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
Fort Bragg horrors expose dark underbelly of post-9/11 warfare
Top photo credit: Seth Harp book jacket (Viking press) US special operators/deviant art/creative commons

Fort Bragg horrors expose dark underbelly of post-9/11 warfare

Media

In 2020 and 2021, 109 U.S. soldiers died at Fort Bragg, the largest military base in the country and the central location for the key Special Operations Units in the American military.

Only four of them were on overseas deployments. The others died stateside, mostly of drug overdoses, violence, or suicide. The situation has hardly improved. It was recently revealed that another 51 soldiers died at Fort Bragg in 2023. According to U.S. government data, these represent more military fatalities than have occurred at the hands of enemy forces in any year since 2013.

keep readingShow less
Trump Netanyahu
Top image credit: President Donald Trump hosts a bilateral dinner for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Monday, July 7, 2025, in the Blue Room. (Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok)

The case for US Middle East retrenchment has never been clearer

Middle East

Is Israel becoming the new hegemon of the Middle East? The answer to this question is an important one.

Preventing the rise of a rival regional hegemon — a state with a preponderance of military and economic power — in Eurasia has long been a core goal of U.S. foreign policy. During the Cold War, Washington feared Soviet dominion over Europe. Today, U.S. policymakers worry that China’s increasingly capable military will crowd the United States out of Asia’s lucrative economic markets. The United States has also acted repeatedly to prevent close allies in Europe and Asia from becoming military competitors, using promises of U.S. military protection to keep them weak and dependent.

keep readingShow less
United Nations
Top image credit: lev radin / Shutterstock.com

Do we need a treaty on neutrality?

Global Crises

In an era of widespread use of economic sanctions, dual-use technology exports, and hybrid warfare, the boundary between peacetime and wartime has become increasingly blurry. Yet understandings of neutrality remain stuck in the time of trench warfare. An updated conception of neutrality, codified through an international treaty, is necessary for global security.

Neutrality in the 21st century is often whatever a country wants it to be. For some, such as the European neutrals like Switzerland and Ireland, it is compatible with non-U.N. sanctions (such as by the European Union) while for others it is not. Countries in the Global South are also more likely to take a case-by-case approach, such as choosing to not take a stance on a specific conflict and instead call for a peaceful resolution while others believe a moral position does not undermine neutrality.

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.