Follow us on social

Why Big War absolutely loves red tape and regulation

Why Big War absolutely loves red tape and regulation

In a twist, major contractors are using bureaucracy to pad project budgets and squeeze the competition


Analysis | Military Industrial Complex

With the Pentagon late last year failing its sixth audit in a row and majority of major weapons systems coming in way over budget while failing to deliver promised capabilities, it’s evident that our defense procurement system has major problems.

Perhaps the most significant underlying cause (among many) is that not only do all defense contractors make a profit from regulations — but the giant firms that have come to dominate our defense industry thrive on regulations. They turn regulatory compliance into a competitive advantage.

In other words, the more regulations and red tape levied on defense contractors, the more profits they reap.

How Does This Work?

Federal regulations limit profit margins for weapon system contracts, but weapon system costs are not limited. Hence, with the DoD focused on trying to limit profit margins, the one sure way to grow overall profits is to charge more for the weapon systems. Earning a 10% profit margin on a $10 billion weapons system contract will generate as much profit as earning a 20% margin on a $5 billion contract for the same weapon system.

However, not all costs are the same, as a higher profit margin is allowed on research-related costs. Consequently, if defense contractors can successfully persuade the Pentagon and Congress to support large increases in research-related costsarge increases in research-related costs, they can not only grow the overall size of the weapons systems contract, but they can also charge higher profit margins for the portion of the project categorized as research. And the primary way that contracts are increased in size is by adding chargeable hours to the contract, many of which, including research hours, can be associated with maintaining regulatory compliance.

Enough with Theory!

That’s all fine in theory, but just how much is regulatory compliance costing taxpayers? According to the most comprehensive study, the regulatory compliance premium is about 18% of the total cost. This 1994 study, conducted at the behest of former Secretary of Defense William Perry, came to its conclusions by interviewing 1,000 defense contractor executives, cost center managers, and other key workers to evaluate 120 cost drivers.

The 18% number is the total cost of the regulatory burden, and includes the costs associated with hiring people dedicated to tracking and ensuring regulatory compliance. This is an important point, because regulatory compliance affects how much time engineers, scientists, and factory workers take to do their job which invariably adds more time. Not all positions and tasks are equally affected by regulatory burden. For example, the Perry study found that companies involved with weapons systems development projects that require a lot of engineering time incur a 27% regulatory premium.

But regardless of the exact premium each firm incurs, it is a cost upon which they earn profit.

When you are talking about hundreds of billions of dollars going to defense contractors annually, an 18% regulatory premium is a big number that produces a lot of profits. But it has likely grown since the study was conducted and should be considered a conservative estimate in today’s regulation/mandate-driven world.

Evidence that the regulatory burden has only grown since 1994 is provided by a 2023 study by the National Association of Manufacturers that found regulatory costs borne by U.S. business grew by $464 billion since 2012 and now totals $3.079 trillion annually. Another study found that in real terms, regulatory costs have been growing about 1% per year.

But even if the regulatory burden is still only 18% for weapon system acquisition, with roughly 50% of the FY 2024 $842 billion defense budget going to defense contractors, the regulatory premium calculates out to be approximately $75 billion. Astoundingly, the regulatory premium alone for the U.S. weapons industry is more than what all but five countries spent last year in total on their national defense.

Regulatory Costs Have Driven Consolidation - Reducing Competition and Accountability 

As noted above, for defense corporations, especially the larger ones, the regulatory burden is used to beef up the size of weapons contracts and earn billions in additional profits. Further, when it comes to regulatory costs, large firms enjoy a competitive advantage over smaller firms due to the fact that, on a percentage of overall cost basis, economies of scale advantages allow larger firms to cover the costs of compliance for relatively less cost.

Indeed, a recent study by Stanford Postdoctoral fellow Shikhar Singla found that for small firms increasing regulatory costs result in lower sales, employment, markups, and profitability, while for large firms greater regulatory costs result in higher sales, employment, markups, and profitability. That larger firms do better in highly regulatory operating environments has put pressure on smaller companies to merge or sell.

This helps explain the defense industry consolidation we have seen, with major prime aerospace defense contractors going from 51 in 1993 to just five today.

This massive, regulatory-driven consolidation has had profoundly negative effects. In a November 2023 interview with CBS News, Shay Assad, who spent four decades negotiating weapons deals for the Pentagon, made this statement regarding today’s defense contractors:"they need to be held accountable. No matter who they are, no matter what company it is, they need to be held accountable. And right now, that accountability system is broken in the Department of Defense.”

Assad further noted that reducing the number of defense contractors from 51 to the five giants that we have today has taken the defense industry from being one of “intense competition” to one of little competition.

All of the above adds up to regulatory costs not only serving as a profit generator for big defense, but also as a driver for reduced competition and accountability. What’s more, with the top 10 defense contractors gobbling up 74% of defense procurement dollars, we are destined to get less and less bang for our taxpayer dollar.

Only through major disruptive reforms such as minimizing concurrent development, setting strict time limits on development time for new ships and aircraft, mandating greater technology readiness levels, and perhaps even taking away ship design away from defense contractors and returning it back to the Navy, will we be able to reverse our military’s decline.


Image: Wonder AI

Analysis | Military Industrial Complex
Elliott Abrams
Top image credit: New York, NY - February 28, 2019: US envoy on Venezuela Elliott Abrams speaks to media after UN Security Council meeting on situation in Venezuela at UN Headquarters (Photo: lev radin via shutterstock.com)

New neocon manifesto: Keep US troops in the Middle East

Middle East

A leading neoconservative for most of the last half century has released a comprehensive series of recommendations on Middle East policy for the new Trump administration nearly all of which are ideas that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his Likud Party would happily embrace.

The 16-page report, entitled “Deals of the Century: Solving the Middle East,” is published by the Vandenberg Coalition, which was founded and chaired by Elliott Abrams, who has held senior foreign policy posts in every Republican administration since Ronald Reagan (except George H.W. Bush’s), including as Special Envoy for Venezuela and later for Iran during Trump’s first term.

keep readingShow less
Pete Hegseth confirmation
Top photo credit: Pete Hegseth in Senate hearings, January 14, 2025. (Shutterstock/
Zhongxinyashi_Photo)

Hegseth confirmed: This is where we find out his true mettle

QiOSK

After weeks of acrimony and consternation over his personal indiscretions, Pete Hegseth was confirmed tonight as secretary of defense. Republicans Mitch McConnell, Lisa Murkowsi, and Susan Collins voted against him, leaving a 50-50 tie which was broken by Vice President J.D. Vance in Hegseth's favor.

Now the fun begins. Hegseth, an Army veteran of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, has testified that President Donald Trump has put his faith in him to "bring the warrior culture back to the Department of Defense. He, like me, wants a Pentagon laser-focused on lethality, meritocracy, war fighting, accountability and readiness.”

keep readingShow less
Washington DC pentagon
Top photo credit: US Capitol (Shutterstock/ Andrea Izzotti) and F-16 Fighting Falcon flies over the Pentagon in 2001 (Air Force photo/public domain)

Spending 5% of GDP on military now would be absolutely nuts

Military Industrial Complex

As a brand new Congress and administration settles in, the groundwork is being laid for a historic increase in military spending that could lead to catastrophic implications for the federal budget.

Senator Roger Wicker (R-MS), the new head of the Senate Armed Services Committee, is calling for a $120 billion hike over the next two years, and other key Republicans are calling for an increase of up to $200 billion. This follows a rise of some $160 billion over the four years of the Biden Administration.

keep readingShow less

Trump transition

Latest

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.