Stephen Feinberg, President Donald Trump’s nominee for Deputy Defense Secretary, has suggested that automakers like GM and Ford should be given a role in manufacturing weapons for the U.S. military. Speaking before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Feinberg argued that the Defense Department should explore non-traditional defense manufacturers to increase competition and accelerate production of critical military assets. Feinberg’s nomination comes amid broader efforts by the Trump administration to streamline the federal government.
Per a report by Defense One, Feinberg’s testimony criticized the current defense sector for being overly consolidated, limiting new companies’ ability to enter the market. He proposed that large-scale manufacturers, including GM and Ford, could boost competition without necessarily requiring them to compete against established defense contractors in open bidding. He further suggested that the Pentagon leverage rapid contracting methods to bring in companies with proven mass-production expertise, which could be particularly useful in areas like shipbuilding and autonomous defense systems.
GM’s military product subsidiary, GM Defense, already supplies the military with the GM ISV (Infantry Squad Vehicle), which is based on the Chevy Colorado ZR2 and is designed for rapid deployment and off-road mobility. GM Defense also produces the GM Defense HD SUV, also known as Suburban Shield, in support of the Diplomatic Security Service (DSS) and over a dozen other federal agencies.
Feinberg also addressed supply chain and workforce issues, acknowledging that while the U.S. manufacturing industry has the capability to produce nuclear submarines and other critical military equipment, it struggles to fully engage private-sector manufacturers as a result of supply chain weaknesses and a shortage of skilled workers.
The Trump nominee urged the Pentagon to work more closely with private industry to strengthen domestic manufacturing and streamline production, while stating that that major technology companies should be more “patriotic” in supporting military projects, stating that China has been much more effective when it comes to integrating private-sector innovation with its defense strategy.
If confirmed, Feinberg plans to conduct a comprehensive review of defense programs and spending. He noted that the Pentagon has never passed a full financial audit, and that he intends to analyze defense expenditures “line by line” to identify inefficiencies. These goals seem to align with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s push to shift $50 billion in the 2026 budget toward more urgent national security needs.
Comments
Good idea. Should lead to more competition which should lead to better yet cheaper vehicles in the long run.
This is a great idea but not a new idea. It leads to more competition and innovation. Plus GM has a rich history building military equipment as it was the largest military contractor during WWII. In addition to military vehicles it built bomber aircraft, AC Delco and Guide Lamp built machine guns, Fisher Body built tanks, Buick built aircraft engines and tank destroyers, Detroit Diesel built diesel engines while Allison Div built high performance aircraft engines and heavy duty transmissions for tanks, and Oldsmobile made artillery shells, aircraft guns, and tank cannons. This is only a small partial list.
Guide Lamp Division continued making artillery shells until the end of the Korean war.
The government is its own worst enemy. The government has a list of requirements and regulations that are a mile long and then wonders why prices are so high. Dear government, you make the price go up every time you add a requirement or regulation. It is amazing that bureaucrats just don’t understand this basic concept. Now, there are so many requirements and regulations that the government hasn’t just created a barrier to entry for new companies, but a solid wall. Nobody on the outside is going to dump a massive amount of money for the opportunity to bid on something that they might or might not win at a price so low they might lose money even if they win. Government procurement is broken.
Good move. Nothing really new with this, but should go a long way to reduce weapons and munitions costs with increased production capacity.
I’m not sure the lefties running GM today would be on board.
its a corporation, ultimately the goal is to make money and the defense industry can certainly do that
Can’t imagine entrusting our enlisted folks lives to companies that forgot how to build any type of a reliable, affordable vehicle. And that includes Ford, GM, Stellantis ……..
Unlike certain military-industrial contractors, I’d be more likely to trust GM and Ford to deliver a product under budget and on time. Versus letting it turn into a multibillion dollar, decade-plus, make-work debacle with nothing to show for it.
most of what makes modern cars unreliable is the emissions bull$hit, which you dont have to deal with in the military, and GM’s infantry squad vehicle has been praised by the army, so i think they will do just fine
If anyone thinks that the big 3 will not become the next high cost cash cow is out of touch with reality, they know that the DOD is a black hole and I’m sure the investors would make more from the military then the profits from their automotive divisions. We don’t need another Blackish or DARPA sucking our tax dollars.
Blackrock