webodec3ARCHIVEPreview
Open in TheBrain

Northrop Grumman

NO MERRI

mostly gop aderholt

gaza profiteer

trump funder

lobby rev door

blackstone

===

MPU 526

https://substack.perfectunion.us/p/how-trump-is-helping-military-contractors

*By Lucy Dean Stockton, More Perfect Union

In recent years, the Pentagon has welcomed new contracting processes that pad military contractors’ profits — a trend that is now being turbocharged under President Donald Trump, and the military-industrial complex is thrilled.

Typically, when the government buys a product or service, it uses competitive contracts to ensure that taxpayers get a fair price. But in the last few decades, the Department of Defense — with the blessing of bipartisan lawmakers — has embraced alternative processes that let contractors circumvent many of the mandated regulations governing Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) contracts, like accounting standards, cost negotiations, and intellectual property rights limitations. This means that some agencies have been empowered to negotiate terms that look closer to normal business contracts, but often offer a worse deal for U.S. taxpayers.

“The Pentagon is increasingly relying on rapid acquisition pathways that subvert competition to acquire weapons,” Julia Gledhill, a research analyst at the Stimson Center, a Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit focused on global peace, told More Perfect Union. “Legislators have totally kneecapped the Pentagon’s ability to negotiate contracts with military contractors, meaning that both the military and taxpayers are being fleeced by these companies.”

These alternative contracting mechanisms, including “non-traditional contracting” and “Other Transaction Authority” (OTA) procurement, have vastly expanded over the last decade within agencies like the DOD and the Department of Homeland Security. This has corrupted a process that was originally designed to produce narrow contracts for innovative products into a major acquisition vehicle for basic procurement from well-established military contractors as well.

In 2025, these kinds of OTA contracts amounted to more than $18 billion in government spending. Across the board, it means that prototyping agreements have become much more common and expensive than basic procurement agreements.

“ The OTA is an existing vehicle that, if they expand it, it helps speed the money out the door.” Bill Hartung, a senior research fellow at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, told More Perfect Union. “It’s less record keeping, less scrutiny, and it’s the perfect vehicle for lining the pockets of both the old and the new contractors.”

In April 2025, Trump signaled that he would accelerate the shift towards rapid acquisition processes through an executive order to overhaul the DOD’s procurement process. The order specifically requested that the new processes “expedite acquisitions…including a first preference for commercial solutions and a general preference for Other Transactions Authority.”

IFrame Content

And the military-industrial complex is loving it. On an April 23 earnings call, Lockheed Martin President Jim Taiclet called the Iran War and the Trump administration’s focus on “agility” in military contracting, “a golden opportunity right now based on who’s in government, their experience, their willingness to change the demand that they have for what we do and our partners in our industry do.”

“We can move the contracting system from this FAR cost — Federal Acquisition Regulation -based, cost-based Truth [in] Negotiation Act burden that we’ve all had — and move it more towards a commercial contracting system,” Taiclet told investors. Venture-backed investors, he said, “are helping us and the government get out of our traditions and into a more agile contracting scenario.”

Lockheed Martin has won nearly $50 billion in government contracts since 2008, more than 97 percent of which were with the Department of Defense. The last quarter of 2025 represented their biggest season of contracts ever. In 2024, they were the fourth-highest awarded OTA contract recipient with the Defense Department, just behind peer weapons manufacturer Northrop Grumman.

Last year, Lockheed Martin spent more than $15 million lobbying lawmakers, including on “acquisition policy,” among other issues.

Lockheed Martin did not respond to More Perfect Union’s request for comment.

Northrop Grumman executives echoed the excitement about the expansion of OTAs. On an April 22 earnings call, Northrop Grumman President Kathy Warden told investors that the company is “seeing more use of OTAs and other nontraditional contracting mechanisms.”

These contracts have been lucrative for the defense company and its subsidiaries, which won nearly $7 billion in total Defense Department contracts in 2025.

“I don’t see a desire by the department to push industry profitability down,” Warden told shareholders. “I see a real alignment here and an opportunity for us to work with the department to create better economics for industry and the government.”

Northrop Grumman spent more than $8 million lobbying on acquisition policy, including specific lobbying on Streamlining Procurement for Effective Execution and Delivery Act of 2025, which expands the use of OTAs in military procurement.

Northrop Grumman did not respond to a request for comment.

Other military contractors, like L3Harris Technologies, an American defense technology company, echoed this sentiment.

“I have to give the Department of War credit for their innovative approach to acquisition here,” L3Harris Technologies Chairman Christopher Kubasik told investors on an April 30 earnings call. “What is going on now has never been done in the history of our country, and they are going fast. We and the rest of the defense industrial base are keeping up with them to the best of our ability. I think it’s a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.”

L3Harris Technologies won $318 million in OTA contracts last year, the 6th highest of any military contractor. They were awarded $7.6 billion in total government contracts last year.

Defense contractors’ profit margins already far outpace most other industries by as much as four times. While typical commercial industry profits sit around 6 percent, many military contractors see profits of at least 15 percent, paid almost entirely by U.S. taxpayers. Military contractors have received more than half of all Pentagon spending since 2020. And as the industry has grown more consolidated, the remaining companies are exercising even more power over the Pentagon.

The defense industry spends tens of millions of dollars lobbying the government each year. In 2025, the industry collectively spent a record-breaking $198 million to influence lawmakers on both sides of the aisle.

Last year, the Pentagon failed its financial audit for the eighth consecutive year, after auditors found significant accounting errors, missing information, and billions of dollars unaccounted for. It remains the only major U.S. federal agency that has never passed an audit.

“We’re experiencing one of the biggest military spending buildups in American history,” Gledhill said. “So you can imagine that a combination of a $1.5 trillion military budget and a less competitive, less accountable weapons acquisition process is really the perfect recipe for fleecing the American people in the name of weapons production and procurement.”

The use of OTAs may also become particularly useful for the DOD as it launches Trump’s Golden Dome Project, which the Congressional Budget Office estimated this week could cost up to $1.2 trillion over 20 years. The project, which is heavily reliant on satellites, would likely benefit from Trump’s Dec. 18, 2025 outer space-focused executive order in which he urged agencies to act with “a first preference for commercial solutions and a general preference for Other Transactions Authority or Space Act Agreements” to promote streamlined acquisitions.

---

https://www.propublica.org/article/michael-miselis-rise-above-movement-white-supremacist-group-northrop-grumman

open secrets

num 1 by long shot, pretty even party split?!

contrib?ind=D

lockheed Martin$4,671,856$4,646,573$2,478,518$2,131,898$66,011$62,677$2,939$2,939
2Northrop Grumman$3,415,618$3,363,681$1,950,238$1,394,370$64,520$53,055$10,765
3RTX Corp$2,896,694$2,839,834$1,540,182$1,275,683$40,748$30,947$4,101
4General Atomics$2,658,071$2,408,272$629,340$1,770,136$248,741$54,831$193,400
5L3Harris Technologies$2,526,417$2,507,493$1,169,895$1,338,221$16,181$14,340$1,841
6Anduril Industries$2,315,256$2,315,196$872,143$1,442,043$0$0$0
7General Dynamics$2,232,417$2,227,518$1,065,895$1,124,140-$1,080-$6,832$5,752
8Leidos Inc$1,565,579$1,545,087$851,643$679,641$16,565$10,195$670
9Booz Allen Hamilton$1,283,014$1,266,988$725,435$520,516$12,075$8,320$3,655
10BAE Systems$1,195,053$1,188,360$548,775$627,760$4,479$3,466$763
11Huntington Ingalls Industries$969,302$965,527$441,199$515,797$3,286$1,536$1,750
12CACI International$668,625$661,753$183,362$473,003$7,252$979$6,248
13Sierra Nevada Corp$610,958$610,787$267,771$340,516$0$0$0
14MITRE Corp$513,383$496,499$438,550$56,014$14,534$11,816$2,718
15Parsons Corp$483,009$480,503$210,397$267,605$2,549$1,155$1,394
16Intelligenesis Inc$480,223$194,723$191,396$0$285,500$285,500$0
17KBR Inc$440,601$438,484$94,885$337,738$856$156$700
18Bollinger Shipyards$423,766$413,766$23,100$390,666$10,000$0$10,000
19Second Front Systems$405,483$255,483$243,650$11,833$150,000$150,000$0
20Sandia National Laboratories$402,254$391,733$338,891$48,158$8,338$8,331$7

==

 pvt intel:  http://pirt.wikispaces.com/Northrop+Grumman+Corporation

Northrop Grumman's Information Systems Division Likely To Remain A Primary Driver Of The Privatized Intelligence Industry Between 2011 And 2016

Executive Summary:

The Privatized Intelligence Research Taskforce (PIRT) assesses with high confidence that Northrop Grumman Corporation's Information Systems (IS) division will likely remain a primary driver of the privatized intelligence industry between 2011 and 2016. This is due to the extensive global presence of IS elements, Northrop Grumman's renowned 71 year presence among the United States (US) intelligence community (IC), as well as its ongoing focus on technological integration and training to provide effect all-source intelligence products.

Discussion::{

Northrop Grumman Information Systems provides all-source intelligence products at the federal, state, and local level. Source: Orange Beach

}:

Established in 1939, the Northrop Grumman Corporation, headquartered in Los Angeles, California, employs approximately 120,000 intelligence professionals worldwide at an estimated 98 facilities. Northrop Grumman Information Systems is the company's primary intelligence component accounting for approximately 25 percent (USD 8.5 billion) of the companies total revenue in 2009.
Northrop Grumman IS, headquartered in McClean, Virginia, employees an estimated 24,000 intelligence analysts and conducts operations in 18 countries as well as all 50 states. The President of IS, Linda A. Mills, has over 31 years of experience in the private intelligence sector and has held a multitude of management positions within IS's corporate structure. IS provides all-source intelligence products at the federal, state, and local level. The division's forte is all-source national security products in direct support of prominent members of the US IC.According to the Washington Post, Northrop Grumman currently engages in 27 federal contracts with members of the US IC. The majority of IS's clients are not specified, however, those that are listed belong to the Department of Defense (DOD) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). PIRT believes it is likely IS does not list its clients due to the classified nature of the projects they conduct.
Northrop Grumman's vision statement specifically stresses the important of technological integration in all facets of its operations. For the IS division the corporate technological focus entails continual training in systems designed to effectively expedite the intelligence process creating more timely and effective all-source intelligence products.

Analytic Confidence:

Analytic confidence for this assessment is high. Source reliability is high because sources could be corroborated. The analyst's expertise is low and the analyst engaged in brief peer corroboration. Subject complexity is medium and the time available for the task was adequate.

Americans seek international database to carry iris, palm & finger prints] DENT1 was built by the computer technology arm of the US defence company Northrop Grumman. In future it is expected to hold palm prints, facial images and video sequences. A company spokeswoman confirmed that Northrop Grumman had spoken to the FBI about Server in the Sky. "It can run independently but if existing systems are connected up to it then the intelligence agencies would have to approve," she said.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Northrop_Grumman

Northrop Grumman is the third largest arms manufacturer in the world [1]. The US company generates $18.7bn in revenue from its defence operations. Products areas include defence electronics, warships, radar and missile systems and space systems. Specific products include the B-2 Stealth Bomber and the Global Hawk Unarmed Aerial Vehicle. The company employs approximately 120,000 people worldwide, serving U.S. and international military, government and commercial customers.

Contents[hide]

Corporate structure

The corporation has seven divisions:

"On December 12, 2002, Northrop Grumman completed its acquisition of TRW Inc. Information about former TRW defense businesses can now be accessed on the Northrop Grumman website."

Political contributions

The Northrop Grumman political action committee (PAC) gave $1,011,260 to federal candidates in the 05/06 election cycle - 37% to Democrats and 63% to Republicans. [1]

For the 03/04 period, the total was $1,185,450 to federal candidates - 33% to Democrats and 67% to Republicans. [2]

Lobbying

The company spent $16,729,865 for lobbying in 2006. Of this total, $1,336,995 went to 17 outside lobbying firms or individual lobbyists including The Livingston Group and Morris Amitay. [3]

In December 2001, CommonDreams.org wrote about Northrop Grumman's lobbying, "It doesn't hurt that Northrop Grumman has friends in high places, like Secretary of the Air Force James Roche, former Northrop Grumman Electronics Systems chief. Since September 11th, Roche has emphasized the need for more spending on intelligence systems, specifically mentioning Northrop Grumman's AWACS plane. Not content to rest on its laurels, the company is lobbying Congress for a $300 million to upgrade the $1.3 billion B-2 Stealth Bomber, which has successfully completed bombings run in Afghanistan." [4]

According to Washington Technology, "Northrop Grumman Corp. spent $5.6 million to lobby the federal government in the first six months of 2007, the highest amount spent among the largest federal IT contractors, according to the latest disclosure forms filed with the Senate." [5]

Personnel

Key executives and 2006 pay: [6]

Options

exercised
Ronald D. Sugar, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer$4,570,000$0
Wesley G. Bush, Chief Operating Officer$2,330,000$0
Scott J. Seymour, President Integrated Systems$1,340,000$820,000
James R. O'Neill, President of Information Technology$1,200,000$320,000
W. Burks Terry, General Counsel$1,330,000$92,000

More executives from company website: [7]

Board of Directors: Board list on company website

Contact

1840 Century Park East

Los Angeles, CA 90067

Phone: (310) 553-6262

Fax: (310) 556-4561

Web: http://www.northropgrumman.com

SourceWatch articles

References

  1. ↑ 2006 PAC Summary Data, Open Secrets, accessed October 2007.
  2. ↑ 2004 PAC Summary Data, Open Secrets, accessed October 2007.
  3. ↑ Northrop Grumman lobbying expenses, Open Secrets, accessed October 2007.
  4. ↑ Frida Berrigan, "The War Profiteers: How Are Weapons Manufacturers Faring in the War?", CommonDreams.org, December 18, 2001.
  5. ↑ Alice Lipowicz, "Northrop tops lobbying expenditure list", Washington Technology, August 30, 2007.
  6. ↑ Northrop Grumman Key Executives, Yahoo Finance, accessed October 2007.
  7. ↑ Elected Officers, Northrop Grumman, accessed October 2007.

External links

Northrop Grumman’s Inside Track

June 15, 2012 By Laurie Bennett Leave a Comment

Republic Report recently published a fascinating story about a bonus paid by Northrop Grumman to Thomas MacKenzie in 2011, just before he became a staff member of the House Armed Services Committee.

Of particular interest was the size of the bonus – $498,334, as reported on MacKenzie’s financial disclosure statement.

That’s welcome cash for someone taking a 75-percent pay cut to move to public service.

The post, by reporter Lee Fang, led to Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) demanding an explanation from the defense contractor.

“The perception is horrible, at a time when the credibility of Congress is certainly in question,” Blumenthal said. “I’m concerned about the integrity of the Defense Department budget if it is tainted by any whiff of a payoff.”

Fang pointed out that committee Chairman Buck McKeon (R-CA), who hired MacKenzie, has been a beneficiary of Northrop Grumman’s support over the years. The company has contributed $50,500 this election cycle to McKeon, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

Northrop Grumman, which spent more than $4 million lobbying in the capital last year, has a long history of hiring lobbyists with Washington connections.

Filings show that 28 of the 41 lobbyists representing the company in the first quarter of 2012 had experience on Capitol Hill, the executive branch and/or the Pentagon.

Two, Jack Edwards of Ervin/Hill Strategies and Robert L. Livingston of Livingston Group, are former members of Congress.

Edwards served 10 terms in the House as a Republican from Alabama. Livingston, a member of the First Street 30, was elected to 12 terms in the House as a Republican from Louisiana. He’s a former chairman of the House Appropriations Committee.

Other Northrop Grumman lobbyists who’ve crossed over from public service jobs include:

Christopher M. Lehman, special assistant to the president during the Reagan administration. Lehman was also director of strategic nuclear policy at the Department of State.

Martin Dupont, vice president at Ervin Technical Associates. Dupont is former chief of legislative affairs for the U.S. Pacific Command.

James L. Ervin, Ervin Technical Associates, chairman and CEO of Ervin Technical Associates. Ervin is a retired Air Force colonel.

Menda Fife, former staffer to Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Tom Harkin (D-IA) and Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA).

Letitia White, former chief of staff to Rep. Charles “Jerry” Lewis (R-CA), a member of the House Appropriations Committee.

Mark Kadesh, former chief of staff to Sen. Dianne Feinstein and Jane Lakes Harman (D-CA).

Daniel J. Mattoon, former deputy chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee.

Benjamin Abrams, former deputy chief of staff to former Rep. Frank Kratovil (D-MD) and ex-policy adviser to Rep. Steny H. Hoyer (D-MD).

John Jonas, former counsel to the House Ways & Means Committee and legislative director to the late Rep. Bob Shamansky (D-OH).

Norma Krayem of Patton Boggs, former deputy chief of staff at the Department of Transporation.

Leo Clark of Potomac Advocates, formerly with the Air Force budget liaison office.

Archibald Galloway Jr., former defense policy adviser to Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL).

William John Nichols, former special assistant to the secretary of defense.

John Scofield, former communications director for the House Appropriations Committee.

Attachments