How the Defense Lobby Became Irrelevant

This was once the special-interest group to outplay all special-interest groups. Then lawmakers stopped cowering before it. Is its leverage gone?

SLUG: ph-shooting DATE: March 05, 2010 NEG NUMBER: 212525 LOCATION: Pentagon City Metro Stop PHOTOGRAPHER: GERALD MARTINEAU, for TWP CAPTION: We photograph people who decided to walk to the Pentagon, including many in uniform, rather than take a shuttle bus. Photo shows them crossing Army-Navy Drive.
Washington Post/Getty Images
Sara Sorcher
See more stories about...
Sara Sorcher
Jan. 1, 2014, 2 a.m.

The de­fense lobby was once both be­hemoth and bo­gey­man. It was the muscle be­hind the mil­it­ary-in­dus­tri­al com­plex, the pup­pet­eer lib­er­als blamed for mov­ing money from food stamps to fight­er jets. Above all, it was the Belt­way power­house that made Con­gress cower.

Nobody is afraid of de­fense lob­by­ists now. Con­gress has de­fied them twice in two years, first by fail­ing to undo the first round of de­fense cuts un­der se­quest­ra­tion, and again this week by float­ing a budget deal that would only partly pare back the next round. The fact that in­dustry ac­cepts this deal, a far cry from the grand bar­gain it de­man­ded last year, shows just how far ex­pect­a­tions have plummeted.

What laid low the once-mighty lobby? Hy­per­bole, and some hubris. In the wan­ing days of 2012, the in­dustry prom­ised Armaged­don un­less Con­gress spared it from the se­quester’s spend­ing cuts. The Aerospace In­dus­tries As­so­ci­ation doled out clocks that ticked off the days, hours, minutes, and seconds — a pan­ic-in­du­cing “count­down to dis­aster,” when more than a mil­lion de­fense jobs would be gouged. But when the lob­by­ing blitz failed and the se­quester guil­lot­ine fell, the in­dustry was forced in­to an em­bar­rass­ing po­s­i­tion: It had cried wolf. Long after AIA’s tick­ing clocks ran down, em­ploy­ers had not sent the tens of thou­sands of lay­off no­tices; ma­jor de­fense com­pan­ies re­mained prof­it­able; and the U.S. mil­it­ary — though far from un­scathed — re­mained a glob­al jug­ger­naut.

Now, with an­oth­er round of se­quester cuts loom­ing, the lobby is again sound­ing the alarm, but its past hy­per­bole has de­fanged its warn­ing. “When they went full bore say­ing the sky is fall­ing Janu­ary 2, and then later on March 1, they were bet­ting it would nev­er ac­tu­ally come to pass — so no one would be able to say they were ove­rhyp­ing this or ex­ag­ger­at­ing the im­me­di­acy of the im­pact,” says Todd Har­ris­on, a de­fense-budget ana­lyst at the Cen­ter for Stra­tegic and Budget­ary As­sess­ments. “They mis­cal­cu­lated. Now the de­fense in­dustry is left with its cred­ib­il­ity dam­aged.”

The situ­ation is all the more pain­ful for de­fense lob­by­ists be­cause this time around — per­cep­tions aside — they would have had a much stronger case to make. If the pro­posed budget deal founders, the Pentagon could lose $52 bil­lion from its 2014 re­quest; if the deal passes, con­gres­sion­al ap­pro­pri­at­ors must still find a way to cut $31 bil­lion.

Last year, the Pentagon used a cush­ion of un­oblig­ated funds to pay down some losses, and it delayed weapons pro­grams and test­ing to avoid can­cel­la­tions. But this com­ing year, that cash has evap­or­ated. More cuts mean the Pentagon can no longer mask the pain and must make tough de­cisions on weapons pro­grams. Pre­serving pay and be­ne­fits for troops means fur­ther raid­ing funds for re­search and de­vel­op­ment.

Warn­ing of dis­aster — while still lack­ing spe­cif­ic cuts to make a strong case — is a los­ing pro­pos­i­tion. Even the lob­by­ists ac­know­ledge the im­pot­ence of their mes­sage now. “All the scream­ing to high heav­ens” about how se­quester would raise the un­em­ploy­ment rate came too soon, says one from a ma­jor com­pany. “Wheth­er it’s the vot­ing pub­lic or elec­ted of­fi­cials, I think there is le­git­im­ate reas­on for them to ques­tion the in­dustry’s es­tim­a­tions of sig­ni­fic­ant job losses.” Still, lob­by­ists can point to some vis­ible signs of mil­it­ary dis­tress: The Army says that only two of its 43 act­ive-duty bri­gades are fully ready for com­bat. The Navy can­celed the de­ploy­ment of an air­craft car­ri­er to the Per­sian Gulf. Hun­dreds of thou­sands of ci­vil­ians were fur­loughed, and the ser­vices say more long-term cuts will force them to downs­ize people and equip­ment.

But the sig­nals are con­fus­ing. Des­pite warn­ings that se­quest­ra­tion would harm op­er­a­tions, the U.S. de­ployed war­ships for high-pro­file re­lief ef­forts in the Phil­ip­pines, and Pres­id­ent Obama floated the pos­sib­il­ity of mil­it­ary ac­tion in Syr­ia. And al­though some lay­offs have come — Lock­heed Mar­tin cut about 4,000 jobs last month — ma­jor de­fense firms ap­pear to be do­ing just fine: De­fense gi­ants, in­clud­ing Lock­heed and Ray­theon, re­por­ted third-quarter profit in­creases. “There have def­in­itely been people who have ac­cused us of cry­ing wolf,” AIA spokes­man Dan Stohr says. The group, he says, did not an­ti­cip­ate that the Pentagon could min­im­ize the se­quester’s pain. “We were tak­ing our best shot at try­ing to es­tim­ate the ef­fects, with the in­form­a­tion we had at the time.” This year, AIA is no longer com­mis­sion­ing un­em­ploy­ment stud­ies — “been there, done that,” Stohr says — but is fo­cus­ing in­stead on “mes­sages that res­on­ate.” Per­haps in ta­cit ac­know­ledg­ment that de­fense is not the cen­ter of the polit­ic­al uni­verse right now, AIA this year partnered with do­mest­ic sec­tors, in­clud­ing edu­ca­tion, to talk about the se­quester’s broad­er ef­fects on the na­tion’s work­force.

Com­plic­at­ing the pic­ture is a schism in the Re­pub­lic­an Party that had long held de­fense spend­ing sac­red. After the se­quester, the gulf between de­fense hawks and de­fi­cit hawks widened. The de­fense in­dustry has little in­flu­ence with this lat­ter group. One lob­by­ist de­scribed re­cent strategy ses­sions with ma­jor de­fense com­pan­ies whose of­fi­cials com­plained about failed (and ac­ri­mo­ni­ous) meet­ings with young tea-party mem­bers, in­clud­ing Reps. Mick Mul­vaney and Justin Amash. The lob­by­ist said they gave up on the meet­ings al­to­geth­er, tired of “ju­ni­or mem­bers of Con­gress who are lec­tur­ing us on how screwed up we are.”

Con­gress is clearly not listen­ing to the de­fense lobby the way it would have dur­ing the Cold War or oth­er peri­ods of high threat, says Loren Thompson, chief op­er­at­ing of­ficer of the Lex­ing­ton In­sti­tute, a think tank. “This is the first time in my memory that Re­pub­lic­ans aren’t lined up in a bloc be­hind ro­bust weapons spend­ing,” he says. “Dur­ing the Re­agan years, people were equat­ing buy­ing weapons with be­ing safe. It’s like that con­nec­tion has been broken.”

The Re­pub­lic­an Party’s right wing has proven its will­ing to lose jobs at the dis­trict level and take na­tion­al se­cur­ity risks to rein in big gov­ern­ment. In the eyes of that fac­tion, the Pentagon, des­pite lob­by­ists’ best ef­forts, is part of the prob­lem.

What We're Following See More »
In Dropout Speech, Santorum Endorses Rubio
1 days ago

As expected after earlier reports on Wednesday, Rick Santorum ended his presidential bid. But less expected: he threw his support to Marco Rubio. After noting he spoke with Rubio the day before for an hour, he said, “Someone who has a real understanding of the threat of ISIS, real understanding of the threat of fundamentalist Islam, and has experience, one of the things I wanted was someone who has experience in this area, and that’s why we decided to support Marco Rubio.” It doesn’t figure to help Rubio much in New Hampshire, but the Santorum nod could pay dividends down the road in southern states.

Rubio, Trump Question Obama’s Mosque Visit
1 days ago

President Obama’s decision to visit a mosque in Baltimore today was never going to be completely uncontroversial. And Donald Trump and Marco Rubio proved it. “Maybe he feels comfortable there,” Trump told interviewer Greta van Susteren on Fox News. “There are a lot of places he can go, and he chose a mosque.” And in New Hampshire, Rubio said of Obama, “Always pitting people against each other. Always. Look at today – he gave a speech at a mosque. Oh, you know, basically implying that America is discriminating against Muslims.”

Cruz Must Max Out on Evangelical Support through Early March
1 days ago

For Ted Cruz, a strong showing in New Hampshire would be nice, but not necessary. That’s because evangelical voters only make up 21% of the Granite State’s population. “But from the February 20 South Carolina primary through March 15, there are nine states (South Carolina, Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Kentucky, Mississippi, and North Carolina) with an estimated white-Evangelical percentage of the GOP electorate over 60 percent, and another four (Texas, Kansas, Louisiana, and Missouri) that come in over 50 percent.” But after that, he better be in the catbird’s seat, because only four smaller states remain with evangelical voter majorities.

Rubio Now Winning the ‘Endorsement Primary’
1 days ago

Since his strong third-place finish in Iowa, Marco Rubio has won endorsement by two sitting senators and two congressmen, putting him in the lead for the first time of FiveThirtyEight‘s Endorsement Tracker. “Some politicians had put early support behind Jeb Bush — he had led [their] list since August — but since January the only new endorsement he has received was from former presidential candidate Sen. Lindsey Graham.” Meanwhile, the New York Times reports that fueled by resentment, “members of the Bush and Christie campaigns have communicated about their mutual desire to halt … Rubio’s rise in the polls.”

Sanders: Obama Is a Progressive
20 hours ago

“Do I think President Obama is a progressive? Yeah, I do,” said Bernie Sanders, in response to a direct question in tonight’s debate. “I think they’ve done a great job.” But Hillary Clinton wasn’t content to sit out the latest chapter in the great debate over the definition of progressivism. “In your definition, with you being the gatekeeper of progressivism, I don’t think anyone else fits that definition,” she told Sanders.