Follow us on social

Signal-2022-04-29-151324_001-scaled

Lockheed CEO on excessive gov't contracts: We just do what they ask

When asked whether the taxpayer funds the weapons giant receives reflects US priorities, James Taiclet left out how much his company spends lobbying.

Reporting | Military Industrial Complex

Weapons manufacturers aren’t often faced with questions about how the size of their government contracts compares to other government expenditures and what their outsized slice of federal spending might say about national priorities. But Lockheed Martin CEO James Taiclet was put on the spot to answer those questions by NBC News correspondent Courtney Kube at an event on Friday that had every sign of having a home field advantage for the weapons executive.

After all, the event was hosted by the Atlantic Council, which received between $100,000 and $249,999 from Lockheed in 2019 (the last year the Council revealed its funding sources), and was part of the Council’s Forward Defense Forum, which is also funded by Lockheed.

Before the event, a spokesperson for NBC News told Responsible Statecraft that Kube was receiving no payment for engaging in a one-on-one interview with the top executive of the largest weapons company in the world and “retains full editorial control over her questions.”

The first audience question she chose to ask Taiclet, whose company received 70 percent of its revenue from U.S. government contracts in 2018, came from Responsible Statecraft. Using the Cost of War Project figures, I asked whether Lockheed receiving $75 billion in Pentagon contracts in fiscal year 2020, one and a half times the State Department and Agency for International Development budgets, was a reasonable balance of expenditure and if it was reflective of U.S. national priorities.

Taiclet defended the allocation of federal funds as “up to the U.S. government” and claimed to have no influence over taxpayers paying 70 percent of his $23 million salary.

“It's only up to us to step to what we've been asked to do and we're just trying to do that in a more effective way, and that's our role,” said Taiclet.

Taiclet’s claim that he’s only doing “what we’ve been asked to do” doesn’t line up with Lockheed’s own statements or actions.

In 2021, Lockheed spent over $14 million lobbying the federal government. According to OpenSecrets.org, the legislation on which Lockheed lobbied the most heavily was the “National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022,” the bill that largely determines the amount of taxpayer funding going to Lockheed Martin, their shareholders, and a large portion of Taiclet’s salary.

Taiclet oversees millions of dollars of Lockheed expenditures to influence and lobby the U.S. government on matters that impact the company’s bottom line. Lockheed’s own website describes their Government Affairs group as, “manag[ing] all U.S. government customer relationships and develops policy, regulatory and legislative strategies with Congress for all Lockheed Martin programs, products and services.”

“It is Lockheed Martin policy to present a single, clear, and consistent business message and approach to the Corporation’s United States-based government customer community and a unified approach to policy, regulatory, legislative and marketing strategies to advance the Corporation’s business and financial interests,” says the website.

So in other words, Lockheed Martin isn’t passively standing by, waiting for the government to ask for something, as Taiclet said. The weapons giant is actively seeking taxpayer funded contracts, seemingly without regard to whether or not they are necessary for the security of the United States. 

Watch Kube and Taiclet’s exchange here:


Lockheed Martin CEO James Taiclet, Atlantic Council, April 29, 2022 (Screen grab image via Atlantic Council/YouTube)
Reporting | Military Industrial Complex
Russia train derailment
Top photo credit: Specialists of emergency services work at the scene, after a road bridge collapsed onto railway tracks due to an explosion in the Bryansk region, Russia, June 1, 2025. REUTERS/Stringer

What the giddy reaction to Ukraine's surprise attacks says about us

Europe

A little over forty years ago, while preparing for a weekly radio address, President Ronald Reagan famously cracked wise about the possibility of attacking the Soviet Union. “I have signed legislation that outlaws Russia forever,” he said. “We begin bombing in five minutes.”

Reagan had not realized that the studio microphone was recording his joke and that technical personnel preparing for the broadcast in stations across the country were already listening. His facetious remarks were leaked. The public reaction was immediate, strong, and negative. Democratic candidate Walter Mondale admonished his election opponent for ill-considered humor, and Reagan’s polling numbers took a temporary hit.

keep readingShow less
Is Trump's ambassador to Israel going off-script?
Top photo credit: U.S. Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee visits the Western Wall, Judaism's holiest prayer site, in Jerusalem's Old City, April 18, 2025. REUTERS/Ronen Zvulun

Is Trump's ambassador to Israel going off-script?

Washington Politics

As the Trump administration continues to try to broker a nuclear deal with Iran, Israel’s president Benjamin Netanyahu has not been a willing partner in those efforts.

The two spoke Monday evening, but Israel’s government has threatened strikes on Iran that could upend a deal. When Trump bypassed Israel on his Middle East trip last month, many saw it as a snub to Netanyahu.

keep readingShow less
Boeing
Top image credit: EVERETT (WA), USA – JANUARY 30 2015: Unidentified Boeing employees continue work building its latest Boeing 777 jets at its Everett factory (First Class Photography / Shutterstock.com)

A nuclear deal with Iran could generate billions for US economy

Middle East

As the U.S. and Iran engage in fraught rounds of nuclear talks, deep distrust, past failures, and mounting pressure from opponents continue to hinder progress. Washington has reverted to its old zero-enrichment stance, a policy that, in 2010, led Iran to increase uranium enrichment from under 5% to 20%. Tehran remains equally entrenched, insisting, “No enrichment, no deal, No nuclear weapons, we have a deal.”

In Washington, the instinct is to tighten the screws on Tehran, make military threats credible, and explore strike options to force capitulation. Yet history shows that these coercive tactics often fail. Sanctions have not secured compliance and have proven costly to U.S. interests. Military strikes are unlikely to dismantle Iran’s nuclear capabilities; instead, they risk convincing Tehran to pursue the development of nuclear weapons.

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.