I believe that it is a wee bit premature to call it a "trend" and that you label it as such is somewhat disturbing. Are you a "spin-doctor" then. Or does that just go with the territory in the beltway ?
The article you refer to has at least another mention of things going the other way with:
"Elsewhere, insourcing appears to have slowed down, in part due to a hiring freeze at Pentagon offices and agencies."
Again, it seems that this is less of a trend and more of simply a description of an approach or model.
The article, as you failed to mention here, is making the point that significant savings are being gained with such actvity.
Of course, this may or may not be the case, ultimately. We are unable to draw such conclusions from this article.
However, it does not bring to fore the issue of inherent risks that need to be adjusted for and mitigated when outsourcing.
That is, despite the gospel we gained from Reaganomics, it turns out that the interest of the Government (We The People) is inherently different than the interest of a sub-contractor, much like the interest of a for profit health institution will have quite possibly and quite likely approaches to "cost containment" than a civic-based one. As a historical example, recall the scandal U.S. Grant ( any relation ?) was involved in where his buddy contractors were selling tainted meat to the government and making the troops sick and even killing some--- a nasty practice that reared it's ugly head again in the Spanish-American War.
In short, the question of insourcing vs. outsourcing is not a relevent one if you are avoiding the elephant in the room; that is, that your interests as a sub-contractor and my interests as a U.S. Citizen do not always coincide, despite what folly was spun during the height of Reaganomics.