Follow us on social

google cta
Arms industry titan poised to sit on Council on Foreign Relations board

Arms industry titan poised to sit on Council on Foreign Relations board

Lockheed Martin CEO James Taiclet's nomination to this prestigious foreign policy post raises numerous questions.

Reporting | Military Industrial Complex
google cta
google cta

Members of the Council on Foreign Relations are currently voting on a slate of ten board candidates put forth by the “Nominating and Governance Committee.” That slate includes what is arguably the world’s largest arms dealer, the chairman and CEO of Lockheed Martin, James Taiclet, according to a document circulated to CFR members and obtained by Responsible Statecraft.

The board of directors of CFR, a New York-based think tank that focuses on U.S. foreign policy and international relations, isn’t a stranger to embracing the weapons industry. CFR’s chairman is David Rubenstein, a co-founder and co-chairman of the private equity firm and defense-industry-focused Carlyle Group, and the board currently includes Raytheon board member Meghan L. O’Sullivan, and Frances Townsend, a director at Lenoardo Systems, a Virginia based weapons systems company. (CFR’s biography of Townsend omits any mention of her role at the weapons firm but Leonardo Systems lists her CFR board membership in her biography on their website.)

By proposing Taiclet for board membership, CFR’s leadership is effectively bringing an individual into their ranks whose company, and personal $24 million in annual compensation, is highly dependent on the U.S. defense budget. In 2018, 70 percent of Lockheed’s revenue came from the U.S. government.

CFR members are being asked to vote on the entire slate, created by the “Nominating and Governance Committee,” and cannot vote for or against an individual candidate. Voting is currently underway and ballots must be cast by June 12. 

“It's deeply disturbing to me that CFR has nominated a defense industry executive to oversee the work of the organization,” said Sarah Leah Whitson, executive director of Democracy in the Arab World Now and a current CFR member. “His election would create an apparent conflict of interest as CFR produces policy recommendations regarding ongoing military sales and armed conflict.”

“It would also be quite distasteful to have a titan of the weapons industry in a leadership role for what many members hope will be an organization committed to fostering diplomacy, not war,” added Whitson.

Whitson was not the source of the slate of candidates shared with Responsible Statecraft but replied to questions about the CFR election.

Last year, Responsible Statecraft asked Taiclet whether 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 budget allocation that benefited the company he leads, responding that it was “up to the U.S. government” and claimed “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.”

His claim doesn’t explain why Lockheed spent over $13 million lobbying the federal government last year and focused their lobbying power on the defense budget, according to OpenSecrets.

CFR’s mission is to serve as an “independent, nonpartisan membership organization, think tank, and publisher dedicated to being a resource for its members, government officials, business executives, journalists, educators and students, civic and religious leaders, and other interested citizens in order to help them better understand the world and the foreign policy choices facing the United States and other countries.”

Indeed, Taiclet is a business executive and would fit within CFR’s target audience, but his outsized interest in weapons sales — 90 percent of Lockheed’s sales are in the weapons sector — and status as head of the world’s largest arms-producing and military services company, according to data compiled by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, raises questions about how Taiclet will use his influence as a board member at CFR. How will the think tank handle potential conflicts between Taiclet’s interest in weapons sales and other CFR members’ interests in diplomacy, non-armaments forms of international trade, reducing the ballooning U.S. defense budget, or finding areas of cooperation between the U.S. and other great powers? 

In a 2022 earnings call, Taiclet assured investors that the “evolving threat level” from North Korea, Iran, Russia and China would lead the U.S. to “not sit by and just watch it happen” and that policymakers would respond by increasing the defense budget, over half of which goes to defense contractors like Lockheed. A year earlier, Taiclet suggested that regulators should allow greater consolidation of the industry in order to more closely mirror the largely-state owned weapons industry in China.

His explicit favoring of ongoing growth of the defense budget and less regulatory oversight of an already consolidated weapons industry certainly serves his and Lockheed’s interests, but it may pose conflicts of interest and thorny questions for CFR as its staff and members grapple with geopolitical challenges and attempt to produce independent research on a host of topics that directly impact Lockheed’s and Taiclet’s profits.

CFR and Lockheed did not respond to requests for comment about Taiclet’s selection for CFR board membership or how conflicts of interest between CFR’s work and Taiclet’s interests as the CEO of the world’s largest weapons company will or will not be addressed.


President Joe Biden participates in a tour with Lockheed Martin CEO James Taiclet Tuesday, May 3, 2022, of the Lockheed Martin facility in Troy, Alabama. (Official White House Photo by Adam Schultz)|
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.