The problem

Defense corporations are just that: corporations. They represent shareholders, well-heeled corporate boards, and richly compensated CEOs. Too often, however, reporters and the public view defense contractors as an appendage of the Department of Defense, and by extension, a first line of defense in U.S. national security. This is a mistake. Defense corporations have one raison d’être: profit, and extremely profitable they are — largely as a result of the windfall they reap in government contracts. For instance, in 2018, 80 percent of Northrop Grumman’s revenue came from public funds, yet the CEO was paid $24.2 million.

In order to check the undue influence defense corporations wield over Congress, the media, and think tanks, reporters and readers themselves must:

Ask

• How much taxpayer money does the firm receive? 

• What proportion of the firm’s revenues comes from taxpayer funds? 

• Which members of Congress accept defense contractor money, and how much?

• Are independent experts actually on the payroll of the arms industry?

Beware of

• The military-industrial-congressional echo chamber. Retired officers who work for defense corporations often serve on congressionally appointed blue-ribbon panels that escalate threats and demand increased military spending. Defense corporations thrive off the revolving door between government and industry. 

• So-called experts.  As we’ve noted before, reporters and think tanks are often reliant on the input of outside experts who are paid by the arms industry. They shouldn’t be.

• Sponsored content. Conflicts of interest abound. With ad revenue plummeting, trade publications, sector-specific media, and think tanks often rely on corporate sponsorship, and therefore pull their punches. Banner ads should be a red flag to readers and reporters alike.    

• Members of Congress who accept defense corporation money. The members of Congress who receive the largest contributions from these defense corporations are often serving on the subcommittees that set military spending levels. This is a clear conflict of interest.

Seek out

• Independent reporting. Compared to lobbying, corporate sponsorship of think tanks is virtually unregulated. The prospect of alienating potential defense contractor funders can have a chilling effect on a think tank’s work, even when a specific report isn’t itself sponsored. Instead, reporters should turn to academics. Readers should seek out independent media.

• Reports that acknowledge the U.S. as the world’s largest arms exporter — by far. Arms proliferation and the underlying drivers of conflict cannot be addressed without acknowledging that the U.S. is the largest arms dealer to the world. Implicitly, media reports celebrate this as proof of imperial prowess. This role should be questioned. Foreign arms buyers and their records of abuse should be scrutinized. 

• Alternate views of U.S. manufacturing. Arms makers are often shielded from criticism because their work creates U.S. manufacturing jobs. This is true, albeit with important qualifications. This is a result of the deliberate decision to support defense corporations at the expense of other types of manufacturing, including defense conversion — i.e. reprogramming defense spending toward a green manufacturing economy. Worse, military spending produces among the fewest jobs per tax dollar of any type of federal spending. Instead of celebrating arms manufacturing jobs, we should focus on the opportunity cost in labor terms of unchecked military spending.