Eisenhower's warning of the Military-Industrial Complex

“Eisenhower’s farewell address” refers to the final public speech of the 34th president of the United States, delivered on television broadcast on January 17, 1961. Perhaps best known for advocating for a nation guard against the influence of the military industrial complex, the speech expressed concerns about planning for the future of dangers regarding deficit spending and the domination of science-based public policy by what Eisenhower called a “scientific-technological elite”. Ironically, Eisenhower as a political figure has played a significant role in the creation of this “elite” and its position of power. 

Context & Definition of the Military-Industrial Complex (MIC)

Eisenhower served 2 full terms as president of the United States and oversaw a period of considerable economic expansion during the Cold War period. His defence policies which revolve around advanced tech have played a crucial role in expanding the defence research industry. As of 1959, Eisenhower began working with his brother and the world-renowned political scientist Malcolm Moos to develop his final statement before retiring from office. The Cold War arms race after WWII created a permanent national security state, with defence spending ballooned to unprecedented levels even in peacetime. Most importantly, a new economic ecosystem grew around defence contracts, research labs and private contractors - and military planning became structurally intertwined with industries and the Congress. Eisenhower defined the military-industrial complex (MIC) as the fusion of: 

• A permanent military establishment

• A large armaments industry

• Political influence over Congress

• Public funding tied to private profit

Together, this fusion created a self-reinforcing ecosystem that could distort national priorities and democratic decision-making in politics. 

The economic dilemma of MIC

The most obvious risk identified in MIC is distortion of public spending, as there are structural incentives toward high military expenditure that crowd out investment for education, welfare or infrastructure. Defence corporations often seek predictable, long-term contracts, whereas executive agencies justify budgets by emphasising geopolitical threats. Together, they create a “ratchet effect” where defence spending increases easily but rarely decreases, even after the wars end. Furthermore, path dependency arose where the defence industrial ecosystem such as plants, subcontractors, research labs are now economically dependent on the MIC - decreasing the defence budget would potentially reduce regional GDP or increase unemployment. For example, the F-35 (from Lockheed Martin) joint strike fighter program involves suppliers in more than 45 states. In other words, military spending is “sticky” because cutting budgets becomes politically unviable. This dynamic mirrors theories of security dilemma escalation and militarised Keynesianism (i.e. public spending justified by security narratives).

Incentives for more aggressive foreign policies

Defence corporations are among the top spenders in Washington lobbying - they fund PACs and campaign donations, or pressure representatives whose districts depend on defence jobs. Lobbying does not explicitly demand war, but rather, it promotes arms sales abroad or endorses hawkish strategic posters. This can tilt the policy environment toward greater readiness for militarised responses, or at a minimum, resistance to diplomatic reductions of tension. That is, when large regions rely on defence spending, politicians become reluctant to support policies that would materially reduce it. Another cause of this phenomenon is “threat inflation”, where defence-linked actors including military analysts and contractors may also emphasise worst-case scenarios in geopolitics or interpret ambiguous intelligence as hostile intent from rival nations. Examples include the well-known Cold War “missile gap” claims, exaggerated reports about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) or even the more recent inflated narratives about China’s military intentions. 

Capture of scientific research post-WWII

Defence firms profit the most from developing new weapons, not simply manufacturing existing ones. This produces several dynamics including “program lock-in” where Congress has to commit financially for decades once a project begins, such as the F-35, B-21 bomber, or missile system. Cost overruns were also normalised because they generate higher benefits - for example, Lockheed Martin’s F-35 technology was over budget by hundreds of billions, yet it was politically untouchable. This leads to the last risk identified with MIC - which is capture of scientific research. After WWII, scientific infrastructure became deeply tied to DARPA (Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency), national laboratories and aerospace engineering programs. By the late 1950s, many universities in the US relied heavily on Pentagon contracts which incentivised prioritising defence-related fields over humanities or basic sciences, and generally incentivised alignment with military agendas. The danger, as Eisenhower put it, was the “prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money.”

Elite capture, state-corporate symbiosis

Eisenhower’s speech is fundamentally a critique of the structure, not individual power: he warns against a feedback loop between economic interest and military doctrine. This self-reinforcing cycle of MIC aligns closely with theories of elite capture & state–corporate symbiosis, particularly those articulated by sociologists like C. Wright Mills in The Power Elite, who argued that modern governance is increasingly shaped by interconnected institutional actors rather than democratic deliberation. In short, Eisenhower was not warning that the military is dangerous - he was warning that the interlocking institutions of military planners, defence corporations and legislators created a system that can sustain itself independent of democratic oversight. 

Why Eisenhower’s warning particularly resonates today

The relevance of the US general’s warning came from the fact that MIC had only become more complex, diversified and more embedded in civilian politics and economics than at any point in US history. In the 9/11 aftermath, the US engaged in numerous counterterrorism operations worldwide including wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria. Major corporations such as Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Boeing and General Dynamics saw unprecedented revenue growth in part because modern warfare relies on high-cost, high-tech systems such as drones, precision-guided missiles, and surveillance platforms. However, there has been a significant shift since Eisenhower’s time - which is the outsourcing of war. Today, private contractors perform functions that were once the exclusive domain of sovereign militaries, including logistics/supply chain (e.g. KBR, Halliburton), or mass surveillance infrastructure (Palantir, Raytheon Technologies, etc). The result is a partial privatisation of national security where private firms gain operational roles or access that entrench their influence. Contractors operate under different accountability regimes than the military therefore they are not subjected to the same transparency oversight as the US government. 

Conclusion & future writings

Eisenhower’s Farewell Address endures not simply as a historical artefact but as a structural diagnosis of a national security economy that continues to expand far beyond its Cold War origins. His warning captured a fundamental tension between democratic governance and a permanently mobilised defence apparatus. 

This opening article is only a point of departure. In the following weeks, this series of articles will examine the specific companies that anchor the modern MIC, the transformation of warfare through drones, algorithmic warfare, as well as the rise of AI-driven defence technologies and their implications for power & accountability. By mapping these developments systematically, the series aims to offer a deeper, more empirical perspective on how Eisenhower’s warning has unfolded across the institutions, technologies, and industries that now define the twenty-first-century national security state.