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
Iran
Top image credit: An Iranian man (not pictured) carries a portrait of the former commander of the IRGC Aerospace Forces, Brigadier General Amir Ali Hajizadeh, and participates in a funeral for the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) commanders, Iranian nuclear scientists, and civilians who are killed in Israeli attacks, in Tehran, Iran, on June 28, 2025, during the Iran-Israel ceasefire. (Photo by Morteza Nikoubazl/NurPhoto VIA REUTERS)

First it was regime change, now they want to break Iran apart

Middle East

Washington’s foreign policy establishment has a dangerous tendency to dismantle nations it deems adversarial. Now, neoconservative think tanks like the Washington-based Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) and their fellow travelers in the European Parliament are openly promoting the balkanization of Iran — a reckless strategy that would further destabilize the Middle East, trigger catastrophic humanitarian crises, and provoke fierce resistance from both Iranians and U.S. partners.

As Israel and Iran exchanged blows in mid-June, FDD’s Brenda Shaffer argued that Iran’s multi-ethnic makeup was a vulnerability to be exploited. Shaffer has been a vocal advocate for Azerbaijan in mainstream U.S. media, even as she has consistently failed to disclose her ties to Azerbaijan’s state oil company, SOCAR. For years, she has pushed for Iran’s fragmentation along ethnic lines, akin to the former Yugoslavia’s collapse. She has focused much of that effort on promoting the secession of Iranian Azerbaijan, where Azeris form Iran’s largest non-Persian group.

keep readingShow less
Ratcliffe Gabbard
Top image credit: Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and CIA director John Ratcliffe join a meeting with U.S. President Donald Trump and his intelligence team in the Situation Room at the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S. June 21, 2025. The White House/Handout via REUTERS

Trump's use and misuse of Iran intel

Middle East

President Donald Trump has twice, within the space of a week, been at odds with U.S. intelligence agencies on issues involving Iran’s nuclear program. In each instance, Trump was pushing his preferred narrative, but the substantive differences in the two cases were in opposite directions.

Before the United States joined Israel’s attack on Iran, Trump dismissed earlier testimony by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, in which she presented the intelligence community’s judgment that “Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Khamanei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003.” Questioned about this testimony, Trump said, “she’s wrong.”

keep readingShow less
Mohammad Bin Salman Trump Ayatollah Khomenei
Top photo credit: Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad Bin Salman (President of the Russian Federation/Wikimedia Commons); U.S. President Donald Trump (Gage Skidmore/Flickr) and Iran’s Ayatollah Khamenei (Wikimedia Commons)

Let's make a deal: Enrichment path that both Iran, US can agree on

Middle East

The recent conflict, a direct confrontation that pitted Iran against Israel and drew in U.S. B-2 bombers, has likely rendered the previous diplomatic playbook for Tehran's nuclear program obsolete.

The zero-sum debates concerning uranium enrichment that once defined that framework now represent an increasingly unworkable approach.

Although a regional nuclear consortium had been previously advanced as a theoretical alternative, the collapse of talks as a result of military action against Iran now positions it as the most compelling path forward for all parties.

Before the war, Iran was already suggesting a joint uranium enrichment facility with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) on Iranian soil. For Iran, this framework could achieve its primary goal: the preservation of a domestic nuclear program and, crucially, its demand to maintain some enrichment on its own territory. The added benefit is that it embeds Iran within a regional security architecture that provides a buffer against unilateral attack.

For Gulf actors, it offers unprecedented transparency and a degree of control over their rival-turned-friend’s nuclear activities, a far better outcome than a possible covert Iranian breakout. For a Trump administration focused on deals, it offers a tangible, multilateral framework that can be sold as a blueprint for regional stability.

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.