There is some pork involved in defense contracting, which is one reason military hardward is so expensive. In many cases, off-the-shelf hardware is plenty good for military applications. For example, computers on a Navy ship can usually be commerical machines purchased from Dell or HP. Usually you don't need a high-spec machine made in low volumes at high cost by a company like IBM. It's a matter of using good sense: the most critical components on the ship, such as the AEGIS system components, generally need to be built to military specs. But the PC's that sailors use to send email to shore can be bought off the shelf. Remember, there's a trade-off between quantity and cost. When you build everything on a ship to military specs, it may perform better in certain situations but it's so expensive that the Navy doesn't have enough of these ships. Sometimes too, it take longer to procure spare parts for mil-spec components, resulting in lower readiness and more ships stuck in port for maintenance.
I trust that Rumsfeld is just working to implement a sensible policy that uses off the shelf components where they can be used reliably and with a major cost reduction. I would bet that we're generally avoiding Chinese sources and buying overseas from suppliers in Japan, Singapore, Malaysia, Taiwan, etc. (Obvious reason is that the Chinese would cut off supplies in the event of a military conflict with them.)
"I trust that Rumsfeld" I trust that his judgement has not improved much since he supported Ford over Reagan in 1976. He's done nothing to clean out the Clinton era bureaucrats that were installed in the Pentagon. Apparently, he is sold on send/sailing the gals into combat as well. The US will pay a price for this someday, but likely it will be nobody in his family paying the price.