Follow us on social

google cta
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
google cta
google cta

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)
google cta
Analysis | Military Industrial Complex
US missiles
Top photo credit: . DoD photo by Staff Sgt. Vince Parker, U.S. Air Force.

Trump: We have 'unlimited' weapons to fight 'forever' war

QiOSK

In a startling Truth Social post overnight on Monday, President Donald Trump defied reality and claimed that U.S. weapons were "unlimited" and the U.S. could fight "forever" with "these supplies."


keep readingShow less
Did the US only attack Iran because of Israel?
Top image credit: President Donald J. Trump holds a joint news conference at the White House with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Feb. 4, 2025. (Shutterstock/ Joshua Sukoff)

Did the US only attack Iran because of Israel?

QiOSK

In the months that led up to the Iraq War, the Bush administration went to extraordinary lengths to convince the world of the need to oust Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. Leading officials laid out their case in public, sharing what they claimed was evidence that Iraq was moving rapidly toward the deployment of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. When U.S. tanks rolled across the border, everyone knew the justification: the U.S. was determined to thwart Iraq’s development of weapons of mass destruction, however fictitious that threat would later prove to be.

In the months that led up to the Iran War, the Trump administration took a different tack. President Trump spoke only occasionally of Iran, offering a smattering of justifications for growing U.S. tensions with the country. He claimed without evidence that Iran was rebuilding its nuclear program after the U.S.-Israeli attack last June and even developing missiles that could strike the United States. But he insisted that Tehran could make a deal with seven magic words: “we will never have a nuclear weapon.”

keep readingShow less
Starmer Macron Merz
Top image credit: France's President Emmanuel Macron, Britain's Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Germany's Chancellor Friedrich Merz arrive at Kyiv railway station on May 10, 2025, ahead of a gathering of European leaders in the Ukrainian capital. LUDOVIC MARIN/Pool via REUTERS
Europe's snapback gamble risks killing diplomacy with Iran

Craven Europeans give US and Israel a blank check for illegal war

Middle East

In the aftermath of the new U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iran, the transatlantic alliance has offered a response that confirmed what many both in the West and outside knew all along: that for London, Paris, Berlin, and Brussels, the "rules-based international order" has been reduced to a simple, brutal premise: might makes right, provided the might is Western.

The joint statement from the E3 — France, Germany, and the United Kingdom — is a master class in evasion. "We did not participate in these strikes, but are in close contact with our international partners, including the United States and Israel," they declared. The text also lists all the references and rationalizations used by Iran hawks — “nuclear program, ballistic missile program, regional destabilization and repression against its own people.”

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

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.