Skip to main content

Is there a shift in Defense privatization?

 Could we be witnessing a shift away from the Bush/Cheney neocon era of defense privatization, including operations like Haliburton, Black Water, LANS, TRIAD, LLNS, Sandia Corporation (Lockheed) and Solutions of Sandia (Honeywell)? Do defense contractors have the best interests of shareholders or the US people in mind?


Lutnick says administration considering taking stakes in defense companies

Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said Tuesday the president should consider stakes in companies where the U.S. adds “fundamental value.”

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/08/26/trump-government-companies-defense-00524433

The Trump administration is “thinking” about taking an equity stake in defense and munitions companies, according to Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick.

“There’s a monstrous discussion about defense,” he said Tuesday in an interview with CNBC’s “Squawk Box” when asked if there’s a “line” on government ownership of private companies. “I mean, Lockheed Martin makes 97 percent of their revenue from the U.S. government. They are basically an arm of the U.S. government.”

Comments

Anonymous said…
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said…
I cannot believe why Scooby is allowing such propaganda on this blog. Howard Lutnik, like the rest of the MAGA cabinet, are incompetent. They always have concepts but have done NOTHING to help those they are supposed to help! They are disfiguring America. Once the MAGA cult fizzles out, the next administration will take years to fix the damage. Isn't that the ways it has been the last 4 decades?
Anonymous said…
OK, you don't like Howard Lutnik. We can see that. But this was widely reported in virtually every media outlet. The question isn't whether this is a good idea or not. The question is will the Trump administration shift the trend toward defense privatization that we have seen over the past 20 years. That's a different question from whether Trump or Lutnik has good ideas or good policy.
Anonymous said…
The government taking stacks in companies is socialism.
Anonymous said…
8:16 -- There is a long history of government development, ownership, and control of strategic resources, for example, the Tennessee Valley Authority:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_Valley_Authority

Here is a list of so-called government corporations:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_government_corporations_of_the_United_States

This article describes the topic in a more general context:

https://govfacts.org/analysis/can-the-us-government-own-american-companies/
Anonymous said…
Yes, and all such are considered as socialism.
Anonymous said…
1:00 -- I am not sure it matters. In the case of the TVA this was a success.

State governments also have a history in this area

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_district_(United_States)

There are a variety of unusual examples such as the Bank of North Dakota:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_of_North_Dakota

Historically there was production of weapons at the Federal armories in Springfield and at Harper's Ferry (the site of John Brown's raid):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Springfield_Armory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harpers_Ferry_Armory
Anonymous said…
I just thought that all good conservatives/Republicans opposed socialism. How about the move on Intel? The attacks on Social Security? Medicare?
Anonymous said…
Conservatives are for socialism if it benefits them and the oligarchs. Period.
Anonymous said…
The Intel deal is very small compared to the size of the US stock markets : the total value of all US stocks is around $50 trillion whereas the government ownership of Intel is around $10 billion, or 0.02% of the US stock market as a whole. The shares are also non-voting with no board seats I believe. I am not sure how this would benefit conservatives in particular, or oligarchs. The government also did not really "seize the means of production" rather it paid for a stake in the company, which the company itself was free to refuse.
Anonymous said…
Yes, Intel is just one company; creaping socialism. So the shares are nonvoting. So what. Trump still forced the Ceo out.
Anonymous said…
9:34 -- I am not sure if it is really creeping socialism. Weren't there more dramatic examples in the past such as placing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac under receivship -- Fannie has trillions of dollars of assets, and for a number of years its profits were redirected to the Treasury to repay bailout money. This was done by George W. Bush's administration I believe to stabilize the housing market. In fact while highly levered this was and is the largest company in the US by total assets. It traded on the New York stock exchange prior to the problems and paid a dividend to investors. There is still a stock trading on the pink sheets which may have significant value at some point once it is recapitalized by retained earnings and the government exits the deal.

Popular posts from this blog

Plutonium Shots on NIF.

Tri-Valley Cares needs to be on this if they aren't already. We need to make sure that NNSA and LLNL does not make good on promises to pursue such stupid ideas as doing Plutonium experiments on NIF. The stupidity arises from the fact that a huge population is placed at risk in the short and long term. Why do this kind of experiment in a heavily populated area? Only a moron would push that kind of imbecile area. Do it somewhere else in the god forsaken hills of Los Alamos. Why should the communities in the Bay Area be subjected to such increased risk just because the lab's NIF has failed twice and is trying the Hail Mary pass of doing an SNM experiment just to justify their existence? Those Laser EoS techniques and the people analyzing the raw data are all just BAD anyways. You know what comes next after they do the experiment. They'll figure out that they need larger samples. More risk for the local population. Stop this imbecilic pursuit. They wan...

Trump is to gut the labs.

The budget has a 20% decrease to DOE office of science, 20% cut to NIH. NASA also gets a cut. This will  have a huge negative effect on the lab. Crazy, juts crazy. He also wants to cut NEA and PBS, this may not seem like  a big deal but they get very little money and do great things.

Why Workplace Jargon Is A Big Problem

From the Huffington Post Why Workplace Jargon Is A Big Problem http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/25/work-words_n_5159868.html?utm_hp_ref=business&ir=Business When we replace a specific task with a vague expression, we grant the task more magnitude than it deserves. If we don't describe an activity plainly, it seems less like an easily achievable goal and more like a cloudy state of existence that fills unknowable amounts of time. A fog of fast and empty language has seeped into the workplace. I say it's time we air it out, making room for simple, concrete words, and, therefore, more deliberate actions. By striking the following 26 words from your speech, I think you'll find that you're not quite as overwhelmed as you thought you were. Count the number that LLNLs mangers use.  touch base circle back bandwidth - impactful - utilize - table the discussion deep dive - engagement - viral value-add - one-sheet deliverable - work product - incentivise - take it to the ...