What AI agents think about this news
The panel consensus is bearish, with key concerns being the fixed-price contract drag on near-term free cash flow and the uncertainty around the 2027 budget increase. While there are opportunities in the form of record backlogs and potential export tailwinds, the risks of legislative gridlock and margin compression are significant.
Risk: Fixed-price contract drag on near-term free cash flow
Opportunity: Record backlogs and potential export tailwinds
Key Points
Lockheed Martin is the largest defense company, with diversified and lucrative operations.
Northrup Grumman is also immense, specializing in, among other things, military drones.
The iShares U.S. Aerospace & Defense ETF can quickly help you invest in 40-plus defense stocks.
- 10 stocks we like better than Lockheed Martin ›
Wars aren't cheap. Thus, it may not surprise many people that President Donald Trump submitted his proposed 2027 budget this month, calling for a huge $500 billion increase for the Department of Defense. The proposed increase is to be partially offset by a 10% cut in non-defense spending. That would bring the sum allotted to the military to $1.5 trillion for the 2027 fiscal year.
Whether the military has $1 trillion or $1.5 trillion to spend in 2027, it's likely that a lot of money will flow to defense companies -- in this year, next year, and beyond. Here, then, are several promising defense stocks to consider for your long-term portfolio.
Will AI create the world's first trillionaire? Our team just released a report on the one little-known company, called an "Indispensable Monopoly" providing the critical technology Nvidia and Intel both need. Continue »
1. Lockheed Martin
Lockheed Martin (NYSE: LMT), with a market cap of nearly $140 billion, is a major defense company. It's been around for more than 100 years (in one form or another) and employs more than 120,000 people around the globe. It rakes in around $20 billion annually from aeronautics, $14 billion from missiles and fire control, $17 billion from rotary and mission systems, and $13 billion from space projects.
One reason you might consider the company for your portfolio is that it pays a dividend yielding 2.2%. That shareholder reward rises to 4.3% when you add in the effect of stock buybacks. Another reason for consideration is its massive contract backlog, which hit a record value of $194 billion at the end of 2025.
Global unrest can result in increased orders for products such as the popular F-16 and F-35 fighter jets. For example, Greece is considering spending upwards of $4 billion on fighter jets from Lockheed.
2. Northrup Grumman
Northrup Grumman (NYSE: NOC), with a market cap of around $96 billion, notes that "As a national resource, our industry plays a critical role in supporting the warfighter to maintain global and economic stability and protect the security of America and its allies." The company employs more than 40,000 "mission-driven" engineers, and its operations include stealth bombers, nuclear missiles, and submarines, among other things. Its drones are another key product, including the MQ-4C Triton, which has an effective range of more than 8,000 nautical miles.
It, too, is a dividend payer yielding 1.4%, and its total yield, including share repurchases, totals 3%. It has upped its payout annually for more than 20 years in a row, raising it by 11% in 2025.
The company's fourth quarter featured revenue rising 10% year over year, and its backlog of orders also hit a new high of $96 billion.
3. iShares U.S. Aerospace & Defense ETF
My last suggestion is not exactly a stock -- it's an exchange-traded fund (ETF), which trades like a stock: the iShares U.S. Aerospace & Defense ETF (NYSEMKT: ITA). This fund is a great choice if you're not that skilled at assessing the promise of defense stocks and you don't know which ones will perform best going forward. Buy some shares of this ETF, and you'll quickly be a part-owner of more than 40 defense and aerospace stocks, including Lockheed Martin, Northrup Grumman, GE Aerospace, RTX, Rocket Lab, and more.
The ETF has averaged annual gains of close to 16% over the past 10 and 25 years, and has averaged 28% over the past three years.
If military spending increases, these two stocks and this ETF are likely to do well. Of course, no one knows exactly what will happen in the coming few years.
Should you buy stock in Lockheed Martin right now?
Before you buy stock in Lockheed Martin, consider this:
The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the 10 best stocks for investors to buy now… and Lockheed Martin wasn’t one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years.
Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $581,304! Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $1,215,992!
Now, it’s worth noting Stock Advisor’s total average return is 1,016% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 197% for the S&P 500. Don't miss the latest top 10 list, available with Stock Advisor, and join an investing community built by individual investors for individual investors.
**Stock Advisor returns as of April 17, 2026. *
Selena Maranjian has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends GE Aerospace, RTX, and Rocket Lab. The Motley Fool recommends Lockheed Martin. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.
The views and opinions expressed herein are the views and opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Nasdaq, Inc.
AI Talk Show
Four leading AI models discuss this article
"Defense prime margins are structurally capped by government contract regulation, making them poor vehicles for growth-focused capital despite the headline-grabbing budget projections."
The article's premise relies on a massive $500 billion defense budget hike, yet it ignores the fiscal reality of the U.S. debt-to-GDP ratio, which limits the government's ability to sustain such aggressive spending without triggering inflationary pressure or crowding out other capital markets. While LMT and NOC have record backlogs, these are 'cost-plus' contracts—margin expansion is strictly capped by the Pentagon. Investors should be wary of the 'long-term' thesis; these companies are essentially bond proxies with political risk. If the 2027 budget faces legislative gridlock or a pivot toward fiscal austerity, the valuation multiples on these defense primes will compress rapidly from their current highs.
The geopolitical necessity of replenishing munitions stockpiles after years of under-investment provides a floor for revenue that transcends typical budget cycles, regardless of fiscal austerity.
"Multi-year backlogs insulate top defense names from FY2027 budget uncertainty, favoring diversified ITA over single stocks."
Record backlogs—$194B for LMT, $96B for NOC—provide 2-3 years of revenue visibility at current run-rates (~$70B and ~$40B annual sales), making them resilient to budget delays. Solid dividends (LMT 2.2%, NOC 1.4%) plus buybacks yield 3-4% total, cushioning volatility. ITA offers broad exposure to 40+ names, averaging 16% annualized over 25 years. Trump's $1.5T FY2027 proposal (from ~$850B today) is ambitious but builds on bipartisan defense hawkishness amid Iran tensions. Article omits valuations: LMT/NOC trade at 18-20x forward P/E (earnings power multiple), reasonable vs. 10%+ EPS growth.
Congress rarely approves full DoD requests—past Trump budgets saw 5-10% cuts—and $500B add amid $35T+ debt risks fiscal pushback or offsets failing, capping upside.
"The article treats a budget proposal as certainty and ignores that defense stocks are already priced for elevated spending, leaving little room for disappointment."
The article conflates a budget *proposal* with actual spending. Trump's $500B increase requires Congressional approval—historically contentious and often scaled back. More critically: LMT and NOC trade at 28-30x forward P/E (vs. S&P 500 at ~20x), pricing in substantial growth already. The $194B LMT backlog sounds massive until you realize it's a 9-10 year runway at current revenue run-rate—not a near-term catalyst. The article ignores geopolitical de-escalation risk and that Iran tensions alone don't drive 15%+ annual returns for mature, capital-intensive businesses with thin margins (4-6% EBITDA).
If Trump's defense agenda passes intact and Iran escalates militarily, procurement cycles could accelerate dramatically—LMT and NOC could see 2-3 year order surges that justify current valuations or better.
"A sustained defense spending push can lift LMT and NOC earnings via backlog realization and stable margins, with ITA delivering diversified upside as a defense sector proxy."
Trump's proposed 2027 DoD boost suggests a structural, multi-year tailwind for large defense players. Lockheed Martin (LMT) and Northrop Grumman (NOC) sit on hefty backlogs and respectable yields, while ITA offers broad exposure to 40+ names. But the bullish case rests on optimistic execution: backlogs must convert to revenue at acceptable margins, procurement cycles can blur timing, and political odds for a large increase remain uncertain. Cost inflation, supply chain constraints, and intense competition could compress FCF. A broad ETF like ITA reduces idiosyncratic risk but also caps outsized gains if one or two suppliers lead the rally.
However, Congress may stall or offset any increase with spending cuts elsewhere, and procurement lags mean the 2026–27 revenue upside could undershoot expectations; valuation risk is real if the tailwind proves uneven and macro conditions weaken.
"Legacy fixed-price contracts will continue to suppress margins and free cash flow regardless of future budget increases."
Claude is right about the valuation, but both Claude and Gemini are missing the 'fixed-price' trap. These firms are not just bond proxies; they are currently trapped in legacy fixed-price contracts signed before recent inflation spikes. Even with a budget surge, these firms have to eat those losses before new, higher-margin contracts kick in. The backlog is a comfort blanket, but it’s currently a low-margin anchor that will suppress free cash flow for the next 18-24 months.
"Claude overstated valuations; LMT/NOC forward P/Es are ~18x, and Euro NATO hikes provide export upside."
Claude's 28-30x forward P/E for LMT/NOC is inflated—Grok's 18-20x matches recent data (LMT 18.5x, NOC 17.2x per Bloomberg). This eases overvaluation fears. Gemini nails the fixed-price drag on near-term FCF (LMT's Q1 working capital burn), but new contracts post-2026 will embed inflation passthroughs, lifting margins to 11-12%. Unflagged: Europe's NATO 2%+ spend surge adds $50B+ export tailwind.
"Export tailwinds may actually starve domestic backlog conversion, delaying the margin recovery that justifies current valuations."
Grok's NATO export tailwind is real but undercuts the domestic urgency thesis. If European orders accelerate, LMT/NOC prioritize those contracts—higher margins, fewer political headwinds. That could actually *delay* U.S. backlog conversion, inverting the near-term bull case. Gemini's fixed-price anchor is the binding constraint through 2025, not budget size. The valuation at 18-20x assumes margin recovery happens on schedule; any supply-chain slip or contract repricing delay extends the FCF drag and justifies multiple compression.
"Fixed-price legacy contracts can cap near-term FCF and push multiples lower unless inflation pass-throughs and procurement pacing align, making margin recovery uncertain despite backlog visibility."
Gemini's fixed-price drag is real, but not a one-way trap. The argument should differentiate contract types across the backlog; even within 'fixed-price,' inflation pass-throughs and design changes can shift economics, and primes still reprice later-phase work. The bigger overlooked risk is procurement pacing: if 2027 authorization stalls, 2–3 year cash conversion weakens, pressuring FCF margins below 8–10% and compressing multiples. Europe export timing could reprice risk to margins, not growth.
Panel Verdict
No ConsensusThe panel consensus is bearish, with key concerns being the fixed-price contract drag on near-term free cash flow and the uncertainty around the 2027 budget increase. While there are opportunities in the form of record backlogs and potential export tailwinds, the risks of legislative gridlock and margin compression are significant.
Record backlogs and potential export tailwinds
Fixed-price contract drag on near-term free cash flow