During a speech at the Democratic National Convention last August, Kamala Harris laid out her view of American military power, saying the United States would keep the strongest and most lethal fighting force in the world. This stance contrasts with remarks by Donald Trump a few weeks earlier in Wisconsin, where he warned against endless wars and argued that missiles cost too much to waste, promising to reform the military-industrial complex to put America first. Taken together, those statements hint at each candidate’s leanings toward the defense industry, but the relationship is more nuanced.
The United States has the largest defense industry by far. The defense budget stood at 877.0 billion dollars in 2022, equal to the combined budgets of the nine next-largest spenders. American companies control about 45 percent of the global weapons and systems market. It is no surprise that in this era of global disorder, marked by ongoing conflicts and a fragile international framework, the sector is enjoying a period of extraordinary growth. Eugene Gholz, a professor at the University of Notre Dame and a former Pentagon adviser, notes that defense spending is rising along with revenues, contracts, and investment in innovation, all tied to the promise of new markets. He adds that the money remains lucrative, even as challenges persist, such as delays in delivering weapons and the entrance of new competitors into the market.
Low Campaign Donations
Despite substantial financial strength, the industry spends relatively little on campaign contributions to influence elections. Instead, it pours resources into lobbying to persuade Congress to fund certain systems or to sustain a high Pentagon budget. So far this year, companies have donated nearly 18 million dollars to Republican candidates, versus about 13.5 million to Democrats, according to OpenSecrets. Yet experts question whether the defense-industry complex has a single preferred candidate. They say the sector tends to avoid taking sides, because both parties invest in weapons, which matters for profits, says Eugene Gholz.
On foreign policy, the two leaders display different approaches. Trump leans toward isolationism, is wary of international institutions, questions support for Ukraine, and shows only cautious commitment to NATO. Harris, in contrast, embraces liberal internationalism, backing alliances, collective security, and international institutions as pillars of global order. Among the two, Harris is likely more interventionist. Peter Feaver, a former NSC adviser and Stanford professor, notes that ideally the defense industry would prefer a Democratic majority in Congress if that majority is old-school enough to restrain the isolationist wing of the party.
Similar Defense Proposals
The challenge is that the old-school consensus, from neoconservatives to Reaganites, still wields influence within Trump’s circle. Feaver adds that Congress, more than the presidency, controls defense budgets, and public money matters even more for the sector than arms sales abroad, with firms like Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, and Northrop Grumman depending on that funding. Regardless of who governs, manufacturers should not overreact. Both Trump and Biden increased the defense budget annually, with Trump’s rise exceeding inflation and Biden adjusting for higher prices. The defense strategies of both administrations share many goals, prioritizing competition with China and Russia over efforts against rogue states and terrorist networks that defined earlier decades. Michael O’Hanlon of the Brookings Institution argues that Trump’s legacy is somewhat more pro-defense than Biden-Harris, though the difference is minor.
Even if Trump were to halt support to Ukraine and withdraw the United States from NATO, a scenario many consider unlikely, the industry would still reap billions and continue to flood the world with arms. Gholz notes that a bipartisan commitment to a new cold war with China ensures ongoing investment, and Europe would continue buying high-tech weapons even if the United States pulled back from NATO.