Last Tuesday, when Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth addressed the top general, he was pretty much verbalizing what many Americans already sensed: the military’s fixation on “hobbies” is a distraction. But the issue of corruption is not just limited to government. It deeply permeates civilian contractors who produce military gear, potentially compromising national security. To enhance military readiness, it’s crucial we move past the shortcomings of top defense contractors.
He initiated his remarks by highlighting the so-called “Defense 5,” which includes major players like Lockheed Martin, RTX, General Dynamics, Boeing, and Northrop Grumman. Instead of focusing on technical excellence and developing cutting-edge technology, these giants have diverted their attention to left-leaning activist agendas.
Take, for instance, the Human Rights Campaign, which is an influential activist organization that exerts pressure on companies to conform to extreme LGBTQ policies. According to their corporate equality index, four out of five of these defense contractors score perfectly. Here are a few of the expectations they set:
- Hiring and vendor selection based on LGBTQ criteria
- Mandating cross-gender sensitivity training
- Covering costs associated with transgender care for employees and dependents
- Supporting at least one LGBTQ organization or event
- Publicly advocating for LGBTQ+ legislation
And it doesn’t end there. Four of the Defense 5 also endorsed the well-known 2019 business roundtable statement, which claims that companies should prioritize “stakeholder” interests over solely serving shareholders. This shift has led to significant funding being allocated to social initiatives, including $42 million pledged by Boeing, Northrop Grumman, and RTX toward diversity, equity, and inclusion causes.
According to a corporate bias evaluation database, four of the Defense 5 are deemed “high risk,” often yielding to political pressures that distort corporate governance and can alienate customers and employees while harming shareholders. This misalignment leads to everything from ESG commitments to lobbying for progressive legislation. Even General Dynamics, with its “medium risk” rating, has engaged in activities that contribute to these problematic trends.
So, how has DEI influenced procurement? The infiltration of current ideologies is evident in the defense contracting process, rooted in federal requirements that mandate race- and gender-based set-asides. Contractors had to submit affirmative action plans and reports to the EEOC, which affected not just them but also their subcontractors, imposing DEI obligations across the board.
This arrangement meant that the military’s operational capacity was frequently compromised in favor of meeting racial and gender quotas, sidelining merit and excellence. How can we trust in our military’s readiness when the best suppliers are wasting valuable resources on these initiatives?
It’s essential to recognize that this isn’t purely incidental. Many contractors felt they had to comply if they wanted access to lucrative federal contracts. However, the legal environment has evolved, presenting less tolerance for such practices.
Recently, the Department of Justice issued new enforcement guidelines aimed at federal funding recipients that clarify the illegality of discriminatory DEI measures. These include race-based quotas and similar preferences, which can now be challenged. The Department encourages a renewed focus on skills and qualifications instead.
The defense industry is fundamentally different from other sectors. Its primary role is to provide the most effective military hardware possible. When activism overshadows defense priorities, it undermines both service members and taxpayers.
Hegseth is correct: the Defense Department has strayed from its core mission. It’s time for our leading contractors to relinquish these distractions. While General Dynamics has shown some resistance to such pressures, it’s clear they need to align with American laws, missions, and public expectations. If these defense giants want to continue receiving taxpayer dollars, their emphasis should be on developing world-class military capabilities rather than pursuing favorable activist scores.
