The F-35 Lightning II, developed by American defense contractor Lockheed Martin, is the most expensive weapons system in history. With a projected lifetime cost exceeding $2 trillion, the fighter jet is a centerpiece of U.S. military strategy and a symbol of global air superiority.
However, the F-35 program has become a flashpoint of controversy—plagued by technical setbacks, cost overruns, political criticism, and accusations of ideological bias.
This article explores why the F-35 program remains so controversial, delving into Lockheed Martin’s corporate and political influence, financial power, and the recent attacks launched by far-right activist Laura Loomer.
A $2 Trillion Investment with Persistent Technical Failures
The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter was envisioned as a multi-role stealth aircraft that would serve the U.S. Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps, as well as numerous allied nations. Designed to replace aging fleets like the F-16 and AV-8B Harrier, the F-35 promised unmatched stealth, agility, and digital integration.
However, nearly two decades into its development, the jet still faces significant operational shortcomings:
- Software Issues: The plane’s mission systems software, a key component of its advanced combat capability, has faced repeated delays. The Pentagon’s Director of Operational Test and Evaluation noted in 2023 that crucial updates were behind schedule.
- Radar and Sensor Problems: Laura Loomer recently claimed that jets are being delivered without “functional” radar systems—a reference to delays in the AN/APG-81 radar’s full implementation.
- Stealth Coating Degradation: Multiple reports, including from military watchdogs, show that the jet’s stealth paneling tends to degrade faster than expected under combat conditions.
- Maintenance and Cost: Each flight hour costs over $36,000, and the aircraft requires extensive maintenance infrastructure, undermining its promise of affordability and deployability.
Lockheed Martin: A Defense Behemoth
Founded in 1995 through the merger of Lockheed Corporation and Martin Marietta, Lockheed Martin Corporation is the world’s largest defense contractor by revenue. In 2024, the company reported annual revenue of approximately $67 billion, with more than 70% coming from the U.S. government.
Major Products in Lockheed Martin’s Arsenal:
- F-35 Lightning II, F-22 Raptor, C-130 Hercules
- THAAD (Terminal High Altitude Area Defense)
- Patriot Advanced Capability-3 Missiles (PAC-3)
- Trident II Submarine-Launched Ballistic Missiles
- Aegis Combat System
The company’s influence extends well beyond military manufacturing. Lockheed Martin operates in sectors such as space technology (via partnerships with NASA), cybersecurity, and artificial intelligence. Its enormous scale and government dependence have made it nearly synonymous with the U.S. military-industrial complex.
Ownership and Political Ties: A Defense Titan Entwined with Power
Lockheed Martin is more than a defense contractor—it’s an institution deeply embedded within the architecture of American political and military power. Listed on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker LMT, Lockheed is a publicly traded corporation without a single controlling owner. Instead, its power stems from a web of institutional shareholders, elite leadership, and well-honed influence in Washington.
Who Owns Lockheed Martin?
As of 2025, the largest shareholders of Lockheed Martin are three of the most powerful financial institutions in the world:
- The Vanguard Group – Holding approximately 7.6% of Lockheed’s total shares
- BlackRock – With about 6.9% ownership
- State Street Corporation – Controlling nearly 4.1%
Together, these three firms manage trillions of dollars in global assets and sit atop numerous Fortune 500 companies. Their collective stake in Lockheed Martin isn’t just financial—it’s political. Vanguard and BlackRock are known for aggressively engaging with the boards of their portfolio companies, influencing everything from executive compensation to corporate governance and ESG (environmental, social, and governance) policies.
While none of these firms control Lockheed outright, they exert immense behind-the-scenes influence that shapes both internal decision-making and external lobbying strategy. In effect, Lockheed’s ownership is distributed across a small network of investment giants who are themselves intertwined with the fabric of U.S. economic and political power.
Political Influence: Deep Roots in Washington
Lockheed Martin’s political reach is not limited to Wall Street. It maintains one of the most powerful lobbying machines in Washington. According to data from OpenSecrets, the company spent approximately $14.4 million on federal lobbying in 2022, ranking among the top five defense industry lobbyists. These efforts target key congressional committees, the Pentagon, and executive agencies that manage procurement and defense budgets.
Lockheed’s political contributions are officially bipartisan, but the spending trend leans Republican. For example:
- In the 2022 midterms, Lockheed’s PAC and affiliated individuals donated roughly 55% to Republican candidates and 45% to Democrats.
- Key recipients include members of the Senate Armed Services Committee and the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense—legislative bodies with direct control over defense spending.
This political calculus ensures that Lockheed maintains goodwill across the aisle, especially among lawmakers with defense facilities or subcontractors in their districts. This widespread political support makes the company virtually untouchable during budget cuts, regardless of performance issues.
The Revolving Door: From Pentagon to Boardroom
Another source of concern is Lockheed Martin’s long history of hiring former Pentagon officials, military officers, and government advisers—a practice critics label the “revolving door” phenomenon.
Prominent examples include:
- James Comey, former FBI Director, served on Lockheed’s board before his government tenure.
- Robert Stevens, Lockheed’s former CEO, was appointed by President Obama to the President’s Intelligence Advisory Board.
- John M. Keane, a retired four-star general and influential voice in military policy, served as a senior strategic advisor to Lockheed.
This symbiotic relationship between government and contractor raises serious questions about conflicts of interest, procurement favoritism, and national defense priorities. It blurs the line between public service and corporate profit, embedding defense contractors deep within U.S. policy-making processes.
According to a 2021 study by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), over 1,700 former Department of Defense officials took jobs with major defense contractors between 2014 and 2019. Lockheed Martin consistently ranks at the top of that list.
Defense Budgets and Policy Shaping
The influence of Lockheed Martin extends even further—into the very drafting of U.S. defense strategy. A 2020 report by the Project On Government Oversight (POGO) highlighted that Lockheed’s lobbying efforts often coincide with legislative pushes to increase funding for programs like the F-35, even in the face of Pentagon hesitations or audit red flags.
In short, Lockheed doesn’t just build weapons—it helps shape the policies that ensure those weapons get funded. With friends on both sides of the aisle, a seat at the table in most defense policy discussions, and a national security narrative tightly interwoven with its products, Lockheed is more than a contractor. It’s a cornerstone of the American defense-industrial complex.
Laura Loomer’s Attacks on the F-35 Program: Politics Meets Procurement
In April 2025, conservative firebrand Laura Loomer reignited political scrutiny over America’s most expensive weapons program—the F-35 Lightning II—with a fiery critique that quickly reverberated across right-wing media, social platforms, and even within the corridors of the Pentagon.
Loomer, a far-right activist with a direct advisory line to former President Donald Trump, took to X (formerly Twitter) to call out Lockheed Martin, accusing the defense giant of failing both militarily and ideologically. Her central claim was explosive: that Lockheed was delivering fighter jets “not ready for combat”—a serious charge considering the F-35’s centrality to U.S. and allied military air power.
“The F-35 program, one of the most expensive weapons programs in history, is plagued by delays, defects, & downright incompetence,” Loomer wrote.
Her post was not merely a technical critique—it was a political statement. Loomer framed the F-35’s shortcomings as part of a larger narrative of government waste, cultural decay, and corporate virtue signaling. She labeled Lockheed Martin as “woke,” alleging that the company was more interested in social messaging than national defense.
A Breakdown of Loomer’s Claims:
- Combat Readiness Concerns
Loomer alleged that the U.S. Air Force was accepting jets with non-functional radar systems, a severe accusation given that radar is critical to the F-35’s stealth and targeting capabilities. She did not provide direct evidence, but her remarks echoed real concerns voiced by government auditors. The Pentagon’s own Director of Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E) has noted persistent software and systems integration problems, although Lockheed and its subcontractor Northrop Grumman have defended the radar as “the most capable in the world.” - DEI and the “Woke” Military
Loomer’s use of the term “woke” wasn’t accidental. She linked the F-35’s alleged failings to Lockheed Martin’s now-defunct diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs. Following Trump’s return to the White House in 2024, several major defense firms—including Lockheed—dismantled these initiatives under political pressure. But to Loomer, it wasn’t fast or far enough. She implied that Lockheed’s previous focus on DEI had undermined engineering rigor and national priorities, resonating with a conservative narrative that sees DEI as a distraction from core competencies. - Taxpayer Waste on a Historic Scale
“This is government and taxpayer WASTE on an unimaginable scale, & it’s coming out of our pockets!” she warned.
Loomer’s populist tone echoes a long-standing criticism of the F-35 program: its ballooning cost. With an estimated lifetime cost exceeding $2 trillion, the program has long been a lightning rod for those arguing against military overspending. Loomer tapped into a frustration felt not only by watchdogs and fiscal conservatives, but by ordinary voters disillusioned by bloated defense budgets and perpetual procurement delays.
Political Impact and Amplification by Elon Musk
Loomer’s critique didn’t remain in isolation. Within hours, Elon Musk, now head of the newly established Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) under Trump’s second administration, amplified her claims, writing:
“Crewed aircraft will be destroyed instantly by cheap drone swarms.”
This stark, one-line prediction echoed Musk’s previous criticisms of the F-35’s relevance in a battlefield increasingly dominated by autonomous drones, AI-enabled surveillance, and cyber warfare. Musk’s comments introduced a strategic debate: Is the F-35 obsolete before its full deployment? His position, while controversial, has gained traction among defense reformers advocating for next-generation, drone-based air power over manned fighter jets.
Media Reception and Broader Ramifications
While mainstream defense analysts and retired generals quickly challenged the factual basis of Loomer’s claims, the political effect was undeniable. Within conservative media circles, Loomer’s post was framed as a whistleblower moment—a truth-teller exposing Pentagon inefficiency and corporate indifference. Right-wing outlets hailed her for “holding defense contractors accountable” and sparking a new round of congressional scrutiny.
Her influence is not trivial. Loomer was reportedly instrumental in Trump’s April 2025 dismissal of NSA Director Paul Nakasone, after pushing conspiracy-laden narratives online. That political clout, coupled with Musk’s institutional role in trimming federal spending, signals that the F-35 program—despite being too big to fail—may now face unprecedented pressure from within the Republican base.
Commentary: Loomer as a Symbol of a Shifting Right-Wing Agenda
Loomer’s attack on the F-35 is emblematic of a broader shift in the American right. Where Republicans once defended expansive military budgets and defense contractors as essential to national security, a new populist strain now challenges military-industrial orthodoxy—especially when defense spending is seen as inefficient, elitist, or ideologically compromised.
Her criticism of Lockheed Martin was less about the technical specifics of radar modules or stealth coatings, and more about the political optics of corporate America. In Loomer’s narrative, Lockheed symbolizes a bloated, globalist institution prioritizing diversity seminars over combat readiness—an easy target in a political environment where being “anti-woke” is synonymous with patriotism.
Strategic Importance vs. Growing Criticism
Despite these controversies, the F-35 remains central to U.S. and allied military planning:
- Over 980 aircraft have been delivered across more than 17 countries, including the U.K., Israel, Japan, and Australia.
- The Pentagon plans to purchase up to 2,500 F-35s over the program’s lifetime.
- NATO and other allies see the jet as essential for integrated operations in a high-threat environment, especially in the Indo-Pacific and Eastern European theaters.
Lockheed Martin defends the jet as “combat proven” and the “most affordable option to ensure the U.S. and allies remain ahead of emerging threats.” Analysts argue that despite its flaws, the F-35’s networked capabilities and adaptability make it irreplaceable for the foreseeable future.
The Bigger Picture: War, Politics, and Profit
The F-35 program is not merely a defense project—it is a political symbol, economic engine, and lightning rod for criticism. It reflects the complicated nature of modern warfare, where geopolitics, corporate influence, and public accountability intersect.
Critics from across the political spectrum—ranging from progressive budget hawks to far-right populists—question whether programs like the F-35 represent effective national defense or unsustainable corporate welfare.
At the same time, defense analysts caution that cutting funding or canceling such programs could leave the U.S. and its allies vulnerable in a rapidly changing security landscape.
The controversy surrounding Lockheed Martin’s F-35 fighter jet program goes beyond engineering flaws and budgetary excess. It exposes deep tensions in American defense policy, political influence, and ideological divisions.
As Laura Loomer and other voices on the right attack Lockheed for being both too expensive and too “woke,” and as budget-conscious legislators on the left scrutinize defense overspending, the future of the F-35 remains politically and symbolically charged.
What is clear, however, is that the debate over this aircraft is as much about what it represents—government priorities, global power, and corporate accountability—as how well it flies.
Read More : Canada Election Results: How Liberals Outsmart Conservatives