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.


Dear RS readers: It has been an extraordinary year and our editing team has been working overtime to make sure that we are covering the current conflicts with quality, fresh analysis that doesn’t cleave to the mainstream orthodoxy or take official Washington and the commentariat at face value. Our staff reporters, experts, and outside writers offer top-notch, independent work, daily. Please consider making a tax-exempt, year-end contribution to Responsible Statecraftso that we can continue this quality coverage — which you will find nowhere else — into 2026. Happy Holidays!

(Shutterstock/ JHVEPhoto)
google cta
Reporting | Military Industrial Complex
herese Kayikwamba Wagner Congo Trump White House
Top photo credit: US President Donald Trump speaks during a meeting ahead of peace signing ceremony with Democratic Republic of the Congo Foreign Minister Therese Kayikwamba Wagner (R) and Rwandan Foreign Minister Olivier Nduhungirehe (2nd-L) in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, DC, USA on June 27, 2025. (Reuters)
On a roll: Trump to host 5 African leaders this week

6 stories that defined Trump’s approach to Africa in 2025

Africa

President Trump’s policy towards the African continent in 2025 was loaded with personal disagreements, peace negotiations, and efforts to improve economic exchange.

Through the ups and downs of Trump’s Africa policy, it became increasingly clear as the year wore on that contrary to observers’ early expectations, Trump’s team is indeed prioritizing Africa.

keep readingShow less
Bush Trump Cheney
Top image credit: ChameleonsEye, noamgalai, AI Teich via shutterstock.com

4 ways Team Trump reminded us of Bush-Cheney in 2025

Washington Politics

Earlier this month, Republican Congressman Thomas Massie mocked the idea of a potential U.S. regime change war with Venezuela, ostensibly over drug trafficking.

"Do we truly believe that Nicholas Maduro will be replaced by a modern-day George Washington? How did that work out? In Cuba, Libya, Iraq, or Syria?"

keep readingShow less
Marco Rubio
Top image credit: Secretary of State Marco Rubio speaks with President Donald Trump during an event in the State Dining Room at the White House Oct. 8, 2025. Photo by Francis Chung/Pool/ABACAPRESS.COM VIA REUTERSCONNECT

Five restraint successes — and five absolute fails — in 2025

Washington Politics

The first year of a presidency promising an "America First" realism in foreign policy has delivered not a clean break, but a deeply contradictory picture. The resulting scorecard is therefore divided against itself.

On one side are qualified advances for responsible statecraft: a new National Security Strategy repudiating primacy, renewed dialogue with Russia, and some diplomatic breakthroughs forged through pragmatic deal-making.

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.