Recent news that Lockheed Martin, one of the world’s premier aerospace and defense manufacturers, is entering into a strategic partnership with General Motors (GM) to source weapons parts signals a turning point in the history of American manufacturing. When a company primarily focused on automobiles is asked to assist with replenishing the country’s missile capacity, it confirms the scale of the shortfall.
Indeed, the Department of Defense actively liaised between the two firms to facilitate the signing of a memorandum of understanding, allowing Lockheed Martin to gain access to GM’s high-rate manufacturing capabilities. President Trump’s decision to invoke the Defense Production Act to ramp up American weapons manufacturing points to a broader issue, however. The country’s manufacturing capabilities simply cannot meet the demands of modern warfare, as the depletion of weapons stockpiles in this year’s conflict with Iran clearly demonstrated.
The government must move quickly to remedy the issue, and the United States’ ability to defend itself depends on fixing the problem. In addition to being home to some of the most innovative technologies, the United States has also built a reputation as the world’s manufacturing powerhouse. The term “Arsenal of Democracy,” coined by President Roosevelt in 1940, once represented much more than a political slogan, denoting the immense defense industrial complex of the U.S. that collectively produced ships, fighter aircraft, tanks, and weapons that proved decisive in attaining victory during the Second World War.
While American manufacturing is far from failing today, its edge and once-unmatched advantage have been significantly eroded following decades of policies that outsourced its capabilities to foreign countries. As factories moved abroad in search of more economical operations, so did the specialized knowledge and support infrastructure that served them. Increasing defense spending is certainly a step in the right direction, but bolstering—or, as some would argue, rebuilding—this ecosystem will also depend on the United States’ ability to revive the thinning network of professionals and suppliers surrounding manufacturing. Increasing domestic production capacity and training a specialized workforce will likely take years.
This is something that the United States’ competitors, namely China and Russia, seem to understand better. During its war against Ukraine, Russia has demonstrated that large-scale weapons production remains a cornerstone of modern warfare. Its state-owned conglomerates, such as Rostec and the Kalashnikov Group, continue to scale up their output. China, on the other hand, has spent decades building up its domestic weapons production to near-complete self-sufficiency, in addition to establishing itself as the world’s leading manufacturing superpower, with several supply chains essential to the global economy running through its sphere of influence.
The U.S. government is now refocusing procurement efforts on America’s local industrial capabilities, having realized that existing dependencies on foreign suppliers create several strategic vulnerabilities. American industry can no longer operate under the assumption that jobs and economic growth are the only factors to consider. This is where a truly “America First” policy can make a real difference: the United States must own its supply chains if it is to retain its resilience and defend itself and its interests. Depending on foreign nations to produce components critical for defense is simply unsustainable.
American innovation and inventiveness, areas in which the United States remains a world leader, can position the country well to overcome its current supply chain and manufacturing bottlenecks. Some solutions already exist within the U.S., with a new generation of companies redefining what manufacturing looks like. Aerospace company Rocket Lab has adopted greater vertical integration to decrease its reliance on fragile supply networks. Kratos Defense & Security Solutions is expanding its portfolio of affordable, autonomous defense systems, preparing for exactly the kind of asymmetric warfare in which traditional U.S. defensive and offensive capabilities have proved suboptimal against Iran. Hadrian Automation is advancing machining by addressing the labor shortage of skilled operators. By combining its software, automation, and AI capabilities, the company is redefining the manufacturing landscape—and significantly shortening the time needed to train workers.
Lockheed Martin is among the firms that have already adopted new technologies developed by companies such as Hadrian in its missiles and fire control operations, supporting the PAC-3 and THAAD advanced air defense systems. The United States has faced and successfully overcome enormous challenges before, and with the right combination of public initiative and private collaboration, rebuilding or strengthening its skilled workforce, supplier networks, and industrial manufacturing base will also be possible.
While time is of the essence, the government’s shifting priorities and cooperation between existing U.S. industrial leaders demonstrate that change is already underway. Above all else, one thing should give us hope: America’s greatest advantage has never been its technology or its military alone—it has been the ability of its people to build. The United States must become a builder again to rise to the challenges that a new era of competition and warfare requires.
