Trump Vows to Continue Raytheon, Lockheed Arms Sales Despite Khashoggi Murder and Yemen Atrocities

On October 11, 2018, just nine days after Saudi agents murdered journalist Jamal Khashoggi in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul, President Trump declared on CBS’s “60 Minutes” that he would not cancel arms sales to Saudi Arabia despite the killing and mounting evidence of Saudi war crimes in Yemen. Trump explicitly cited the economic benefits of weapons contracts with Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and Raytheon as reasons to maintain the relationship, stating that Saudi Arabia would simply purchase weapons from Russia and China if the US withdrew. The statement prioritized defense contractor profits over both justice for Khashoggi’s murder and accountability for Yemen civilian casualties, establishing that no Saudi action—whether murdering a US-resident journalist or massacring Yemeni children with US weapons—would prompt arms sale suspensions. Trump’s position represented a decisive victory for defense contractors who lobbied aggressively to preserve Saudi deals worth billions of dollars annually.

Defense Contractor Lobbying Campaign

Following Khashoggi’s murder on October 2, 2018, Raytheon and Lockheed Martin executives launched an intensive lobbying campaign to prevent congressional action blocking Saudi arms sales. Raytheon’s chief financial officer told investors the company remained “aligned with the administration’s policies” and intended to “honor our commitments” to Saudi Arabia, signaling no voluntary suspension of weapons transfers despite the murder and Yemen atrocities. Lockheed Martin executives made similar statements about continuing Saudi sales as long as the US-Saudi military partnership endured. Defense contractor representatives argued that Saudi Arabia represented a critical customer, with Raytheon disclosing that approximately 5% of annual revenue came from the kingdom. Industry lobbying emphasized job creation in congressional districts where contractors maintained facilities, framing arms sales as economic policy rather than human rights issues. The contractors’ lobbying proved decisive in shaping Trump’s response—rather than condemning Saudi Arabia or suspending weapons sales, the president defended the relationship by citing contractor revenue and employment.

Jobs vs. Accountability Argument

Trump’s defense of continued arms sales relied on economic arguments crafted by defense contractor lobbyists. He claimed that $110 billion in Saudi weapons purchases would benefit Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, and “many other great US defense contractors,” creating American jobs. This figure—widely disputed by experts as inflated and not representing actual contracted sales—became Trump’s primary justification for refusing to punish Saudi Arabia for Khashoggi’s murder. The “jobs” argument ignored that alternative uses of government defense spending would create similar or greater employment, and that economic benefits did not justify complicity in murder and war crimes. Congressional critics noted the cynicism of valuing defense contractor revenue over a journalist’s life and Yemeni civilian casualties. However, the argument proved politically effective, as lawmakers from districts with defense contractor facilities faced pressure to support arms sales regardless of humanitarian concerns. The episode demonstrated how defense contractors weaponized employment statistics to shield themselves from accountability for weapons misuse.

Bipartisan Congressional Opposition Fails

Despite bipartisan congressional outrage over Khashoggi’s murder and Yemen casualties, efforts to block Saudi arms sales failed to overcome Trump’s opposition and defense contractor lobbying. Senators including Bob Menendez, Chris Murphy, Bernie Sanders, and even some Republicans criticized the administration’s decision to prioritize weapons sales over accountability. Congressional committees held hearings documenting Saudi war crimes in Yemen and investigating Khashoggi’s murder, establishing clear evidence of Saudi responsibility for both atrocities. However, these efforts produced no substantive policy changes—Trump vetoed congressional resolutions blocking arms sales, and Congress failed to override his vetoes. The episode revealed the limits of congressional oversight when confronting the combined power of the executive branch and defense industry. For Raytheon and Lockheed Martin, the Khashoggi murder represented a serious but ultimately manageable threat to Saudi contracts, successfully neutralized through White House alignment and economic arguments.

Significance

Trump’s October 2018 declaration that arms sales to Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, and Boeing would continue despite Khashoggi’s murder established that defense contractor profits enjoyed immunity from human rights and accountability concerns. The president’s explicit framing—valuing weapons sales over justice for murder and Yemen atrocities—revealed the actual hierarchy of US priorities in Saudi relations. For defense contractors, Trump’s position provided assurance that no Saudi action, no matter how egregious, would threaten their lucrative contracts. The episode demonstrated the political economy of the military-industrial complex in operation: contractors leveraged employment and revenue arguments to maintain government support, the executive branch prioritized strategic relationships over human rights, and congressional opposition proved ineffective against this alliance. Khashoggi’s murder occurred at a moment when Saudi Arabia’s Yemen war crimes had generated unprecedented criticism and congressional action appeared possible, yet defense contractor lobbying and Trump’s intervention preserved the arms sale relationship. The outcome sent a clear message to both allies and adversaries: the United States would tolerate virtually any behavior from weapons-purchasing partners, and defense contractor revenue took precedence over accountability for murder and war crimes. For Raytheon specifically, Trump’s defense of Saudi sales validated the company’s bet that its political influence and economic arguments could override humanitarian concerns, even when those concerns involved a murdered journalist and massacred Yemeni children. The episode marked a turning point where the arms sale relationship survived its most serious political threat, establishing that future atrocities would likely produce only temporary criticism before returning to business as usual.