The first Trump administration was marked by unpredictable turns and idiosyncratic approaches, particularly in areas that many deemed obscure, such as the defense industrial base. As we contemplate the potential for a second Trump term, the complexities of this political environment warrant thoughtful analysis. Drawing from the past four years, it is vital to consider several pressing questions regarding the defense industry and its direction under another Trump presidency.

One of the most notable features of Trump’s first term was his unprecedented personal involvement in defense acquisition. Unlike any modern president, he engaged deeply in the minutiae of weapons contracting, from advocating for seemingly outdated steam catapults on the Ford-class carriers to inquiring about “Super Duper Hornet” variants directly with Boeing executives. This hands-on approach manifested in numerous meetings with defense CEOs aboard Air Force One, suggesting a willingness to influence key defense contracts directly.

As Trump re-enters the political fray, we can expect a similar approach to defense acquisition. Recent reports indicate that he has already had discussions with Boeing’s CEO about the Air Force One replacement program. Given his history, it is reasonable to anticipate that Trump will strive to assert his influence over major aerospace projects once again. This time, the spotlight may shine on the F-35 program, the ongoing development of the Navy and Air Force’s sixth-generation fighter programs, or other high-profile contracts. His inclination to emphasize deal-making skills to the American public positions these acquisitions as potential platforms for showcasing success.

Another significant area of consideration is the outlook for defense spending. The fiscal 2024 defense budget has already been shaped by the spending limits set forth in the previous year’s Fiscal Responsibility Act. While the appropriations for fiscal 2025 are still under consideration, projections suggest alignment with these conservative limits. However, the parameters will shift for fiscal 2026, providing the Trump administration with a crucial opportunity to redefine the defense budget landscape.

Experts remain divided on whether a second Trump term would favor increased defense spending. Some analysts cite the previous administration’s boosts to defense budgets and Republican backing in defense committees as reasons for optimism. Others cautiously point to the influence of the current GOP dynamics, particularly the rising power of hardline fiscal conservatives within the House.

Complicating matters further is the establishment of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) under leaders like Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, who have expressed ambitious plans to minimize the federal budget by cutting waste. While the rhetoric around government efficiency may resonate, the reality for defense companies remains complex. It is unlikely that they will willingly advocate for cuts to their budgets, raising questions about the future allocation of defense funds.

The relationship between Trump and the defense industry is another issue ripe for exploration. During his previous term, he formed alliances with prominent defense executives, celebrating the business strengths of leaders at traditional defense primes like Lockheed Martin and Boeing. However, as he re-emerges, differences in focus may manifest, fostering relationships with executives from defense startups and venture capital firms. The nomination of Stephen Feinberg from Cerberus Capital Management to a senior position indicates a potential shift toward embracing innovative, lower-cost defense solutions, particularly in the realm of uncrewed systems.

This emerging dynamic suggests a future where the emphasis may turn from costly, sophisticated weapons platforms toward more affordable autonomous systems. Such a pivot could signify a significant transformation in defense procurement, with the possibility of replacing traditional military hardware with advanced technologies that maintain effectiveness while ensuring budgetary containment.

Further complicating the landscape is the regulatory environment surrounding defense contracting. Under Trump’s previous term, a more permissive approach to mergers and acquisitions allowed for significant consolidation within the industry. Should Trump return to the White House, a likely reversion to leniency in antitrust enforcement may yield a wave of new mergers, impacting the broader defense marketplace.

As we move closer to a potential second Trump administration, the interplay of these factors suggests a complex and often unpredictable future for the defense industrial base. As industry leaders and policymakers navigate these uncertain waters, the outcomes will significantly shape both national security strategy and economic implications for defense contractors across the nation. It remains to be seen how these dynamics will unfold and what legacy the next administration will leave on this crucial aspect of American governance and defense.