While cutting government waste has been Priority No.1 in Washington this year, a recent op-ed by Gene Marks calling for the abolition of the U.S. Small Business Administration missed the mark in a major way, deeming the SBA “a failed experiment.”
Calls to dismantle the SBA in the name of savings or efficiency are not only misguided — they pose a threat to the millions of entrepreneurs who rely on its programs.
Small businesses are often started by individuals with innovative ideas but without the necessary financial resources or business expertise to navigate the complexities of entrepreneurship. The SBA steps in to bridge this gap, offering critical support through its lending programs, Small Business Development Centers and procurement assistance. Without these resources, many aspiring business owners would struggle to access capital, secure government contracts, or recover from economic downturns and natural disasters. The SBA was expressly created to address this fundamental market failure.
The SBA’s loan programs, including the widely used 7(a) and 504 loans, have enabled countless entrepreneurs to secure financing when traditional banks would not take the risk. Each year, the agency facilitates tens of billions of dollars in small-business loans, fueling job creation and innovation. Critics argue that private lenders and investors can fill this gap, but history tells a different story. Without the SBA’s guarantees, many small businesses — including those owned by veterans — would struggle to secure the funding they need.
Beyond lending, the SBA plays an essential role in federal procurement. Small businesses received over $180 billion in government contracts last year, thanks in large part to the SBA’s advocacy and oversight. Eliminating the agency would consolidate more power in the hands of large corporations, making it even harder for small firms to compete.
The SBA has also proven indispensable in times of crisis. Whether responding to natural disasters like hurricanes and wildfires or economic downturns, as we saw in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, the agency provides rapid, targeted support to keep small businesses afloat. This is especially important in rural and in smaller communities, where communications or a lack of resources may pose challenges in getting business owners the help they need and deserve. Removing this safety net would leave entrepreneurs more vulnerable and threaten the economic stability of communities nationwide.
One of the biggest challenges small businesses already face is a lack of knowledge about the federal programs designed to help them. The SBA serves as a central hub, providing clear, accessible guidance that ensures small-business owners can navigate available resources effectively. Without this dedicated support, entrepreneurs would be left to decipher a complex web of government programs spread across multiple agencies, increasing confusion and inefficiencies.
Rather than dismantling the SBA, we should be working to strengthen it. Congress should focus on improving the efficiency and reach of SBA programs, ensuring that small businesses have the resources they need to thrive in an increasingly competitive economy.
There are over 60 million people in the U.S. directly employed by small businesses. Their success is integral to the nation’s economic growth and prosperity. The SBA is not a bureaucratic obstacle — it is a necessary partner in fostering entrepreneurship and innovation.
If we truly care about the future of small businesses and the economic vitality they bring to our communities, we must invest in and modernize the SBA, not eliminate it.
Todd McCracken is president of the National Small Business Association.
