Follow us on social

Elon Musk Donald Trump

Will Trump keep promise to rein in War, Inc.?

The Pentagon budget battle will soon commence and Elon Musk wants a piece of the pie

Analysis | Military Industrial Complex

President-elect Donald Trump likes to posture as a tough guy, and he’s not above veiled threats of military action against stated adversaries as a tool of influence. But at times he can be quite harsh in his rhetoric about the big weapons makers and their allies in the political sphere, too, as he was in a September speech in Milwaukee:

“I will expel the warmongers from our national security state and carry out a much needed clean up of the military industrial complex to stop the war profiteering and to always put America first. . . . We’re going to end these endless wars.”

Campaign statements rarely make it into actual policies untouched, and Trump’s critique of the military industrial complex is likely to be no exception. In his first term, from 2016 to 2020, Trump reversed course from his campaign statements about contractors ripping off the government to form a close bond with the arms industry once in office, especially when it came to taking credit for the jobs created by dubious policies like the arming of the Saudi regime during its brutal war in Yemen, continuing to tout overseas sales to countries like Saudi Arabia and their economic impacts at home even after the murder of U.S.-resident journalist Jamal Khashoggi.

Whether or not Trump goes after the warmongers and war profiteers in earnest, the fact that he called them out in public in such harsh terms was newsworthy in its own right — he was far more critical in tone and substance than any statement of any recent Democratic presidential candidate. At a minimum, it means that there is an appetite in Trump’s base for a less interventionist foreign policy and a firmer hand with military mega-firms like Lockheed Martin and RTX (formerly Raytheon).

The answer regarding which companies may benefit most from Pentagon spending in the new administration will likely be determined by rough and tumble politics, not well-informed debates over strategic priorities. And when it comes to exerting influence over Pentagon spending and policy, so far the military mega-firms like Lockheed Martin and RTX are being outmaneuvered by the emerging military technology firms clustered in and around Silicon Valley.

Trump confidante and government efficiency czar Elon Musk is best known to most Americans for the civilian undertakings of SpaceX and Tesla, but his empire is increasingly moving into military contracting, from launching military satellites to creating a military version of his Starlink communications system that has been used to supply reliable internet service to the Ukrainian military in its fight against Russia.

Going forward, the biggest cash cow for SpaceX may be the Starship system, which is designed to put huge payloads into space, a capacity that the U.S. military is seeking as it postures itself for a possible conflict with China. These interests could incline Musk to leave military tech projects alone, or even push to increase them, when his agency releases its proposals for remaking the federal budget.

In December, Musk drew praise from some Pentagon budget critics for his verbal assault on Lockheed Martin’s troubled F-35 combat aircraft, but he was careful to say that it would be replaced with greater reliance on the drones built by his Silicon Valley colleagues. The Silicon Valley argument for swapping out piloted aircraft for drones is couched in strategic and budgetary terms, including a claim that a force that relies on drones would be cheaper to build and maintain. But these claims of efficiency and cost effectiveness have yet to be proven, so shifting towards emerging technologies may or may not save money.

In addition to Musk, the military tech sector can rely on support from Vice President-elect J.D. Vance, who worked for five years at a firm owned by Peter Thiel, founder of the surveillance and military data crunching firm Palantir, before his successful 2022 run for the Senate, with millions in financial support from Thiel.

In addition, Trump’s choice for second-in-charge at the Pentagon — a position that is intimately involved in the day-to-day operations of the department — is Stephen Feinberg of Cerberus Capital, a firm with a long history of investing in arms companies, including emerging tech firms, as it did early last year when it bought hypersonic and defense test systems businesses from TransDigm Group.

What do the tech executives want? More Pentagon contracts, less regulation in the purchase of new systems, and a foreign policy that relies on technological superiority to restore U.S. global military dominance. In some respects these demands overlap with the interests of Lockheed Martin and the other big contractors, but the Pentagon may have a hard time funding legacy systems like F-35s, aircraft carriers, and intercontinental ballistic missiles along with ambitious new projects based on emerging technologies. So there could be a budget brawl between the incumbent contractors and the Silicon Valley upstarts, with the winner determining the shape of U.S. weapons procurement choices for years to come.

Meanwhile, Lockheed Martin Chief Financial Officer Jay Malave has expressed his hope that for the Pentagon, efficiency could be consistent with increasing the department’s budget:

“With government efficiency, you could see elements of addition by subtraction, so ultimately, you could see a higher budget request than what we've seen from the prior administration, but it could be as a result of some things either being curtailed or canceled, and other things being prioritized.”

If Malave is right, and the Pentagon gets another big funding boost under cover of a campaign for “efficiency,” both sides of the old guard versus new tech fight within the arms sector could end up doing just fine — at our expense, and the expense of other needed programs for which “efficiency” may mean deep cuts.

Congress and the public need to keep a close eye on both wings of the military industrial complex under the new administration, demanding that decisions about what weapons to purchase and what strategy to pursue be made through carefully considered deliberations conducted in the public eye, not the needs of politically-wired companies that want to feed on the Pentagon budget to pad their bottom lines well into the future.


Top Image credit: Elon Musk gives a tour to U.S. President-elect Donald Trump and lawmakers of the control room before the launch of the sixth test flight of the SpaceX Starship rocket, in Brownsville, Texas, U.S., November 19, 2024 . Brandon Bell/Pool via REUTERS
Analysis | Military Industrial Complex
iraqi protests iran israel
Top photo credit: Iraqi Shi'ite Muslims hold a cutout of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as they attend a protest against Israeli strikes on Iran, in Baghdad, Iraq, June 16, 2025. REUTERS/Ahmed Saad

Iraq on razor's edge between Iran and US interests in new war

Middle East

As Israeli jets and Iranian rockets streak across the Middle Eastern skies, Iraq finds itself caught squarely in the crossfire.

With regional titans clashing above its head, Iraq’s fragile and hard-won stability, painstakingly rebuilt over decades of conflict, now hangs precariously in the balance. Washington’s own tacit acknowledgement of Iraq’s vulnerable position was laid bare by its decision to partially evacuate embassy personnel in Iraq and allow military dependents to leave the region.

This withdrawal, prompted by intelligence indicating Israeli preparations for long-range strikes, highlighted that Iraq’s airspace would be an unwitting corridor for Israeli and Iranian operations.

Prime Minister Mohammed Shia’ al-Sudani is now caught in a complicated bind, attempting to uphold Iraq’s security partnership with the United States while simultaneously facing intense domestic pressure from powerful, Iran-aligned Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) factions. These groups, emboldened by the Israel-Iran clash, have intensified their calls for American troop withdrawal and threaten renewed attacks against U.S. personnel, viewing them as legitimate targets and enablers of Israeli aggression.

keep readingShow less
George Bush mission accomplished
This file photo shows Bush delivering a speech to crew aboard the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln, as the carrier steamed toward San Diego, California on May 1, 2003. via REUTERS

Déjà coup: Iran war activates regime change dead-enders

Washington Politics

By now you’ve likely seen the viral video of an Iranian television reporter fleeing off-screen as Israel bombed the TV station where she was recording live. As the Quincy Institute’s Adam Weinstein quickly pointed out, Israel's attack on the broadcasting facility is directly out of the regime change playbook, “meant to shake public confidence in the Iranian government's ability to protect itself” and by implication, Iran’s citizenry.

Indeed, in the United States there is a steady drumbeat of media figures and legislators who have been loudly championing Israel’s apparent desire to overthrow the regime of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

keep readingShow less
Ukraine NATO
Top photo credit: August 2024 -- Led by the United Kingdom and involving trainers from 12 other countries, Operation Interflex gives Ukrainian recruits a five-week crash course in everything from infantry tactics to combat first aid, preparing them to defend their homeland. . (NATO/Flickr)

How NATO military doctrine failed Ukraine on the battlefield

Europe

The war in Ukraine has raged for over three years. As ceasefire talks loom, major European NATO members including Germany, UK, France and Denmark are planning to protect any future armistice by sending their troops as peacekeepers in a “Coalition of the Willing.”

Their goal is to deter the Russians from restarting the war. Unfortunately, deterrence comes from combat capability. Without it there is no deterrence at all. That capability is in question. NATO equipment and doctrine was developed for the Cold War and tested in the mountains of Afghanistan. It has not been tested in conventional war and needs to absorb lessons from the Ukraine war to offer a military option to the European elites, independent of the United States.

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.