Major U.S. defense contractors spend tens of millions each year on lobbying — individually often in the $10M–$14M range — and the whole defense/aerospace sector spends well over $50–100M annually.

That money buys access during annual defense-authority fights (NDAA), appropriations/contracting debates, export controls, procurement rules, and policy that affects the size and timing of Pentagon buys.

Below I give a concise table of recent spending for the big primes and then unpack what those numbers mean, how they’ve trended, and how the dollars translate into political influence. 

Quick snapshot — recent federal lobbying expenditures (annual totals)

(Notes: OpenSecrets reports are based on Senate Office of Public Records filings. Some pages show calendar-year totals; others show cycle or partial-year figures — so numbers vary slightly by reporting window. I cite the most recent OpenSecrets organization pages available.) 

What those numbers mean in practice

1. Scale equals access. When a single company spends $10M+ annually, that buys dozens of retained lobbyists, regular meetings with committee staff, policy research, targeted ad buys, and contracts for outside influence firms. The primes retain major D.C. shops and dozens — sometimes hundreds — of lobbyists and former officials to press their priorities. The spending is concentrated around perennial fights: the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), procurement rules, export-control policy, R&D appropriations, and multiyear contract awards. 

2. Year-to-year variation tracks policy cycles. Lobbying spikes when big bills are being negotiated (NDAA markups, emergency supplemental bills, or major export-control changes). Contractors intensify outreach when multibillion-dollar program decisions are imminent (e.g., tanker, fighter, shipbuilding competitions). OpenSecrets sector pages show industry totals rising in years with major defense debates. 

3. Money is only part of the ecosystem. Contractors pair lobbying dollars with campaign contributions, hiring of former officials (the “revolving door”), think-tank grants, and trade-association activity. RTX’s filings, for example, show a very high percentage of lobbyists with prior government jobs — a formalized revolving-door pipeline that multiplies the value of spending. 

How the spending converts into policy influence

• Bill drafting & carve-outs. Contractors often shape technical bill language and amendments that affect procurement rules, contract timelines, or set-aside thresholds. Even small drafting changes can shift competitive dynamics for major programs.

• Procurement architecture. Lobbying targets the Defense Department’s acquisition reforms, sustainment rules, and requirements definitions — all of which determine who wins long-term contracts.

• Export and trade policy. For companies selling internationally, influence extends to State/Commerce decisions around export control waivers, foreign military sales rules, and export licensing.

• Budget framing. Lobbyists press appropriators and armed services committees to preserve program lines, secure multiyear buys (which stabilize production and justify hiring), and oppose caps or sequestration rules. Past lobbying surges have coincided with efforts to lift budget caps or expand supplemental authorizations.

Trends and context

• Defense sector remains a top lobbying spender. Across the last decade the defense and aerospace subsectors routinely report tens of millions annually. Independent watchdog analysis notes the military industry’s lobbying footprint exceeds $100M over multi-year spans — a sustained, well-resourced presence in D.C. that is larger on a per-client basis than most other sectors except finance and health care. 

• Revolving-door hiring amplifies effectiveness. Many of the firms’ lobbyists are ex-Pentagon, ex-Hill staffers, or former senior officials, which converts financial outlays into practical leverage (insight, relationships, credibility with committees). OpenSecrets’ revolving-door trackers and company profiles document these patterns. 

• Public and geopolitical drivers matter. Events such as major conflicts, allied rearmament, or supply-chain shocks (e.g., Ukraine war) often increase defense spending and create strong demand signals that contractors and their lobbyists exploit — both to secure contracts and to relax regulatory constraints. Coverage since 2022 shows lobbying firms pitching expanded procurement to lawmakers and supporting policy choices that favor rapid buying. 

Limitations of the public numbers

• Reporting windows and aggregation. OpenSecrets compiles quarterly filings to estimate annual totals, but companies with many subsidiaries or trade-association payments can obscure exact allocations. Some firms report different totals depending on whether you aggregate subsidiaries or count only parent-company filings. That explains why some pages show slightly different totals for “2023” vs “2024” or show partial-year 2025 figures. 

• Hidden channels. Outside spending, independent expenditures by trade groups, and foreign-registered advocacy (FARA) create additional influence that isn’t always obvious in a single lobbying number.

Major U.S. defense contractors routinely spend on the order of $8M–$14M each per year on federal lobbying, and the defense/aerospace sector as a whole spends tens of millions to well over $100M across cycles. Those dollars are concentrated on the NDAA, procurement rules, export controls, and appropriations — policy levers that directly affect contract awards and program design. Combined with campaign contributions and revolving-door hiring, lobbying spending gives contractors sustained, effective influence over national security procurement and industrial policy.