Follow us on social

google cta
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
google cta
google cta

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
google cta
Reporting | Military Industrial Complex
nuclear weapons testing
A mushroom cloud expands over the Bikini Atoll during a U.S. nuclear weapons test in 1946. (Shutterstock/ Everett Collection)

Nuke treaty loss a 'colossal' failure that could lead to nuclear arms race

Global Crises

On February 13th, 2025, President Trump said something few expected to hear. He said, “There's no reason for us to be building brand-new nuclear weapons. We already have so many. . . You could destroy the world 50 times over, 100 times over. And here we are building new nuclear weapons . . . We’re all spending a lot of money that we could be spending on other things that are actually, hopefully, much more productive.”

I could not agree more with that statement. But with today’s expiration of the New START Treaty, we face the very real possibility of a new nuclear arms race — something that, to my knowledge, neither the President, Vice President, nor any other senior U.S. official has meaningfully discussed.

keep readingShow less
Witkoff Kushner Trump
Top image credit: U.S. Special Envoy Steve Witkoff looks on during a meeting with U.S. President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, at Trump's Mar-a-Lago club in Palm Beach, Florida, U.S., December 29, 2025. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst

As US-Iran talks resume, will Israel play spoiler (again)?

Middle East

This Friday, the latest chapter in the long, fraught history of U.S.-Iran negotiations will take place in Oman. Iran’s foreign minister Abbas Araghchi and President Trump’s Special Envoy Steve Witkoff will meet in an effort to stave off a war between the U.S. and Iran.

The negotiations were originally planned as a multilateral forum in Istanbul, with an array of regional Arab and Muslim countries present, apart from the U.S. and Iran — Turkey, Qatar, Oman, and Saudi Arabia.

keep readingShow less
Trump Putin
Top image credit: Miss.Cabal/shutterstock.com

Last treaty curbing US, Russia nuclear weapons has collapsed

Global Crises

The end of the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START), the last treaty between the U.S. and Russia placing limits on their respective nuclear arsenals, may not make an arms race inevitable. There is still potential for pragmatic diplomacy.

Both sides can adhere to the basic limits even as they modernize their arsenals. They can bring back some of the risk-reduction measures that stabilized their relationship for years. And they can reengage diplomatically with each other to craft new agreements. The alternative — unconstrained nuclear competition — is dangerous, expensive, and deeply unpopular with most Americans.

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.