Follow us on social

Shutterstock_2090547517-scaled-e1654639104356

With Raytheon move, the defense industry consolidates around the Pentagon

One expert called the company's relocation to Virginia the 'WD-40' for the 'revolving door' between industry and government.

Reporting | Military Industrial Complex

Leading defense contractor Raytheon Technologies announced Tuesday that it plans to move its headquarters from Massachusetts to Arlington, VA, where execs will be a short walk from the Pentagon.

The decision comes only a month after Boeing said it would decamp from Chicago in favor of Arlington. With Raytheon and Boeing coming to town, every one of the five leading defense contractors will now be based in the D.C. area, giving them closer access to the network of officials, politicians and lobbyists that help these defense giants bring in massive profits. In other words, the military industrial complex has officially set up shop in the Pentagon’s shadow.

In a statement, Raytheon said their new location "increases agility in supporting U.S. government and commercial aerospace customers and serves to reinforce partnerships that will progress innovative technologies to advance the industry." 

Mark Thompson, a national security analyst at the Project on Government Oversight, had a less sanguine take. “This increasing concentration of the military industrial complex a stop or two away from the Pentagon is really not good either for taxpayers, for troops, or for national security,” Thompson said, adding that the move amounts to “WD-40” for the “revolving door” between the government and defense companies.

Thompson also noted that each of these companies already had a major lobbying presence in D.C., meaning that the only real reason to move is to “rub shoulders with the powers that be.”

“If that’s what they’re trying to do,” he continued, “I just don’t think it bodes well for national defense.”

Of course, Raytheon's decision may have included factors beyond the proximity to the Pentagon. As Jeff Jacoby pointed out on Twitter, "Virginia is a right-to-work state with lower taxes" and has "a legislature that rarely convenes, a far more business-friendly environment, and a bipartisan congressional delegation." 

Still, it's hard to see this as much more than Raytheon playing catch-up with other top defense firms. After all, the defense giant will still have “600 facilities across 44 states and [US] territories” and doesn’t plan to significantly expand its current Arlington-based team of 130 employees, so the move is more of a statement of intent than a big change in policy. 

What’s interesting is that the migration of contractors toward D.C. started as the Cold War ended and American military policy entered a state of flux. General Dynamics got the ball rolling in 1991 when it left St. Louis in favor of Rosslyn, and Lockheed Martin followed suit shortly after when it moved from California to Bethesda, Maryland, after a 1994 merger with Martin Marietta. The next domino fell in 2011, when Northrop Grumman made its own pilgrimage to Arlington.

This movement toward the nation’s capital has gone hand-in-hand with another seismic shift in the defense industry: In the course of only 14 years in the 1980s and 90s, 51 different defense manufacturers dwindled down to five through a series of mergers and acquisitions. This pattern has continued in recent years, most notably with Raytheon’s 2020 merger with United Technologies.

Thompson argues that these trends are likely related. “As the number [of contractors] shrinks, the importance of the Pentagon to each of them becomes more important,” he said. “They need every edge they can get.”


Editorial credit: Arnold O. A. Pinto / Shutterstock.com
Reporting | Military Industrial Complex
Mark Levin
Top photo credit: Erick Stakelbeck on TBN/Screengrab

The great fade out: Neocon influencers rage as they diminish

Media

Mark Levin appears to be having a meltdown.

The veteran neoconservative talk host is repulsed by reports that President Donald Trump might be inching closer to an Iranian nuclear deal, reducing the likelihood of war. In addition to his rants on how this would hurt Israel, Levin has been howling to anyone who will listen that any deal with Iran needs approval from Congress (funny he doesn’t have the same attitude for waging war, only for making peace).

keep readingShow less
american military missiles
Top photo credit: Fogcatcher/Shutterstock

5 ways the military industrial complex is a killer

Latest

Congress is on track to finish work on the fiscal year 2025 Pentagon budget this week, and odds are that it will add $150 billion to its funding for the next few years beyond what the department even asked for. Meanwhile, President Trump has announced a goal of over $1 trillion for the Pentagon for fiscal year 2026.

With these immense sums flying out the door, it’s a good time to take a critical look at the Pentagon budget, from the rationales given to justify near record levels of spending to the impact of that spending in the real world. Here are five things you should know about the Pentagon budget and the military-industrial complex that keeps the churn going.

keep readingShow less
Sudan
Top image credit: A Sudanese army soldier stands next to a destroyed combat vehicle as Sudan's army retakes ground and some displaced residents return to ravaged capital in the state of Khartoum Sudan March 26, 2025. REUTERS/El Tayeb Siddig

Will Sudan attack the UAE?

Africa

Recent weeks events have dramatically cast the Sudanese civil war back into the international spotlight, drawing renewed scrutiny to the role of external actors, particularly the United Arab Emirates.

This shift has been driven by Sudan's accusations at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) against the UAE concerning violations of the Genocide Convention, alongside drone strikes on Port Sudan that Khartoum vociferously attributes to direct Emirati participation. Concurrently, Secretary of State Marco Rubio publicly reaffirmed the UAE's deep entanglement in the conflict at a Senate hearing last week.

From Washington, another significant and sudden development also surfaced last week: the imposition of U.S. sanctions on the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) for alleged chemical weapons use. This dramatic accusation was met by an immediate denial from Sudan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which vehemently dismissed the claims as "unfounded" and criticized the U.S. for bypassing the proper international mechanisms, specifically the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, despite Sudan's active membership on its Executive Council.

Despite the gravity of such an accusation, corroboration for the use of chemical agents in Sudan’s war remains conspicuously absent from public debate or reporting, save for a January 2025 New York Times article citing unnamed U.S. officials. That report itself contained a curious disclaimer: "Officials briefed on the intelligence said the information did not come from the United Arab Emirates, an American ally that is also a staunch supporter of the R.S.F."

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.