Among the hyperactive cascade of announcements made by Donald Trump in the last 48 hours, all with profound implications for the immediate future of the American continent, one of them stood out: the intervention in the Defense industry. This is a classic move by states anticipating a high-intensity war. It's not that he is announcing a conflict, but it reveals that the political power is preparing to sustain one.
The blond president posted one of those long messages full of capital letters on his social network Truth, which was later retweeted by Pete Hegseth, former Secretary of Defense and now Secretary of War, according to the new Trumpist denomination. "From this moment on, these executives must build NEW and MODERN production plants, both for the delivery and maintenance of this important equipment, as well as to manufacture the most advanced models of future military equipment. Until this happens, no executive can earn more than five million dollars, a figure that, however high it may seem, is only a fraction of what they currently earn." In translation: the White House is going to intervene in the armament sector and put it at the service of the State above the business of these companies. He also demanded that the executives of these armament companies stop receiving their bonuses until these objectives are achieved.
What is he aiming for with this move? Trump believes that the military-industrial complex has become expensive, slow, and politically autonomous, no longer responding effectively to the strategic interests he prioritizes. In his protectionist vision, the major contractors inflate costs, delay key programs, and condition foreign policy to long and diffuse wars; that's why he proposes more presidential control, tougher contracts, and accelerated production, geared towards specific and rapid conflicts, such as the capture of Nicolás Maduro (using missiles, ammunition, stealth fighters, satellites) and not endless operations.
Just minutes later, he doubled down and announced that he will increase the Defense budget by up to 50%, a figure that, for the US, means going from one trillion dollars to 1.5 trillion, staggering figures even when converted to European measures: 1.5 trillion dollars. He justifies this increase with a combination of strategic urgency, industrial deficit, and credible deterrence, which, in reality, they already have with their nuclear weapons.
But the war in Ukraine, competition with China, and its closest collaborators have led him to believe that defense should function as a war industry directed from political power, not as a lobby of companies with their own agenda. For some years now, the "boutique" weaponry offered at military equipment sales fairs around the world is more akin to Hollywood movies than effective and economically sustainable. No one can fight in a long-term conflict with those prices. It is worth noting that the Allies won World War II thanks to cheap and scalable designs like the US M4 Sherman tank or the Soviet T34, inferior to German tanks head-on but cheap to manufacture, easy to operate, and simple to repair. While Nazi Germany was producing its powerful Tiger tank, the US was building five Shermans.
Michael Kofman, a military affairs analyst for the Carnegie think tank, believes that "the United States has discovered that its defense industrial base is not prepared for a prolonged high-intensity war. This requires much greater state involvement in production." Kofman insists that the market alone does not generate enough volume or speed for a conflict between powers.
Hal Brands, an American defense and foreign policy analyst, states that "competition among great powers requires something closer to a mobilization economy than a purely liberal model." Elbridge Colby, a former senior official at the Pentagon and the intellectual architect of the hardline approach in the White House, affirms that "defense cannot rely solely on market incentives if the goal is to win a major war".
The US is repeating a historical pattern seen in the 1930s and during the Cold War: when it perceives a systemic threat, the State assumes effective control - although not always formal - of the Defense sector. In the lead-up to World War II, Franklin D. Roosevelt's Administration subordinated major industrialists to a logic of national mobilization, as Adolf Hitler did with Germany; and during the Cold War, Washington directed prices, contracts, technological priorities, and production rates to sustain the arms race with the USSR. Today, facing competition with China and Russia, Washington is once again trying to intervene in the military industry through Donald Trump.