Apr 19, 2026
The U.S. Department of Defense is asking American automakers and other manufacturers to help build military equipment as wars in Ukraine and the Middle East deplete supplies.
According to The Wall Street Journal (1), senior Pentagon officials have approached various companies, including General Motors (NYSE: GM), Ford (NYSE: F), GE Aerospace, and Oshkosh (NYSE: OSK), about playing a larger role in weapons production.
Advertisement
These preliminary talks come amid concerns about equipment shortages and as the Trump administration pushes to put the U.S. on what Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth calls a "wartime footing," backed by a proposed $1.5 trillion defense budget.
Defense officials framed the request as a national security priority, asking whether companies could quickly repurpose factories and workers if needed. The Defense Department "is committed to rapidly expanding the defense industrial base by leveraging all available commercial solutions and technologies to ensure our warfighters maintain a decisive advantage," a Pentagon official said (2).
This isn't the first time the Trump administration has called on American automakers, in particular. During the early days of the pandemic, they were asked to help produce ventilators and face masks (3).
It also isn't the first time the Pentagon has asked non-defense companies to build weapons, with its latest move drawing comparisons to World War II, when U.S. manufacturers rapidly converted factories to support the war effort.
The "Arsenal of Democracy"
When the U.S. entered World War II after the Pearl Harbor attack in 1941, the federal government faced an urgent challenge: how to rapidly scale up production for a global war.
The solution was a sweeping mobilization of private industry, led in large part by automakers. Companies like General Motors and Ford stopped making cars for the public and retooled factories for military output, forming part of what President Franklin D. Roosevelt called the "Arsenal of Democracy" (4).
The results were staggering. According to the National WWII Museum (5), American manufacturers produced billions of dollars' worth of supplies, including 96,000 bombers, 86,000 tanks, 2.4 million trucks and 6.5 million rifles.
Advertisement
Ford's Willow Run plant alone built more than 8,865 B-24 bombers, with monthly output increasing from just one plane in October 1942 to anywhere up to 650 by the end of 1944 (6). General Motors, meanwhile, became the top military contractor in the U.S., delivering over $12.3 billion (7) in goods, including trucks, aircraft engines, tanks, cannons, torpedoes and machine guns (8).
Must Read
- Dave Ramsey warns nearly 50% of Americans are making 1 big Social Security mistake — are you doing the same?
- Thanks to Jeff Bezos, you can now become a landlord for as little as $100 — and no, you don't have to deal with tenants or fix freezers. Here's how
- Robert Kiyosaki says this 1 asset will surge 400% in a year and begs investors not to miss this ‘explosion’
Join 250,000+ readers and get Moneywise’s best stories and exclusive interviews first — clear insights curated and delivered weekly. Subscribe now.
Then vs. now
Today, a small group of companies (Lockheed Martin, RTX Corporation, Boeing, Northrop Grumman and General Dynamics) dominate military production (9). Contracts also go to other firms, including the likes of General Motors, General Electric and Oshkosh Corporation, but their defense expertise is narrow and represents a small slice of their overall business (10).
This concentration of major suppliers has raised concerns, especially after the U.S. and its NATO allies began sending large quantities of weapons to Ukraine following its invasion by Russia. Shortfalls in key areas have subsequently been reported, prompting the government to even accuse the five big defense contractors of slacking on production and failing to keep up with demand (11).
Expanding the defense industrial base beyond traditional contractors could reduce bottlenecks, accelerate production during crises and potentially improve quality and pricing by increasing competition.
But there are also lots of question marks. A key one is feasibility. Getting a helping hand from manufacturers of other goods is more complex than it was in the 1940s. Today's military equipment relies on complex supply chains, advanced electronics and globally sourced components, making rapid conversion far more difficult (12).
Other uncertainties include whether these companies can match the quality of specialist contractors, how costly it will be to pivot production, what incentives may be needed to get them on board and whether the shift could create shortages and price increases in the other goods they make.
Article Sources
We rely only on vetted sources and credible third-party reporting. For details, see our ethics and guidelines.
The Wall Street Journal (1),(2),(3); National WWII Museum (4),(5); Warfare History Network (6); GM Defense (7),(8); U.S. Congress (9); SAM.gov (10); The White House (11); PwC (12)
You May Also Like
- Turning 50 with $0 saved for retirement? Most people don’t realize they’re actually just entering their prime earning decade. Here are 6 ways to catch up fast
- Inside a $1B real estate fund offering access to thousands of income-producing rental properties — with flexible minimums starting at $10
- Vanguard’s outlook on U.S. stocks is raising alarm bells for retirees. Here’s why and how to protect yourself
- Here are 5 easy ways to own multiple properties like Bezos and Beyoncé. You can start with $10 (and no, you don’t have to manage a single thing)
Daniel Liberto is a financial journalist with over 10 years of experience covering markets, investing, and the economy. He writes for global publications and specializes in making complex financial topics clear and accessible to all readers.
