This has less to do with socialism than it does with...

Editor's note: ...these corporations losing control of technology by having it stolen unless the US government takes up a stake in these corporations. Following a recent precedent where the government acquired a 10% stake in Intel, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick stated that officials are "thinking about" similar moves, arguing that because a significant portion of Lockheed Martin's revenue comes from federal contracts, the company is "basically an arm of the US government." Right, the United States of Lockheed Martin. The standard obfuscation: "This discussion has been met with mixed reactions; while some investors might view a government stake as a form of financial stability, many defense industry experts and analysts have warned that such a move could create significant conflicts of interest, stifle innovation, and lead to a politicized industry." Peter Thiel is connected to Lockheed Martin through his company Palantir, which has partnered with the defense contractor on specific projects related to modernizing US military technology. It's all coming together isn't it? AI militarized technology, privatization of government by Palantir, the US government having its own private military while Thiel vectors attention into Christianity.
________

Experts: Government stake in defense firms could harm industry

By Stephen Losey and Carla Babb | August 28, 2025

Defense industry experts are warning that a potential government stake in major firms such as Lockheed Martin or Boeing could stifle innovation, create conflicts of interest, and lead to more contract award protests, following comments from a top administration official considering the move.

Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick on Tuesday sparked discussion of whether the Trump administration could broaden the government's efforts to take slices of vital private firms into the defense world. Speaking with CNBC about the government's recent acquisition of a stake in Intel, Lutnick indicated that Pentagon leaders could be looking at similar arrangements with other companies.

"There's a monstrous discussion about defense," Lutnick said on CNBC. "Lockheed Martin makes 97% of their revenue from the U.S. government. They are, basically, an arm of the U.S. government. … What's the economics of that? I'm going to leave that to my secretary of Defense and the deputy secretary of Defense. These guys are on it, and they're thinking about it. There's a lot of talking that needs to be had about, how do we finance our munitions acquisitions."

But experts told Defense News Wednesday that such an arrangement would be unprecedented in modern America, and that it's unclear what problem it would be meant to solve.

"I don't really understand why they would want to do this," said Todd Harrison, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. "This is basically abandoning the free market for national security. This becomes state capitalism, much more in the model of China than in the American tradition."

Doug Birkey, executive director of the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies, acknowledged that over-budget and behind-schedule weapons systems frustrate many. But it's unclear how directly involving the government would fix that problem, he said — and it could even make things worse.

The military benefits from competition within the defense industry, which drives innovation and creates incentives for companies to keep programs on time and under cost, Birkey said.

Previous efforts in which the government had a direct hand in defense industrial matters — such as the post-World War I Naval Aircraft Factory in Philadelphia — led to a lack of efficiency and innovation, Birkey said.

Private firms at the time of the Naval Aircraft Facility's operation also objected to the competition they faced, which they perceived as unfair, from a government-operated rival.

Birkey raised the concern that a partially government-owned defense firm could find itself suffering from the same flaws as the Base Realignment and Closure process. BRAC was meant to identify unneeded and underused bases that could be closed for more efficiency and savings, but often results in a years-long grind mired in politics, he said.

"Traditionally, nationalization has not worked with elements of our economy," Birkey said. “You want commercial pressures to dominate effective, efficient business decisions. You don’t want industry turning into something like BRAC, where it's all about politics and it's not about what’s going to advance warfighting."

Lockheed Martin did not directly address Lutnick's remarks when asked for a comment by Defense News.

"As we did in his first term, we are continuing our strong working relationship with President Trump and his administration to strengthen our national defense," a Lockheed Martin spokesperson said.

Boeing declined to comment.

Intel, Nvidia and national security

On Friday, the Trump administration announced that the federal government was taking a 10% stake in Intel, sparking an intense debate in Washington about whether national security concerns justify government intervention.

President Donald Trump called it a "great deal" for Intel and the United States. v "I will make deals like that for our Country all day long," he wrote on his Truth social platform.

The chipmaker says the government is purchasing about 433 million primary shares of Intel stock for $20.47 per share, an $8.9 billion investment funded by grants awarded under the CHIPS and Science Act and a Pentagon program that aims to boost semiconductor production.

Small government conservatives have pushed back on this deal, with Senator Rand Paul calling it a "terrible idea."

"If socialism is government owning the means of production, wouldn't the government owning Intel be a step toward socialism?" Paul wrote on X.

Please go to Defense News to continue reading.