President Donald Trump on Wednesday dramatically raised the stakes in his confrontation with the U.S. defense industry, warning that major military contractors will be barred from issuing dividends or conducting stock buybacks until they significantly accelerate weapons production, expand manufacturing capacity, and fix what he described as persistent failures in equipment maintenance and delivery.

In a lengthy and unusually blunt post on his Truth Social platform, Trump accused defense companies of putting shareholder returns and executive compensation ahead of national security priorities. He argued that capital currently being paid out to investors should instead be redirected into new factories, machinery, and supply chains capable of meeting rising military demand.

“Defense Companies are not producing our Great Military Equipment rapidly enough and, once produced, not maintaining it properly or quickly,” Trump wrote.

He added that “massive” dividends and share repurchases were taking place “at the expense and detriment of investing in Plants and Equipment.”

The president also took aim at executive pay, calling compensation packages at major contractors “exorbitant and unjustifiable.” Until companies invest in new production plants, Trump said, “no Executive should be allowed to make in excess of $5 Million Dollars,” effectively proposing a cap on top management pay linked directly to industrial expansion.

Markets reacted swiftly to the remarks, underscoring investor unease about political intervention in corporate financial decisions. Shares of General Dynamics, Lockheed Martin, and Northrop Grumman each fell about 3% following Trump’s post, wiping billions of dollars off their combined market capitalization.

Trump later singled out Raytheon, accusing the company of being “the least responsive to the needs of the Department of War, the slowest in increasing their volume, and the most aggressive spending on their Shareholders rather than the needs and demands of the United States Military.” He warned that the Pentagon would sever business ties with Raytheon unless it sharply increases investment in plants and equipment, and said that “under no circumstances” should the company carry out any further stock buybacks in the interim.

That warning triggered another sell-off. Shares of RTX, Raytheon’s parent company, slid an additional 2% in after-hours trading after closing down 2.5%. RTX is a cornerstone of the U.S. defense industrial base, manufacturing advanced air-to-air missiles and key components for the F-35 fighter jet, making it deeply embedded in both U.S. and allied military programmes.

Trump framed his intervention as a reallocation of existing resources rather than a call for more government spending. Military equipment, he said, “must be built now with the Dividends, Stock Buybacks, and Over Compensation of Executives, rather than borrowing from Financial Institutions, or getting the money from your Government.” He ended the post with a stark warning to the industry to “BEWARE,” signaling that further action could follow if companies fail to comply.

The legal and practical impact of Trump’s announcement remains unclear. It was not immediately evident whether the restrictions he outlined would be enforced through executive orders, changes to Pentagon contracting rules, or legislation. The White House did not immediately respond to requests for clarification, leaving defense firms and investors uncertain about the scope, timing, and enforceability of the proposed measures.

The comments come at a sensitive moment for the defense sector. U.S. and allied militaries have been drawing down stockpiles of missiles, ammunition, and other equipment amid ongoing global conflicts, exposing limits in production capacity built for peacetime demand. Contractors have repeatedly pointed to supply chain disruptions, shortages of skilled labor, and the long lead times required for specialized components as obstacles to rapidly scaling output.

Trump’s remarks suggest growing impatience with those explanations and a willingness to apply direct pressure on contractors’ balance sheets. His focus on buybacks and dividends taps into a broader debate in Washington over whether defense companies have prioritized financial engineering over long-term industrial investment.

Recent disclosures highlight the scale of shareholder payouts in the sector. Northrop Grumman spent $1.17 billion on stock buybacks in the nine months ended September 30 and paid $964 million in dividends over the same period. Lockheed Martin repurchased $2.25 billion of its own shares in the nine months ended September 28, alongside $2.33 billion in dividend payments.

While such payouts are common across corporate America, Trump’s intervention introduces a new layer of political risk for an industry that has historically enjoyed stable, if closely scrutinized, relations with Washington. Any sustained restrictions on dividends, buybacks, or executive pay could force defense companies to rethink their capital allocation strategies, potentially shifting more cash toward factories, tooling, and workforce expansion.

The episode, for investors, raises questions about how defense stocks should be valued in an environment where shareholder returns could be subordinated to strategic and political priorities. For the companies themselves, Trump’s warning signals that production speed and industrial capacity may now carry consequences that extend well beyond contract awards, reaching deep into boardroom decisions on pay and capital returns.

However, the sharp market reaction suggests it is being taken seriously, and it underscores a clear message from the White House: faster weapons production and expanded manufacturing capacity are no longer just contractual expectations, but conditions that could determine how freely defense companies are allowed to reward their shareholders and executives.

Goldman Sachs once again sat atop the global dealmaking league tables in 2025, tightening its grip on the world’s biggest mergers as a sharp rise in mega-deals and a more permissive regulatory climate transformed the M&A landscape.

According to LSEG data reported by Reuters, Goldman advised on $1.48 trillion worth of transactions last year, accounting for roughly 32% of the global market and securing its position as the No. 1 investment bank by both deal value and M&A fee revenue. The firm earned $4.6 billion in advisory fees, well ahead of JPMorgan at $3.1 billion and Morgan Stanley at $3 billion, followed by Citi and Evercore.

The standout feature of 2025 was the explosion of so-called mega-deals. Transactions valued at $10 billion or more jumped to 68 last year, with a combined value of $1.5 trillion, more than double the number recorded a year earlier. Goldman advised on 38 of those deals, more than any rival, benefiting from what LSEG described as the strongest period for mega-deals by number since records began in 1980.

Goldman itself described the environment as unusually fertile. In its 2026 M&A outlook, Global Co-Head of M&A Stephan Feldgoise called 2025 an “exceptional M&A year,” telling clients it was driven by a “ubiquity of capital” and a willingness by corporate boards to pursue transformative combinations rather than incremental growth.

That confidence was reinforced by politics. President Donald Trump’s more permissive antitrust posture lowered barriers that had previously stalled large-scale consolidation, giving executives cover to pursue deals that once might have drawn regulatory pushback. As a result, consolidation accelerated well beyond technology, spilling into railways, consumer goods, media, and other sectors.

Goldman’s dominance was particularly pronounced outside the United States. For announced M&A involving Europe, the Middle East, and Africa, the bank captured a 44.7% market share in 2025, a level surpassed only once before, during the dot-com boom of 1999.

Yet even in a year it dominated, Goldman did not advise on the two single largest transactions. Those were Union Pacific’s $88.2 billion acquisition of Norfolk Southern and the sprawling, high-profile battle for Warner Bros Discovery, which drew bids valued at up to $108 billion, including debt. Those deals were shared among Bank of America, Barclays, Wells Fargo, and a cluster of boutique advisers, highlighting how the biggest mandates are increasingly syndicated as boards seek a broader range of perspectives.

JPMorgan, while trailing Goldman in pure M&A rankings, still emerged as the highest-paid global investment bank overall once equity and debt capital markets fees were included. LSEG data showed JPMorgan earned $10.1 billion in total investment banking fees in 2025, compared with $8.9 billion for Goldman. JPMorgan advised Warner Bros in its sale process and guided Kimberly-Clark through its $50.6 billion purchase of Kenvue, the bank’s two largest deals of the year.

“The strategic desire to grow and find scale is high,” JPMorgan’s global head of advisory and M&A, Anu Aiyengar, said. “That has driven boardrooms and C-suites to be more proactive. People are not waiting for a company to be put up for sale to initiate M&A activity.”

The Warner Bros contest, in particular, reshuffled the league tables. Competing bids from Paramount Skydance and Netflix lifted the profiles of advisers such as Wells Fargo, Moelis, and Allen & Co, as well as law firms including Latham & Watkins. Wells Fargo, which advised on ten deals above $10 billion, including Netflix’s bid, jumped eight places from 2024 to rank ninth in 2025.

Boutique bank Moelis also gained ground, finishing the year at No. 16 after advising on five transactions worth more than $5 billion, including the $20 billion sale of Essential Utilities. Smaller firms such as RedBird Capital Partners and M. Klein & Co. briefly vaulted into the top 25 thanks to their roles advising Paramount, underscoring how a single mega-deal can dramatically alter rankings.

Those standings remain fluid. LSEG data show that advisers to both Warner Bros bidders are currently credited in league tables, but that will change once a winner is selected. If Paramount withdraws its offer, Wells Fargo would move up two more places, while advisers tied solely to Paramount would drop out of the rankings.

Legal advisers also benefited from the scale of transactions. Charles Ruck, global chair of the corporate department at Latham & Watkins, the top-ranked M&A law firm, said the growth in deal size reflected “size creep,” driven partly by rising equity markets.

The S&P 500 rose 16.39% in 2025, and the Nasdaq gained 20.36%, pushing valuations higher and making transactions larger by default. Latham advised on the Paramount bid, the $55 billion leveraged buyout of Electronic Arts, and the $40 billion sale of Aligned Data Centers.

Looking ahead, dealmakers say the conditions that powered 2025 have not yet dissipated. Interest rates are edging lower, corporate balance sheets are flush with cash, and the IPO market remains less robust than many companies would prefer, keeping M&A the primary route to growth and exits.

“The pipeline is full,” Ruck said. “Interest rates are coming down, which helps private equity. There is a lot of cash on corporate balance sheets. The IPO market is still not where people want it. And you’ve got a basically friendly regulatory environment navigating the winners and losers.”