Congress Should Re-Investigate War Profiteering by Major Defense Contractors
Source: Hank Kennedy. "Congress Must Investigate War Profiteers Once Again." October 3, 2026. jacobin.com
The Gist
The author argues that Congress needs to investigate defense contractors again, just like it did 90 years ago, because the US is spending enormous amounts of money on weapons (like $4 million missiles) that aren't working well against cheap enemy drones costing a fraction of that price. Despite spending over a trillion dollars on defense and tens of billions on the Iran conflict specifically, the war isn't going well and the US is even running short on missiles—suggesting defense contractors are profiting while delivering ineffective results.
Conclusion
Congress must launch a new investigation into war profiteering by major defense contractors, similar to the 1930s Nye Committee.
Premises
- The US defense budget has ballooned to roughly $1.5 trillion following a $445 billion increase requested by President Trump, with much of this benefiting five major contractors (Boeing, General Dynamics, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and RTX).
- These contractors have produced expensive, troubled weapons systems like the F-35 and littoral combat ships that are widely regarded as wasteful ('budget-shredding boondoggles').
- Despite massive spending (an estimated $72 billion and counting), the US war with Iran has not produced the swift, decisive outcome that such enormous military investment should guarantee.
- There is a stark cost asymmetry between US defense systems and adversary weapons—e.g., a $4 million Patriot interceptor or $13 million THAAD interceptor is used against $20,000-$50,000 Iranian drones—suggesting inefficient and profit-driven procurement rather than cost-effective defense.
- The scale of expenditure has led to actual operational shortages (e.g., talk of a missile shortage), indicating that spending is not translating into military effectiveness.
- Historically, the Nye Committee (90 years ago) successfully exposed corruption in the arms industry, establishing precedent that such congressional oversight is necessary and effective.
Assumptions
- High defense spending should correlate with swift, effective military outcomes; failure to do so implies waste or corruption rather than other strategic/political factors.
- The poor cost-effectiveness of specific weapons systems (e.g., interceptors vs. drones) is attributable to profiteering rather than inherent technical trade-offs in missile defense.
- A new congressional investigation would have the power and political will to meaningfully curb contractor influence and spending abuses today, as it purportedly did in the 1930s.
- The Big Five contractors' profits are central to the problems in defense spending, rather than being one factor among many (e.g., bureaucratic inefficiency, strategic miscalculation, geopolitical complexity).
- The comparison between the 1930s Nye Committee context and today's military-industrial complex is sufficiently analogous to justify the same remedy.