: large joint labor-management committees, standardized trade classifications, multi-year time-based progressions, and a regulatory framework that assumes a union or industry association will carry the administrative load.

Manufacturing operates differently.  Defense manufacturers, particularly in the lower tiers of the supply chain, tend to be small, privately held, and non-union.  They train machinists, tool and die makers, welders, and CNC programmers on proprietary processes that do not map neatly to standardized occupational frameworks.  As discussed in our previous article on retention in precision machining, the median tenure for production workers has dropped from 5.2 years to 4.1 years since 2014.  That timeline is shorter than most registered apprenticeship programs, which typically require three to four years to complete.  The math alone creates a disincentive: why invest in a multi-year training commitment when the average trainee may leave before completing it?

The Compliance Burden Falls Hardest on the Smallest Shops

For a large prime contractor with a dedicated human resources department, the administrative requirements of Registered Apprenticeship are manageable.  For a 50-person machine shop in the second or third tier of a defense supply chain, they can be prohibitive.  Registration costs alone average over $1,000 per apprentice, and some employers have reported costs exceeding $12,000.  Beyond the direct costs, employers must navigate Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) regulations under 29 CFR Part 30, which require written affirmative action plans, record-keeping systems, and periodic compliance reviews.

The Department of Labor’s own rulemaking record acknowledges this burden.  In the 2019 proposed rule on Industry-Recognized Apprenticeship Programs (IRAPs), the Department noted that small businesses, in particular, cited Part 30 compliance as a significant deterrent to participation.  Employers in newer apprenticeship industries—including advanced manufacturing—reported that the complexity of the regulatory requirements caused some to overestimate the resources needed and to forgo registration altogether.  The irony is sharp: the employers who need structured training programs the most are the ones least able to navigate the system designed to deliver them.

The Defense-Specific Layer: ITAR and Clearance Requirements

Defense manufacturers face an additional constraint that no other industry shares.  The International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) restrict access to defense-related technical data and products to U.S. Persons—a category that includes U.S. citizens, lawful permanent residents, and certain refugees and asylees.  This requirement applies broadly across the defense supply chain, regardless of whether a specific project involves classified information.  It limits the pool of eligible apprentices at the outset and makes it more difficult to fill training slots, particularly in regions where the available workforce is demographically diverse.

For programs that do involve classified work, the timeline problem compounds.  As noted in our earlier discussion of knowledge transfer, titled: When Experience Walks Out the Door: The Knowledge Transfer Crisis in Defense Manufacturing, security clearance processing timelines add months or even years to the onboarding process.  An apprenticeship program that requires four years of on-the-job training cannot begin delivering returns until the apprentice has physical and informational access to the work.  If clearance processing takes six to twelve months, the employer is carrying the cost of a partially productive employee during a period when margins are already thin.  The number of jobs requiring security clearances has grown dramatically over the past decade, while the pool of cleared candidates has not kept pace.

The IRAP Experiment: A Door Opened and Closed

In 2020, the Department of Labor launched Industry-Recognized Apprenticeship Programs as an alternative pathway.  IRAPs were designed to reduce regulatory overhead by allowing industry-led Standards Recognition Entities (SREs) to recognize programs without requiring traditional DOL or State Apprenticeship Agency registration.  The aerospace and defense sector embraced the concept.  The Aerospace Industries Association developed IRAP standards for the sector.  The National Institute for Metalworking Skills (NIMS) recognized its first IRAP in precision machining at Raytheon Technologies.  The National Advanced Manufacturing Apprenticeship Project (NAMAP) brought together General Dynamics Electric Boat, Lockheed Martin, Pratt & Whitney, and IBM.

In November 2022, the Department rescinded the IRAP rule.  Programs that had been developed or were in development under the IRAP framework were encouraged to transition to traditional Registered Apprenticeship.  For large primes with compliance infrastructure, this was an inconvenience.  For smaller manufacturers who had been attracted to IRAPs precisely because they offered a lighter regulatory touch, it was a closed door.  The defense manufacturing community was left without the streamlined alternative that had briefly seemed within reach.

What Would Actually Help

The policy conversation around apprenticeship tends to focus on targets—how many programs registered, how many apprentices enrolled, how many completions recorded.  For defense manufacturing, the conversation needs to shift to barriers.  Three changes would have the most impact.

First, simplify registration for small and mid-sized manufacturers.  The current Part 30 compliance framework was designed for large, unionized employers.  A tiered approach that scales requirements to employer size—similar to how the Small Business Administration scales federal contracting regulations—would reduce the most commonly cited barrier to participation.  State Apprenticeship Agencies and intermediary organizations can help, but they cannot eliminate the structural mismatch between the regulatory framework and the employers it needs to serve.

Second, align apprenticeship timelines with defense workforce realities.  A four-year apprenticeship makes sense in the building trades, where journeyman credentials are portable and the labor market rewards longevity.  In defense manufacturing, where median tenure is 4.1 years and ITAR compliance limits lateral movement, the standard model is a poor fit.  Competency-based progression—where apprentices advance by demonstrating skills rather than accumulating hours—would better match how defense manufacturers actually train.  The DoW and the Department of Labor should jointly pilot competency-based apprenticeship models for defense-critical occupations.

Third, address the clearance bottleneck head-on.  If the DoW is serious about expanding apprenticeship in the defense industrial base, it must acknowledge that current clearance processing timelines are incompatible with apprenticeship program economics.  Interim clearances, provisional access arrangements for unclassified-but-controlled work, and prioritized processing for apprentices in defense-critical occupations would all reduce the period during which employers carry the cost of a partially productive trainee.

The Real Question

The United States has a functioning, federally supported apprenticeship system.  It has a defense industrial base with an aging workforce, a well-documented skills gap, and an urgent need for structured training pathways.  These two realities should be working together.  Instead, they are running on parallel tracks, separated by regulatory complexity, compliance costs, and security requirements that the current system was not designed to accommodate.  Closing that gap is not a question of spending more money.  It is a question of whether the federal agencies responsible for apprenticeship and defense readiness are willing to redesign a system that was built for a different industry and a different era.