Skip to main content

Sign up for our newsletter.

Quality journalism. Progressive values. Direct to your inbox.

There are only a few days left in our critical Mid-Year Campaign and we truly might not make it without your help.
Please join us. If you rely on independent media, support Common Dreams today. This is crunch time. We need you now.

Join the small group of generous readers who donate, keeping Common Dreams free for millions of people each year. Without your help, we won’t survive.

Missiles stand at a Raytheon installation during the Farnborough International Airshow in Farnborough, England, in July 2018. (Photo: Simon Dawson/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

Raytheon and United Technologies Announce Merger to Create 'Military-Industrial Behemoth'

The proposed merger "should be dead on arrival," said one anti-trust advocate

Jake Johnson

In a move that immediately sparked concerns among anti-trust advocates, weapons manufacturer Raytheon and aerospace giant United Technologies agreed Sunday to a $120 billion merger that was described as one of the largest-ever combinations of two defense contractors.

The merger, if approved by the government and the two companies' shareholders, would create what the Washington Post described as a "military-industrial behemoth" with the power to rival Lockheed Martin, the world's largest defense contractor.

"The company should be expected to make a strong play for the Defense Department's emerging hypersonic missiles programs," the Post reported. "It also will give Raytheon a sizable foothold in the commercial aerospace market for the first time in recent memory. Before the combination, the lion's share of Raytheon's revenue came from the Pentagon and U.S. intelligence agencies."

On Twitter, anti-trust advocate Daniel Hanley said the United Technologies and Raytheon merger "should be dead on arrival."

In an interview on CNBC Monday, President Donald Trump—otherwise a fan of large weapons companies—also expressed concern about the proposed merger.

"When I hear United and I hear Raytheon, when I hear they're merging, does that make it less competitive? It's already not competitive," Trump said. "I just want to see competition. They're two great companies, I love them both. But I want to see that we don't hurt our competition."

Matt Stoller, fellow at the non-profit Open Markets Institute, said Trump is correct to raise anti-competition concerns over the proposed merger—while expressing skepticism that the president will hold to that position.

According to an in-depth investigation by In These Times published last month, Raytheon is one of the major providers of missiles and other weaponry to Saudi Arabia, which—with the backing of the United States—has been waging a vicious assault on Yemen since 2015.

"Saudi Arabia's precision-guided munitions are responsible for the vast majority of deaths documented by human rights groups," In These Times found. "[S]ince 2009, Saudi Arabia has ordered more than 27,000 missiles worth at least $1.8 billion from Raytheon alone."

As Common Dreams reported, Trump is pushing to allow Raytheon to build high-tech bomb parts in Saudi Arabia.

Critics warned that such a move would hand Saudi Arabia the technological capacity to build their own deadly high-tech weaponry, which the kingdom could use to ramp up its bombing campaign in Yemen and continue fueling the world's worst humanitarian crisis.

"Trump backs Saudi Arabia's war in Yemen and sells them bombs they drop on children," Sen. Bernie Sanders tweeted last week. "Now he wants Raytheon to help Saudis develop their own weapons. Congress must stop this president from doing the bidding of the arms industry and this brutal regime."


Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.

Just a few days left in our crucial Mid-Year Campaign and we might not make it without your help.
Who funds our independent journalism? Readers like you who believe in our mission: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. No corporate advertisers. No billionaire founder. Our non-partisan, nonprofit media model has only one source of revenue: The people who read and value this work and our mission. That's it.
And the model is simple: If everyone just gives whatever amount they can afford and think is reasonable—$3, $9, $29, or more—we can continue. If not enough do, we go dark.

All the small gifts add up to something otherwise impossible. Please join us today. Donate to Common Dreams. This is crunch time. We need you now.

Jan. 6 Panel Subpoenas Trump White House Counsel Pat Cipollone

Noting his refusal to cooperate beyond an informal April interview, the committee's chair said that "we are left with no choice."

Jessica Corbett ·


Sanders Pushes Back Against AIPAC Super PAC With Endorsements of Tlaib and Levin

"Once again, these extremists are pouring millions of dollars into a congressional race to try to ensure the Democratic Party advances the agenda of powerful corporations and the billionaire class."

Brett Wilkins ·


Missouri Hospital System Resumes Providing Plan B After 'Shameful' Ban

The health network had stopped offering emergency contraception over fears of violating the state's abortion law—a "dangerous" move that critics warned could become a national trend.

Jessica Corbett ·


'An Act of Conquest': Native Americans Condemn SCOTUS Tribal Sovereignty Ruling

"Every few paragraphs of the majority opinion has another line that dismissively and casually cuts apart tribal independence that Native ancestors gave their lives for," observed one Indigenous law professor.

Brett Wilkins ·


'Lunacy': Democrats Risk Running Out of Time to Confirm Federal Judges

"Democrats aren't filling open seats right now in federal district courts because, for unfathomable reasons, they are letting red state senators block nominees," said one critic.

Julia Conley ·

Common Dreams Logo