U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth is planning a big change that could reshape how America sells its weapons to the world. On Friday, Hegseth will meet top defense industry leaders in Washington, D.C., to announce a move that could make the Pentagon act more like a global weapons bazaar.
A Major Shake-Up in the Global Weapons Bazaar
According to reports, Hegseth will shift the Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) — the office that manages foreign military sales — from the Pentagon’s policy division to its acquisition division. In simple terms, the people who usually focus on buying weapons for the U.S. military will now also be in charge of helping sell those same weapons to other countries.
The goal, as reported by POLITICO, is to make U.S. weapons more competitive in the global weapons bazaar. Pentagon officials who handle purchasing and development will now have to think more about what foreign allies want to buy and how to make American products more appealing abroad.
But critics say this change could blur the line between the U.S. government and private defense companies even more. It could make Pentagon officials look less like government watchdogs and more like sales partners for defense contractors — a change that worries many observers who believe the government’s first responsibility should be to American soldiers and taxpayers.
When Taxpayers Fund the Global Weapons Bazaar
The American defense industry already dominates the global weapons bazaar, with foreign military sales exceeding $845 billion in 2024, making the United States the world’s largest arms exporter. Major companies like Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, and Northrop Grumman earn billions by selling fighter jets, missiles, and drones overseas.
What most Americans don’t realize is that these weapons are developed using taxpayer money. Under the Pentagon’s common cost-plus contracts, the U.S. government covers all research and development costs and then pays companies an additional profit. When these companies sell the same weapons abroad, they earn huge profits from products funded by taxpayers, while the public receives no return on investment.
Pentagon’s Stark Warning: ‘No Sugarcoating’ — China’s Invasion of Taiwan Could Hit Before 2027
In most industries, investors expect profits in return for funding a product. But in this case, taxpayers act as the investors, and the defense companies take the rewards.
The Arms Export Control Act of 1976 requires foreign buyers to reimburse the U.S. government for research and development costs. However, the law also allows countries to request waivers to skip these payments — and nearly all of them do. A Government Accountability Office (GAO) audit in 2018 found that the Defense Security Cooperation Agency approved such waivers 99% of the time over six years.
As a result, foreign governments often get American-made weapons at discounted prices, defense companies keep the profits, and the American public loses out — despite being the ones who paid to create the weapons in the first place.
A Deal That Works for the Industry, Not the People
The proposed change under Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth could deepen concerns about the Pentagon’s growing ties to defense contractors. By moving the Defense Security Cooperation Agency — which manages foreign weapons sales — under the Pentagon’s acquisition office, the U.S. government could begin working even more closely with private defense firms to sell their products abroad, effectively turning the Pentagon into a global weapons bazaar.
Critics warn this move could shift Pentagon officials from focusing on U.S. defense priorities to acting as sales representatives for the arms industry. While defense companies would benefit, taxpayers may see little return. Experts argue that if the Pentagon helps market weapons overseas, Americans should share in the profits, which could offset costs for U.S. troops or reduce taxpayer spending.
Pentagon Confirms Four Boats Hit, 14 Killed in Trump-Directed Pacific Operation
That rarely happens. Defense companies and lobbyists often seek waivers on reimbursement fees, claiming they make U.S. weapons less competitive internationally. In practice, this keeps profits high for contractors while taxpayers lose out.
Hegseth’s plan could intensify that pattern, pulling acquisition officials away from solving persistent problems such as cost overruns, project delays, and failed defense programs.
Analysts say that improving efficiency and accountability in military acquisitions would do far more to enhance the reputation of U.S. weapons than bureaucratic changes aimed at boosting sales. Still, if Hegseth’s proposal is approved, the Pentagon could move closer to becoming the center of a global weapons bazaar, where taxpayer-funded technology fuels private profits worldwide.