The US spends $1 trillion on defense each year. A large component of that money is fuelling the military industrial complex, basically suppoort for the domestic industry. And it isn't just limited to the "classical" military companies. Look up how the CIA helped Oracle.

That trillion dollars for “defense” also includes keeping global shipping lanes open and maintaining a military able to respond to existing treaty commitments across Europe. Seems to be a reasonable deal for some of they money to stay here in US companies if we’re paying for so much of others’ security abroad.

The global shipping lanes are kept open for US and US ally interests for which the US is compensated. Every country that has a US base on their soil pays the US military for being there (exceptions being war ravaged or active battle zones)

What they pay does not offset the total costs of maintaining these facilities, and these allies still levy significant import duties on US goods that traverse these shipping lanes, so I don’t know what point you’re trying to make other than pendantry.

Lockheed Martin had $51 billion in government contracts in 2017 alone. Their total revenue that year was a whole $54 billion. This article is complaining about Huawei getting $75 billion over many years.

Lockheed Martin got contracts of which perhaps 5-8% (2.6B to 4B) is profit, this is more direct funding. $75 billion in tax breaks etc is more like a 750B contract in terms of growth potential. Which is why I am saying this is such a huge amount of money rather than unfair or anything.

PS: Oddly, when bidding large federal contracts you include profit margin as a line item. Past 8% is possible, but starts to raise red flags.