Follow us on social

Howard Lutnick

Is nationalizing the defense industry such a bad idea?

Removing the profit motive that has allowed private interests to abuse, corrupt, and metastasize the system might be a way forward — if done right.

Military Industrial Complex

The U.S. arms industry is highly consolidated, specialized, and dependent on government contracts. Indeed, the largest U.S. military contractors are already effectively extensions of the state — and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick is right to point that out.

His suggestion in a recent media appearance to partially nationalize the likes of Lockheed Martin is hardly novel. The economist John Kenneth Galbraith argued for the nationalization of the largest military contractors in 1969. More recently, various academics and policy analysts have advocated for partial or full nationalization of military firms in publications including The Nation, The American Conservative, The Middle East Research and Information Project (MERIP), and The Seattle Journal for Social Justice.

While perhaps unexpected from the current administration, full or partial nationalization of the largest military contractors is a reasonable policy proposal worthy of serious debate. One benefit of some degree of public ownership is that it could significantly reduce the arms industry’s influence-peddling activities, particularly congressional lobbying. With a direct stake in a military firm, the government would have greater leverage to guide how a firm does business — like, for example, how much it spends on internal investment versus congressional lobbying.

Year after year, industry lobbyists secure legislative victories to raise national security spending and reduce Pentagon contract oversight. As a result, the arms industry has cultivated numerous tools to legally price gouge the Pentagon on military contracts. Contractors enjoy intellectual property rights to weapon systems developed with public funds, guaranteeing maintenance contracts for the duration of a weapon system’s life cycle — a rich revenue source given that maintenance accounts for about 70% of a weapon system’s life cycle cost, on average. It is for this reason that the military’s right to repair its own equipment is contentious.

Members of Congress working to rein in Pentagon waste face serious political headwinds. The arms industry spent nearly $151 million on lobbying and over $43 million on political contributions in 2024. As a result, the leaders of the armed services committees — which draft the annual defense policy bill – are among the highest recipients of arms industry funds in Congress. Their respective policy priorities largely align with industry’s push to reduce Pentagon contract oversight and more broadly, forever change the way the Pentagon buys weapons – to the financial benefit of industry executives and their shareholders.

To put it simply, the arms industry has the U.S. government wrapped around its finger. So while contractors do not need more taxpayer dollars to carry out their Pentagon work, a government stake in Lockheed Martin today could be cheaper than several more decades of industry bilking the government. After all, military contractors increased cash paid to their shareholders by 73% from 2010-2019 versus 2000-2009, all while decreasing spending on research and development and capital investment.

Meanwhile, evidence of industry price gouging the military abounds. Still, contractors cry wolf to Congress and lawmakers come running to pad their bottom lines, aided by trusty industry lobbyists — who some years, outnumber members of Congress on Capitol Hill.

Nationalization is by no means a silver bullet to eradicate Pentagon waste, to say nothing of unnecessary weapons production driven by strategic overreach. I will be making the case for nationalization in greater detail in an upcoming paper at the Stimson Center. Depending on how it’s carried out, partial public ownership could incentivize government officials to cash in on public service even more nakedly than they already do by moving through the revolving door or trading stocks in military firms.

So how the government goes about nationalizing military contractors has direct bearing on the government’s ability to realize its benefits. Analysts can capture this nuance even if they disagree with this particular administration’s interest in or approach to nationalization.

To put a finer point on the question of nationalization, however, it is vile that profit motive for arms production has any impact on the defense policymaking process. National defense is itself a public good, and one of the core functions of government. Full nationalization should be on the table, but even partial nationalization could help curb the financial incentives for arms production. Policymakers would have greater reason to more firmly ground their spending and acquisition decisions in realistic threat analysis — as well as public interest in avoiding both war and Pentagon waste.


Top photo credit: Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick on CNBC, 8/26/25 (CNBC screengrab)
Military Industrial Complex
Rand Paul Donald Trump
Top photo credit: Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) (Shutterstock/Mark Reinstein) and President Trump (White House/Molly Riley)

Rand Paul to Trump: Don't 'abandon' MAGA over Maduro regime change

Washington Politics

Sen. Rand Paul said on Friday that “all hell could break loose” within Donald Trump’s MAGA coalition if the president involves the U.S. further in Ukraine, and added that his supporters who voted for him after 20 years of regime change wars would "feel abandoned" if he went to war and tried to topple Nicolas Maduro, too.

President Trump has been getting criticism from some of his supporters for vowing to release the files of the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and then reneging on that promise. Paul said that the Epstein heat Trump is getting from MAGA will be nothing compared to if he refuses to live up to his “America First” foreign policy promises.

keep readingShow less
Trump ASEAN
Top photo credit: U.S. President Donald Trump looks at Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., next to Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim when posing for a family photo with leaders at the ASEAN Summit in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, October 26, 2025. Vincent Thian/Pool via REUTERS

‘America First’ meets ‘ASEAN Way’ in Kuala Lumpur

Asia-Pacific

The 2025 ASEAN and East Asia Summits in Kuala Lumpur beginning today are set to be consequential multilateral gatherings — defining not only ASEAN’s internal cohesion but also the shape of U.S.–China relations in the Indo-Pacific.

President Donald Trump’s participation will be the first by a U.S. president in an ASEAN-led summit since 2022. President Biden skipped the last two such summits in 2023 and 2024, sending then-Vice President Harris instead.

keep readingShow less
iran, china, russia
Top photo credit: Top image credit: Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov and and Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi shake hands as Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Ma Zhaoxu looks on during their meet with reporters after their meeting at Diaoyutai State Guest House on March 14, 2025 in Beijing, China. Lintao Zhang/Pool via REUTERS

'Annulled'! Russia won't abide snapback sanctions on Iran

Middle East

“A raider attack on the U.N. Security Council.” This was the explosive accusation leveled by Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov this week. His target was the U.N. Secretariat and Western powers, whom he blamed for what Russia sees as an illegitimate attempt to restore the nuclear-related international sanctions on Iran.

Beyond the fiery rhetoric, Ryabkov’s statement contained a message: Russia, he said, now considers all pre-2015 U.N. sanctions on Iran, snapped back by the European signatories of the 2015 nuclear deal (JCPOA) — the United Kingdom, France, Germany — “annulled.” Moscow will deepen its military-technical cooperation with Tehran accordingly, according to Ryabkov.

This is more than a diplomatic spat; it is the formal announcement of a split in international legal reality. The world’s major powers are now operating under two irreconcilable interpretations of international law. On one side, the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and Germany assert that the sanctions snapback mechanism of the JCPOA was legitimately triggered for Iran’s alleged violations. On the other, Iran, Russia, and China reject this as an illegitimate procedural act.

This schism was not inevitable, and its origin reveals a profound incongruence. The Western powers that most frequently appeal to the sanctity of the "rules-based international order" and international law have, in this instance, taken an action whose effects fundamentally undermine it. By pushing through a legal maneuver that a significant part of the Security Council considers illegitimate, they have ushered the world into a new and more dangerous state. The predictable, if imperfect, framework of universally recognized Security Council decisions is being replaced by a system where legal facts are determined by political interests espoused by competing power blocs.

This rupture followed a deliberate Western choice to reject compromises in a stand-off with Iran. While Iran was in a technical violation of the provisions of the JCPOA — by, notably, amassing a stockpile of highly enriched uranium (up to 60% as opposed to the 3.67% for a civilian use permissible under the JCPOA), there was a chance to avert the crisis. In the critical weeks leading to the snapback, Iran had signaled concessions in talks with the International Atomic Energy Agency in Cairo, in terms of renewing cooperation with the U.N. nuclear watchdog’s inspectors.

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.