Military experts or arms industry insiders? UK media fails to disclose defence sector links in nearly 60% of cases

Executive summaryThis report reveals how retired senior British military figures are frequently presented in the UK media as purely independent experts on defence and security matters without mention of their personal commercial and employment interests in the defence, technology, intelligence, and security sectors in those reports. By analysing media reports between 2015 and May 2026, AOAV identified a repeated pattern where almost 60% of former key military personnel with links to the defence industry were found to have been – at least once – cited in the British media primarily by a reference to their rank and previous service, without audiences being informed of their current post-service defence advisory roles, consultancies, directorships, or financial interests. So, while post-service commercial work is common, we documented a systemic failure of the UK media to disclose such employment and to highlight potential conflicts of interest. Our report argues that reporting of such vested interests, improved editorial due diligence, and a broader range of voices are necessary to ensure audiences are able to properly assess expert commentary on issues of defence and the arms trade with informed scepticism.Key findingsThe research identified 33 retired senior military officers who left the British armed forces between 2015 and May 2026 and who subsequently held current or former commercial positions in the defence, security, intelligence, technology, or related sectors. These individuals had also been quoted, featured, or otherwise used as commentators in UK media coverage of defence, conflict, or national security issues.Of these, we found that 19 or 58% of these had been given a media platform to debate defence matters – at least on one occasion – without the media outlets involved identified noting their commercial or financial interests in the defence industry.Instead, commentators were identified solely by their former military rank or previous command positions. This, we contend, creates the impression of impartial and independent expertise.The unreported interests included advisory roles, consultancy work, board memberships, executive positions, strategic partnerships, and major shareholdings connected to defence contractors, military technology firms, cybersecurity companies, and geopolitical consultancies.Several commentators publicly advocated increased British defence spending or expanded military engagement, despite simultaneously holding positions linked to industries that could benefit from such recommendations.This research does not suggest that any individual cited in this report deliberately concealed their commercial affiliations from journalists.

Rather, it highlights a recurring failure by news organisations to disclose potentially relevant industry interests when presenting former senior military figures as independent expert commentators on defence, conflict, and national security issues.The role of military veterans in the UK’s media debate on defence spendineIn the UK, the public’s understanding of matters of war, national security, and defence policy is almost entirely shaped by media commentary from figures presented as authoritative military experts.The go-to for most reporters is retired senior officers and former commanders, who are routinely quoted in print, broadcast, and digital media to explain unfolding conflicts, defence budgets, military power and, of course, to offer their opinion. Such views carry substantial weight, largely because of their professional reputation, long service, and the perceived impartiality of military expertise which – especially in the UK – is largely seen to be apolitical. This is the assumed position of most public servants and such assumption of impartiality implicitly reaches across into their post-service opinion.However, this report finds that a growing number of military commentators are presented to the public solely by their former military rank, despite their holding private sector roles, directorships, advisory positions, or shareholdings linked directly to the arms trade, security and defence technology.Of course, holding private-sector roles after military service is both lawful and commonplace. This is not the point of this report. Rather, the concern highlighted here is about the UK’s media. It is one of transparency, the failure to report on potential conflicts of interest, and public accountability. When audiences are denied information that is essential to analyse a certain issue, particularly when such information reveals that those individuals commentating may stand to benefit financially or professionally, it becomes a real problem.This report documents 19 senior military figures of 33 identified and analysed who were quoted, featured, or commented in major media outlets exclusively in their capacity as former military leaders, despite holding relevant positions that present clear yet undisclosed conflicts of interest.The findings presented here do not argue that the individuals identified are acting improperly, nor that their analyses lack merit, however we assert that the public has a right to full and relevant information when evaluating expert commentary, particularly where it involves lives, public expenditure, and international security. This report contends that such an omission creates a misleading impression of independence and objectivity, and frankly, does not give the public the full picture of potential bias and even the concern about profiteering.

MethodologyThis study of key military figures, their background, current and past appointments, and subsequent reporting in the media was all executed through the use of open-source data. AOAV initially drew up a list of top military figures including recently retired Major Generals of the British Army, Air Marshals of the Royal Air Force, and Admirals and First Sea Lords of the Royal Navy. The next stage of the research was to determine each figure’s roles following departure from the military, including non-executive positions and shareholdings. We omitted from our findings senior veterans who had not gone into the military-industrial workforce. The research, which was focused on the period 2015 to the present (May 2026) accordingly identified some 33 key military figures either currently have or had commercial/private directorships, shareholdings, or other roles/vested interests within the defence sector and surrounding industries who were quoted or offered commentary in the media. Well over half – 19 – were done without any reference to their private, military-industrial appointments.For each individual identified in the dataset, open-source records were accessed to establish current and past affiliations beyond military service. The following sources were used to collect and cross-verify professional information:LinkedIn – where available, to identify self-reported employment history, board memberships, advisory roles, and any other relevant appointments.Company websites – to confirm directorships, executive roles, advisory positions, and business activities.Companies House (UK) — to verify current and past directorships and shareholding filings.Parliamentary Registers of Interests — to identify declared financial interests, consultancy roles, or paid positions relevant to defence and security where such registers are publicly available.To establish whether vested interests were transparently communicated or disclosed in the media, each identified individual’s media appearances were then reviewed via Google News search. Primary media sources primarily included online news platforms and digital newspapers. For each appearance, the following was analysed: the form of identification used by the media (e.g. military rank only), whether any current roles or vested interests were mentioned, and the context and subject matter of the commentary.Why this report is necessary: the need for greater transparency in reporting on veterans’ voices in the British mediaPublic commentary on defence, national security, and military conflict frequently relies on the views of senior former military officers.

Individuals identified as major generals, air marshals, admirals, or former service chiefs are presented to the public as authoritative, expert voices and their assessments considered credible and transparent by audiences. When media coverage regularly relies on defence-aligned commentators without proper context, it limits the range of views the public hears. Over time, this can shape how threats are understood, which policy choices seem reasonable, and which responses appear necessary. In areas such as war, military spending, and international security, this can have consequences for public debate and democratic decision-making.It is important to note that this report does not allege wrongdoing on the part of the individuals identified, nor on the part of the publications presented within the pages of this report. However, the concern is that without adequate disclosure, audiences are unable to properly assess possible influences on expert commentary, which ultimately weakens trust.Dr Paul Lashmar, former Head of the Department of Journalism at City, University of London said of the findings: “It is not good enough for the journalist just to give the former rank and name of military commentator if the are now working for defence contractor. Current employment if relevant must be stated otherwise the public can oblivious of any conflict of interest. For example, it is one thing to have led a tank regiment but another if the ‘expert’ is now working for a company manufacturing tanks.”Professor Justin Schlosberg, an expert on hidden media power, ownership and disinformation, said “that nearly 60% of these senior military commentators were presented without disclosing their corporate paymasters undermines the principles of transparent, public interest journalism. It’s a reflection of how captured British journalism is by the military industrial complex. An open and honest debate about unprecedented militarisation has never been more needed. Instead it’s been turned into a managed consensus.”Dr Richard Danbury, Senior Lecturer in Journalism at City, University of London, also told AOAV, “If you’re quoted as an expert by a journalist, the public ought to know if what you’re saying might be influenced by your day job. That’s so an audience can weigh your words appropriately. The same happens in other areas, such as science and medicine, and Parliamentarians have to declare interests they have in what they’re giving speeches about. It makes sense that declaring your interests ought to happen in journalism too.