Follow us on social

Kendall

Frank Kendall flies out of revolving door and into Air Force confirmation

Biden's pick for secretary worked in Pentagon acquisitions before his most recent gigs consulting for top defense contractors.

Analysis | Military Industrial Complex

On Tuesday morning, the Senate Armed Service Committee will hold a confirmation hearing to consider three of President Joe Biden’s nominees, including Frank Kendall III, Biden’s pick to serve as Secretary of the Air Force.

In some ways, Kendall is a natural choice. He served as Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics in the Obama administration. But his activities over the past four years tell a very different story: a trip through the revolving door to lucrative consulting and board membership gigs with two of the Pentagon’s top contractors.

Kendall’s transition from overseeing acquisitions at the Pentagon to working for the companies whose products he procured while in government came with a generous payday. His Public Financial Disclosure Report shows $702,319 in consulting fees from Northrop Grumman, as part of a $300,000 per year consulting contract with the weapons manufacturer, and between $500,000 and $1,000,000 in Leidos stock, a weapons firm and government contractor for which Kendall annually receives approximately $125,000 in cash and $155,000 in stock, in return for his board membership.

Kendall says he will terminate these relationships if confirmed but the flood of money he received from Pentagon contractors after overseeing procurement, and potentially before his appointment as Secretary of the Air Force, offers a clear example of how weapons firms lavish stock and cash on individuals who have made, or will make, procurement decisions.

A 2019 report from the Government Accountability Office found that nearly half of all Defense Department contracts went to United Technologies, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, General Dynamics, and Boeing. Over half of the defense budget — currently at $740 billion per year — goes to private contractors.

Kendall’s consulting client, Northrop Grumman, expressed blunt truths about its business interests in its April quarterly earnings call. CEO Kathy Warden told investors, “we believe our capabilities will remain well aligned with U.S. national security priorities,” emphasizing that “the Biden administration has signaled that it views competition with China as the most pressing long-term security challenge and will invest in the capabilities needed to maintain U.S. national security advantages.”

On top of cheering on a potential clash between the U.S. and China, Warden praised the $2 trillion “modernizing” of the nuclear arsenal as “aligned with our portfolio.” Quincy Institute Distinguished Fellow Joe Cirincione, an expert on nuclear weapons, observed that the push for costly new nuclear weapons was ultimately driven by “ financial and political profit” and fails to address real national security concerns.

Leidos, for its part, is far less known than Northrop Grumman but regularly makes the lists of top federal contractors and, according to Washington Technology and the Federal Procurement Data System, took in over $8 billion in contracts in 2019.

The company has contracts from a variety of federal agencies but the company’s CEO, Roger A. Krone, also expressed positive sentiments about the Pentagon’s ballooning budget, assuring investors in February that the $740 billion defense budget and Biden’s pending 2022 $753 billion defense budget recommendation is “unlikely to put pressure on defense industry outlays before fiscal year 2023.”

Krone added, “Given the great power competition, and leading national security issues, we do not anticipate major cuts but rather flattish to slightly declining budget numbers with focus on modernization and reprioritization,” effectively endorsing Northrop and other defense contractor’s assessment that a brewing Cold War competition will pad their bottom lines.

Kendall has shown an independent streak and, at least in the past, hasn’t held back from criticizing weapons firms. In 2014, Kendall, who was overseeing acquisitions, declared the over budget and behind schedule F-35 “acquisition malpractice” in a 60 Minutes interview.

Right out of the revolving door, Kendall’s attitude toward his weapons industry clients and employers will face a fresh test with his hearing on Tuesday and likely confirmation as Biden’s Secretary of the Air Force.


Frank Kendall III, then-undersecretary of defense for acquisition, technology, and logistics, speaks with Maj. Claire Lundberg, 494th Fighter Squadron pilot, and Lt. Col Bob Remey, deputy air boss, during the Farnborough International Airshow, England, July 15, 2014. (U.S Air Force photo by Airman 1st Class Erin O'Shea)
Analysis | Military Industrial Complex
Fort Bragg horrors expose dark underbelly of post-9/11 warfare
Top photo credit: Seth Harp book jacket (Viking press) US special operators/deviant art/creative commons

Fort Bragg horrors expose dark underbelly of post-9/11 warfare

Media

In 2020 and 2021, 109 U.S. soldiers died at Fort Bragg, the largest military base in the country and the central location for the key Special Operations Units in the American military.

Only four of them were on overseas deployments. The others died stateside, mostly of drug overdoses, violence, or suicide. The situation has hardly improved. It was recently revealed that another 51 soldiers died at Fort Bragg in 2023. According to U.S. government data, these represent more military fatalities than have occurred at the hands of enemy forces in any year since 2013.

keep readingShow less
Trump Netanyahu
Top image credit: President Donald Trump hosts a bilateral dinner for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Monday, July 7, 2025, in the Blue Room. (Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok)

The case for US Middle East retrenchment has never been clearer

Middle East

Is Israel becoming the new hegemon of the Middle East? The answer to this question is an important one.

Preventing the rise of a rival regional hegemon — a state with a preponderance of military and economic power — in Eurasia has long been a core goal of U.S. foreign policy. During the Cold War, Washington feared Soviet dominion over Europe. Today, U.S. policymakers worry that China’s increasingly capable military will crowd the United States out of Asia’s lucrative economic markets. The United States has also acted repeatedly to prevent close allies in Europe and Asia from becoming military competitors, using promises of U.S. military protection to keep them weak and dependent.

keep readingShow less
United Nations
Top image credit: lev radin / Shutterstock.com

Do we need a treaty on neutrality?

Global Crises

In an era of widespread use of economic sanctions, dual-use technology exports, and hybrid warfare, the boundary between peacetime and wartime has become increasingly blurry. Yet understandings of neutrality remain stuck in the time of trench warfare. An updated conception of neutrality, codified through an international treaty, is necessary for global security.

Neutrality in the 21st century is often whatever a country wants it to be. For some, such as the European neutrals like Switzerland and Ireland, it is compatible with non-U.N. sanctions (such as by the European Union) while for others it is not. Countries in the Global South are also more likely to take a case-by-case approach, such as choosing to not take a stance on a specific conflict and instead call for a peaceful resolution while others believe a moral position does not undermine neutrality.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.