Defense contractors have notoriously been allowed to have a "revolving door" policy with government procurement officers for generations. There is a definite conflict of interest which encourages waste of all sorts. There could certainly be better controlled by Congress. That said, we have the best Congress money can buy (regardless of party) as they are willing to "compromise" in order to continue to receive re-election assistance (in the form of monetary support) from lobbyists of various ilk.

On the other hand, as a stockholder of a company, whether it represents the angels or the devils, the rational is to make money (whether by dividends or capital gain is simply a nuance of this goal). For the CEO (or Capo, if you prefer) of the US to arbitrarily decide to change the profitability of an industry, as far as the stockholder is concerned, has little non-emergency precedent except in fascist and communist regimes which have a reputation for not following the accepted rules of law. The willingness to "take matters into his own hands" is an alarm bell which has to be carefully evaluated when deciding on how and where to deploy investable funds.

It would also be very interesting to research both purchases and sales of various investable assets which may have taken place among those closest to the decision-maker shortly before an announcement was made.

The current danger seems to be the current fixation on "acquiring" Greenland (Canada hasn't been mentioned in a while) which would both spell the end of the alliance of the US with Europe at the same time as validation the actions of Russia, China and others in their own spheres of influence. While this is not a board which concentrates on geopolitics, if a butterfly flapping its wings in Beijing affects the weather in NYC, the meddling of the US government in the investment profitability of individual stocks should send a chill down the stiffest of backbones.

Jeff