The federal government and U.S. taxpayers are effectively underwriting massive returns for Lockheed Martin shareholders, returns so impressive that the weapons firm’s CEO, James Taiclet, boasted about how the company handed $11 billion over to shareholders in 2022 via share repurchases and dividend payments, creating “significant value for our shareholders.”
Taiclet, speaking on a January 24 earnings call, said that Lockheed, the world’s largest weapons firm, was “ending the year with a total shareholder return of 40 percent.”
Lockheed may be a for-profit, publicly traded, company but those stock buybacks, dividends and appreciated stock value are largely underwritten by U.S. taxpayers. The company’s 2021 annual report acknowledged that, “…71% of our $67.0 billion in net sales were from the U.S. Government.”
Weapons companies often boast about the jobs they create and how their products are vital tools for U.S. national security. But in this case Lockheed is effectively acknowledging that billions of dollars of profit, overwhelmingly driven by U.S. government contracts, are being handed over to investors. In other words, $7.8 billion of the $11 billion transferred to shareholders in 2022 was effectively funded by the U.S. government and Americans who thought their tax dollars went to providing public services and keeping the country safe.
Eli Clifton is a senior advisor at the Quincy Institute and Investigative Journalist at Large at Responsible Statecraft. He reports on money in politics and U.S. foreign policy.
Top photo credit: A staged photograph shows the Persian translated book, Fire and Fury: A Look Inside the Trump White House, written by Michael Wolff, featuring a portrait of U.S. President Donald Trump on its cover at a bookstore in downtown Tehran, Iran, on April 12, 2025, during the day of the Iran-U.S. nuclear discussions. According to Iranian officials, indirect nuclear discussions between Iran and the United States begin in Muscat, the capital of Oman, on April 12. (Photo by Morteza Nikoubazl/NurPhoto)
Donald Trump’s first diplomatic encounter with Tehran could not have gone any better. Bothsides described the talks held in Oman as positive and constructive. But the true sign of their success was that the Iranian Foreign Minister, Abbas Araghchi, agreed to speak directly to Trump’s envoy, Steve Witkoff.
During Biden’s four years, the Iranians never once agreed to meet directly with U.S. officials at the foreign ministry level. Trump now has the opportunity to secure a “better deal” by going for a triple win.
Trump has repeatedly declared that his only red line is that Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon, but it has remained unclear whether Trump would seek to achieve that through the complete dismantlement of Iran’s nuclear program a la Libya, which has been the Israeli position, or seek a verification-based solution that limits rather than eliminates the nuclear program.
The problem with the “Libya model,” of course, is that Iran would never accept such a capitulation, which is precisely why Israel has pushed this line. They calculate that such demands guarantee the failure of diplomacy and force Trump to shift towards military action.
But Witkoff never mentioned dismantlement during Saturday’s talks. The two sides discussed instead degrees of limitations to the program and the sanctions relief Trump was willing to offer in return.
While dismantlement sounds stronger and tougher, it is unfeasible, whereas a verification-based model not only works, Tehran has already agreed to one before and can agree to it again. The challenge is that Iran’s nuclear program has advanced dramatically over the course of the past few years, and getting it back to where it was in 2015 will be a daunting task.
But Trump is better positioned to reverse these gains precisely because he is willing to offer primary sanctions relief to Tehran— i.e., sanctions that have prevented American companies from trading with Iran. Obama never contemplated touching America’s vast array of primary sanctions on Iran out of fear that it would generate even stronger Republican opposition to the deal. Secondly, he wanted the deal to be strictly nuclear.
Throwing primary sanctions relief into the mix would make him susceptible to (false) accusations of trading nuclear security for American corporate gain.
Biden, on the other hand, was according to his Iran envoy, Rob Malley, “lukewarm” to a deal and fixated on the domestic political costs of offering sanctions relief instead of focusing on what the nuclear gains proper sanctions could secure.
Trump is different. He tends to view sanctions as punishing American companies and appears eager to lift them in order to allow American companies back into Iran.
Given how far Iran’s nuclear program has progressed, it may prove that Trump’s willingness to lift primary sanctions is exactly why Trump has a chance to turn the nuclear clock back to 2016. He can go for a more-for-more model compared to what Obama secured and what Biden failed to achieve precisely because he’s willing to put more on the table.
Pursuing this verification-based model with nuclear weapons as his only red line enables Trump to secure a triple-win for the U.S.: Preventing an Iranian bomb, preventing war with Iran, while providing major business opportunities for American businesses, which will create more jobs in the U.S.
In fact, sanctions on Iran have cost the U.S. economy a tremendous amount. A 2014 study conducted by Jonathan Leslie, Reza Marashi, and myself revealed that between 1995 and 2012, U.S. sanctions had cost the American economy between $135 billion and $175 billion in potential export revenue to Iran.
This also amounted to a tremendous amount of lost job opportunities in the U.S.: “On average, the lost export revenues translate into between 50,000 and 66,000 lost job opportunities each year. In 2008, the number reaches as high as 279,000 lost job opportunities.”
If Trump sticks to a strategy that prioritizes the nuclear issue rather than Iran’s ballistic missiles or relations with groups such as Hezbollah or the Houthis, that pursues a verification-based deal rather than Libya-style dismantlement, and uses primary sanctions relief to push back Iran’s nuclear program while opening up its economy to American companies, then he will score a triple win for America.
Now, that would be a better deal.
keep readingShow less
Top Image Credit: U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth meets with Panama's President Jose Raul Mulino, in Panama City, Panama April 9, 2025. REUTERS/Aris Martinez
U.S. troops are now set to deploy near the Panama canal for military training, exercises and "other activities,” as per a new joint deal with the Panamanian government.
The deal, seen by AFP on Thursday, comes as an apparent concession to President Trump, who has repeatedly threatened to retake the major global trade route from Panama if it failed to reduce or axe fees it charged to American vessels passing through there.
“We’re going to take [the canal] back, or something very powerful is going to happen,” Trump alleged in early February.
Notably, the deal walks back previous assertions by Hegseth, who posited on Wednesday that the U.S. could, “by invitation,” even “revive” military bases previously used in Panama to “secure [its] sovereignty.” Instead, American troops will be deployed to Panama-controlled facilities — though some of these facilities will be American built-ones, erected in Panama decades ago when it still occupied the canal zone.
“Panama made clear, through President Mulino, that we cannot accept military bases or defense sites,” Panama’s security minister, Frank Abrego, explained in a Wednesday appearance with Hegseth.
Critically, the U.S. military deal advances amid uncertainties regarding Washington’s recognition of Panamanian sovereignty, thrown into question by Trump’s repeated calls to “take back” the canal since returning to office.
A Spanish-language version of an April 8 joint U.S.-Panama statement said that Hegseth “recognized the leadership and inalienable sovereignty of Panama over the Panama Canal and its adjacent areas.” The English version of the joint statement, however, does not contain the same assertion.
And when asked about the U.S. recognition of Panamanian sovereignty on Wednesday, Hegseth sidestepped the question, framing it about protecting Panama from other “malign influence.” “We certainly understand that the Panama Canal is in Panama, and protecting Panamanian sovereignty from malign influence is important,” he said. Leaving Panama, however, Hegseth told reporters that "we certainly respect the sovereignty of the Panamanians and the Panama Canal."
Hegseth likewise alleged on Wednesday that the U.S. is “taking back the canal from Chinese influence. That involves partnership with the United States and Panama.” Such comments, notably, are made in tandem with a quickly escalating tariff-sparked trade spat between the U.S. and China.
In early March, Trump previously lauded plans for a consortium led by controversial U.S. asset manager BlackRock to buy key Panama Canal ports; these plans may be tripped up as Hong-Kong based port investor CK Hutchinson, who was to sell ports to Blackrock, has come under fire over unpaid fees and its lack of relevant clearances for some of the ports.
Controlling the region surrounding the canal since 1903, the U.S. had returned the canal to Panama in 1999. And now, it seems, some of that influence, in the form of U.S. military is creeping back.
keep readingShow less
Top Photo Credit: Diplomacy Watch (Khody Akhavi)
Diplomacy Watch: Rubio recommits to NATO as peace talks flounder
According to Ukraine’s President, Volodymy Zelenskyy, at least 155 Chinese nationals are fighting for Russia in Ukraine.
Ukrainian intelligence reportedly confirmed the identities of the 155 individuals, who Zelenskyy claims were recruited through social media advertisements. This comes after Ukraine captured two fighters claimed to be Chinese nationals earlier in the week.
A list provided by the Ukrainian intelligence agency claims that the more than 150 individuals have contracts dating to 2024 and are officially part of Russia’s military, in lower ranks. Zelenskyy has asserted that the Chinese government is aware of the fighters and that there are likely “many, many more.”
“These people arrive to the Russian Federation, to Moscow. Medical examinations last three to four days. Training centers are for one to two months. They fight on the territory of Ukraine,” said Zelenskyy.
For its part, China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs denied that Chinese citizens are fighting in Ukraine in any official capacity, calling the claims “groundless.”
“China is neither the creator nor a party to the Ukrainian crisis. We are a staunch supporter and active promoter of the peaceful resolution of the crisis,” said the department’s spokesperson, Lin Jian, in a press conference. Mr Jian added, "the Chinese government has always instructed its citizens to stay away from areas of armed conflict and avoid getting involved in the conflict in any form, especially avoiding participation in any party’s military operations.”
The incentives behind joining the Russian military to fight in the war remain unconfirmed. “According to the prisoner, he joined the Russian military through an intermediary in China, paying RUB 300,000 ($3,500) for the opportunity to enlist in the Russian Armed Forces,” said the Luhansk Operational Tactical Group.
Regardless of whether Zelenskyy’s claims are entirely accurate, some experts question the significance of Chinese nationals volunteering to fight for Russia.
“Paid recruits from all across the world have signed up to fight for Russia, and, considering the large border and wide gamut of ties between the two countries, it's hardly a surprise that some Chinese soldiers can be found on the Russian side of the line of contact,” said the Quincy Institute’s Mark Episkopos. “But this is a very different proposition from the claim that there is any kind of large-scale, state-sponsored Chinese effort to send units of combat troops to the frontlines in Ukraine.”
Episkopos concluded that “there has been no evidence over the course of the Ukraine war that any country has engaged in systematic efforts along these lines.”
Indeed, foreign volunteers on both sides are widespread in the conflict, even from nations that have banned their citizens from participating. Volunteers from Armenia, Kyrgyzstan, Serbia, and Moldova, among others, have assisted the Russians on the battlefield. Meanwhile, Ukraine has received volunteers for its foreign legion from many nations, including the United States, Georgia, South Korea, France, and Australia.
In other Ukraine War news this week:
The Wall Street Journal reports that Washington and Moscow participated in a prisoner swap on Thursday. The United States released dual German-Russian citizen Arthur Petrov, who was allegedly exporting microelectronics that are considered sensitive to national security. Russia freed Ksenia Karelina, an American-Russian dual citizen whom Russia charged for treason.
According to the Washington Post, Trump’s recent tariff announcement could harm Russia’s economy, even though he did not impose tariffs on Moscow. Russia’s oil has fallen 30% to about $52 a barrel as a result of the tariffs. Oil exports comprise about 30% of Russia’s economy and are subject to harsh sanctions from the United States and the European Union.
Russia has begun a new offensive in Ukraine’s northeast, according to Kyiv’s military chief, Oleksandr Syrskyi. Syrskyi said, "for several days, almost a week, we have been observing almost a doubling of the number of enemy attacks in all main directions (on the frontline)," according to Reuters.
Additionally, Zelenskyy confirmed on Monday that Ukrainian forces were in Belgorod, a border region of Russia north of Kharkiv. This incursion, reported by Reuters, marks the second time Ukrainian soldiers have been active in Russian territory.
Bloombergreported that Zelenskyy had requested another package of military aid from the United States but that Kyiv was willing to pay for the weapons this time. The request totals $30 to $50 billion, but Zelenskyy is not asking for the package “free of charge." Ukraine could finance the deal through a direct payment or as part of the proposed mineral deal.
A reporter asked State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce about the upcoming talks between American and Russian delegations in Istanbul, Turkey. Bruce confirmed that talks were occurring on April 10 but that the Ukraine War was not on the agenda but that the talks would focus on embassy relations
Bruce confirmed that the administration was aware of reports that Ukrainian forces captured Chinese nationals, calling them “disturbing.” She went on to call China a “major enabler” of Russia’s effort in the war.
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.