The Jobs Strategy: How Defense Companies Use Factories to Secure Contracts-

When examining why the U.S. maintains the largest defense budget in the world—even during periods without direct great-power conflict—one cannot ignore the structural power of defense companies.

Beyond lobbying and campaign contributions, one of their most effective strategies is geographically dispersing factories, suppliers, and subcontractors across as many congressional districts as possible.

This approach ensures that military contracts are not just about weapons or strategy, but also about jobs, local economies, and political survival.

It gives lawmakers, regardless of ideology, an incentive to back costly or unnecessary weapons systems because canceling them would mean layoffs in their home districts.

1. The Political Logic of “Spreading the Work”

Defense companies deliberately locate production facilities, supplier networks, and assembly plants across dozens of states. The logic is simple:

• If a program sustains hundreds of jobs in a single state, only a few lawmakers have an incentive to defend it.

• If it sustains tens of thousands of jobs spread across 40–50 states, then nearly all of Congress has a political interest in protecting it.

This creates a powerful coalition of lawmakers whose local economies depend on Pentagon spending. Defense companies then frame contracts not just as national security imperatives but as economic lifelines for communities.

2. Case Study: The F-35 Fighter Jet Program

The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, built by Lockheed Martin, is the most expensive weapons program in history, with projected lifetime costs exceeding $1.7 trillion.

• Lockheed Martin deliberately spread F-35 work across 45 states and over 1,800 suppliers.

• This distribution makes it politically impossible to cancel the program—even as reports of technical flaws, delays, and cost overruns piled up.

• Members of Congress frequently cite jobs in their districts as the reason for supporting continued funding.

Example: In 2016, when the Pentagon considered reducing F-35 orders due to cost issues, lawmakers from Texas, Connecticut, and Missouri led bipartisan pushes to fully fund the program, citing job losses in their districts.

3. Case Study: Shipbuilding in the Navy

U.S. shipbuilding is another example where geographic distribution locks in political support.

• Major shipyards are located in Maine (Bath Iron Works), Virginia (Newport News Shipbuilding), Mississippi (Ingalls Shipbuilding), and Wisconsin (Marinette Marine).

• These yards sustain tens of thousands of jobs in politically influential states.

• Even when the Navy signals that it does not need as many ships, Congress often adds ships to the budget to protect jobs.

Example: In 2019, the Navy said it only needed one Virginia-class submarine. Congress funded two submarines anyway, citing jobs in Virginia and Connecticut.

4. Case Study: Missile Defense Programs

Companies like Raytheon (now RTX) and Boeing spread missile defense production across states such as Arizona, Alabama, and California.

• Raytheon’s Patriot missile system has suppliers in more than 30 states.

• The Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system, despite Pentagon skepticism about its effectiveness, remains funded because factories and testing facilities are located in key congressional districts.

• Lawmakers from Alabama and Alaska, where major facilities are located, are some of the strongest advocates for continuing funding.

5. The “Jobs Card” in Congressional Debates

When military contracts face potential cuts, defense companies and their lobbyists emphasize job losses over national security. This is sometimes referred to as “jobs blackmail.”

• Press releases highlight the number of jobs tied to specific contracts.

• Companies invite lawmakers to factories for photo opportunities.

• Local media is filled with stories about how contracts sustain the community.

For example, when the Pentagon suggested cutting the A-10 “Warthog” attack aircraft, lawmakers from Arizona and Michigan resisted fiercely, citing jobs at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base and production facilities in their states—even though Air Force leadership argued the A-10 was outdated.

6. Campaign Contributions and Jobs Narrative

Defense contractors combine the jobs argument with targeted campaign contributions.

• Lawmakers representing districts with defense plants receive significant donations from the companies operating there.

• Contributions are often accompanied by reminders of the local economic benefits tied to specific weapons programs.

This dual approach ensures lawmakers not only hear about the strategic importance of weapons systems but also see direct political and financial incentives to support them.

7. Psychological and Political Power of Jobs

Jobs are politically powerful because:

1. Economic Security: In many regions, defense plants are the largest employers. Closing them could devastate local economies.

2. Election Security: Lawmakers facing reelection cannot afford to be blamed for job losses.

3. Bipartisan Leverage: Unlike many issues, jobs resonate across party lines—Republicans and Democrats alike defend contracts in their districts.

This explains why defense budgets often pass with overwhelming bipartisan support, even in a polarized Congress.

8. Consequences of the Jobs Strategy

A. Perpetuation of Costly Programs

Weapons systems like the F-35 survive despite flaws because canceling them is politically suicidal.

B. Budget Inflation

Congress often funds more equipment than the Pentagon requests. In fiscal year 2023, for instance, lawmakers added $45 billion to the defense budget, much of it tied to local projects.

C. Distorted Priorities

Programs are funded not because they are strategically necessary, but because they support jobs in key districts. This skews U.S. defense policy away from efficiency.

D. Entrenchment of the Military-Industrial Complex

The geographic spread of defense work makes it almost impossible to scale down the defense budget meaningfully, reinforcing the cycle of military spending.

9. Historical Example: Cold War Strategy

This tactic is not new. During the Cold War, defense contractors like General Dynamics (builders of submarines and tanks) spread production lines across multiple states. This practice became standard operating procedure in the defense industry, ensuring that almost any major weapons program had a built-in political constituency.

10. Potential Reforms

Breaking this cycle is politically difficult, but reforms could include:

• Independent review commissions (like the Base Realignment and Closure process, or BRAC) to recommend cuts based on strategy rather than politics.

• Stronger Pentagon authority to cancel programs without Congressional overrides.

• Job transition programs, so communities dependent on defense contracts can diversify into civilian industries (renewable energy, infrastructure, etc.).

• Transparency laws, requiring contractors to disclose exactly how jobs are distributed across states and districts.

Defense companies have mastered the art of “jobs geography”—spreading out production to maximize political protection. By ensuring nearly every congressional district has something to lose, they transform weapons programs from national security debates into local economic imperatives.

This strategy explains why the U.S. continues funding outdated or unnecessary weapons systems, why the defense budget grows even during peacetime, and why meaningful reform remains elusive. In effect, the defense industry has weaponized jobs—turning local employment into leverage for securing billions in federal contracts.