Follow us on social

google cta
Shutterstock_1664656051-scaled

Feds sign off on controversial L3Harris purchase of Aerojet Rocketdyne

Critics worry ‘merger will hurt the American people and our common defense by further weakening competition.’

Reporting | Military Industrial Complex
google cta
google cta

Military contractor L3Harris said in a letter to investors that it plans to finalize its acquisition of Aerojet Rocketdyne on Friday, just two days after the company announced that the Federal Trade Commission would not block the deal.

The news ends months of questions over whether the acquisition would be allowed to go through. The FTC had previously blocked Lockheed Martin from buying Aerojet, citing concerns that the purchase would further consolidate an already centralized military industry. Prior to the acquisition, Aerojet was the only independent company capable of producing rocket motors — a key component in a wide variety of weapons systems — at scale.

The acquisition is sure to draw scrutiny from military spending watchdogs, who argue that the deal risks driving up costs for taxpayers. Rep. Chris Deluzio (D-Penn.) told RS last week that he is “concerned this merger will hurt the American people and our common defense by further weakening competition in the defense industrial base.”

The motor manufacturer “already holds a monopolistic role in the market, as companies like Lockheed Martin and Boeing depend on products produced only by Aerojet,” Deluzio argued. “A merger with L3Harris would put it in the position to leverage their control over those products.”

Notably, Aerojet Rocketdyne makes motors that are crucial to the products of L3Harris’s competitors. Raytheon and Lockheed Martin rely on Aerojet systems to propel Javelin missiles, a shoulder-launched weapon that has seen heavy use in Ukraine. Its motors are also crucial to Raytheon’s Stinger missiles and Boeing’s intercontinental ballistic missiles, which make up much of America’s nuclear arsenal.

The weapons industry has consolidated dramatically since the 1990s, according to a recent Pentagon report. While the Department of Defense used to do business with 51 “prime” contractors that could lead major programs, now only five military firms can fill that role.

The word salad of military contractor names is a testament to this history. Lockheed Martin came about following the 1995 merger of Lockheed Corporation and Martin Marietta. Northrop Corporation merged with Grumman corporation in 1994 to form Northrop Grumman. 

Some are more subtle than others: Raytheon Technologies — a seemingly normal name for a company — is actually a mash-up of Raytheon Company and United Technologies, which came together in 2020.

L3Harris is among the most unusual of these zombie titles. As RS has previously reported, it started off as L-3 Communications in 1997 and began buying up defense companies of all stripes. Given its diverse portfolio, executives at the company renamed it to L3 Technologies in 2016. Then, following a 2018 merger with Harris Corporation, the L3Harris name came to be.

The Pentagon has the authority to block military contractor mergers and acquisitions, as Deluzio and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) noted in a letter to Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin earlier this month.

“[T]his deal would threaten competition and national security, increase prices, reduce innovation, and reduce product quality and create production delays for the defense industrial base,” Deluzio and Warren argued.

But DoD has apparently not been swayed. The Aerojet Rocketdyne website already redirects to L3Harris, signaling that the acquisition is all but done. “I’m excited about the next phase of L3Harris,” CEO Christopher Kubasik told investors.


(Shutterstock/ JHVEPhoto)
google cta
Reporting | Military Industrial Complex
Will Democrats pop Trump's $50 billion trial balloon for war?
Top image credit: Sens. Andy Kim (D-N.J.), Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) and Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.) sit look on during a congressional hearing in January, 2025. (Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call/Sipa USA)

Will Democrats pop Trump's $50 billion trial balloon for war?

Washington Politics

On Wednesday, Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) told CNN that he would support new funding for the U.S. war with Iran — but only if Israel and Arab Gulf states help pay for it.

“We’re using our taxpayer money to protect those countries,” Gallego said. “We’re using our men to protect these countries. They need to throw in and have skin in the game too.”

keep readingShow less
Polymarket Iran War
Top photo credit: Polymarket logo (Shutterstock/PJ McDonald) and Scene following an airstrike on an Iranian police centre damaging residential buildings around it in Niloofar square in central Tehran on march 1, 2026. (Hamid Vakili/Parspix/ABACAPRESS.COM)

Prediction markets are a national security threat

Latest

Hours before an Israeli attack in Tehran killed Ayatollah Khamenei, an account on the prediction market Polymarket made over half a million dollars wagering that Iran’s Supreme Leader would vacate office before 3/31. That account, named “Magamyman,” was not the only one to cash in on the attacks.

Half a dozen Polymarket accounts made over $1.2M betting that the U.S. “strikes Iran by February 28, 2026.” Those accounts were allegedly paid for through cryptocurrency wallets that had previously not been funded prior to Feb. 27. Overall, prediction market users bet over $255M on markets related to the attacks in Iran on the prediction markets Kalshi and Polymarket alone.

keep readingShow less
Indonesia stock exchange
Top photo credit: (Shutterstock/Triawanda Tirta Aditya)

Trump's ‘move fast and break things’ war slams into economy

Middle East

The launch of joint U.S.-Israeli strikes on Iran could lead to economic and financial disruptions that ripple across the countries of the Global South with devastating effects. And while a quick end to the war could dampen these effects, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has acknowledged that the war could even last up to 8 weeks, and Israel is now reportedly expecting a "weeks-long" war with Iran.

The fundamental issue here seems to be an increasingly expansive vision of American — and particularly Israeli — war aims. These have now gone well beyond Iran’s offer of substantial denuclearization to regime change, and some quarters have even more extreme visions like the potential Balkanization of Iran into multiple statelets. Such mission creep on the part of the U.S. and Israel has in turn changed incentive structures in Iran towards an expansion of the conflict to target both the Gulf States and global oil markets, a dynamic that threatens to broaden the conflict and extend it, with profound impacts on the global economy.

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.