Rising Delistings Signal Market Strain as Home Sellers Retreat and Buyers Shift to Affordable ‘Refuge Markets’

Economic

Summary:

Home sellers pulled listings at an “unusually high rate” in October 2025, with delistings up 45.5% year-to-date, while contract cancellations surged and buyers migrated to lower-cost refuge markets like Grand Rapids and St. Louis...

Sellers Retreat as Housing Market Conditions Tighten

The U.S. housing market is witnessing a pronounced pullback from sellers, with October 2025 marking a sharp rise in listing withdrawals. According to Realtor.com, delistings were up 45.5% year-to-date and nearly 38% compared to October 2024 reaching the highest levels since tracking began in 2022. This rate of retreat, typically seen only in deep winter, reflects sellers’ increasing reluctance to compete in a high-rate, price-sensitive environment.

Approximately 6% of active listings are now being removed monthly, indicating sellers are either holding out for more favorable market conditions or unable to attract offers at listed prices. The prolonged nature of this trend five consecutive months of elevated delistings since June points to a structural shift rather than a seasonal anomaly.

Buyers Pivot to Refuge Markets for Affordability

In parallel, buyers are adjusting their search behavior, gravitating toward so-called “refuge markets” where home prices remain relatively low and inflationary price shocks were muted during the pandemic. Cities such as Grand Rapids, Michigan (up 5.5% YoY), St. Louis, Missouri (up 5%), and Cleveland, Ohio, are now outperforming in price growth, while still remaining 20-30% below the national median.

This migration reflects a correlation between buyer price sensitivity and the long-term affordability of local markets. As interest rates continue to pressure monthly mortgage payments, homebuyers are being priced out of once-hot metros like Miami, Denver, and Houston cities now seeing the highest rates of delisted properties.

Contract Cancellations Climb, Reflecting Market Volatility

Adding to the strain, home purchase cancellations also spiked. Redfin reports that 15% of pending sales fell through in October 2025, up from 14% the year prior and well above pre-pandemic levels. This rise suggests greater buyer hesitation, potentially due to last-minute financing issues, inflated appraisals, or inspection disputes. Regional hotspots for cancellations include San Antonio (21% of deals canceled), Fort Lauderdale (20%), and Fort Worth (19.7%), with Las Vegas and Jacksonville close behind.

The increase in failed contracts illustrates a direct consequence of tightening affordability and broader economic uncertainty. The feedback loop is clear: sellers are delisting due to lack of serious offers, while buyers are either backing out or looking elsewhere.

Price Correction Underway but Still Elevated

Nationally, home prices are beginning to stabilize, with the median list price in November 2025 down 0.4% from the same month in 2024. However, prices remain elevated still 36% higher than in November 2019, before the pandemic-era boom. New listings rose slightly (up 1.7% YoY), but the modest increase does little to offset broader imbalances between supply, affordability, and demand.

Danielle Hale, chief economist at Realtor.com, noted that the dual trend of seller fatigue and buyer migration “captures the push and pull defining today’s housing market.” In her forecast, 2026 may see gradual rebalancing as mortgage rates soften and inventory becomes more consistent.

The latest housing data signals a market under pressure, with high delisting rates, growing contract failures, and affordability concerns driving both sellers and buyers into retreat. While “refuge markets” provide a lifeline for affordability-seeking buyers, many traditional hotspots are seeing waning activity. The near-term outlook depends heavily on the trajectory of interest rates and consumer confidence, but the current environment suggests a broader reset is already underway.

Source: CNBC

To stay updated on all economic events of today, please check out our Economic calendar

Risk Warnings and Disclaimers

You understand and acknowledge that there is a high degree of risk involved in trading. Following any strategies or investment methods may lead to potential losses. The content on the site is provided by our contributors and analysts for information purposes only. You are solely responsible for determining whether any trading assets, securities, strategy, or any other product is suitable for investing based on your own investment objectives and financial situation.

Add to Favorites

Gerik

Political

Russia-Ukraine Conflict

Trump's Comments Spark Diplomatic Friction Amid Peace Deadlock

In a striking statement on Sunday, U.S. President Donald Trump expressed disappointment with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, claiming he “hasn’t yet read” the latest U.S. peace proposal aimed at ending the war with Russia. Trump added that Zelenskyy’s aides were supportive of the plan, but the Ukrainian leader himself had not fully engaged with it. The comments added a layer of public tension to already fragile negotiations, which have so far failed to yield consensus.

The peace plan in question remains ambiguous, with multiple versions under discussion. Talks in Miami between U.S. and Ukrainian officials ended without resolution, with disagreements centered on two critical issues: control over Ukraine’s eastern Donbas region and the Russian-occupied Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant.

Ukraine Demands Security Guarantees as U.S. Pushes for Concessions

Zelenskyy responded cautiously but firmly. In his nightly address, he described the talks led by Ukraine’s chief negotiator Rustem Umerov and General Andriy Hnatov with U.S. envoy Steve Witkoff and Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner as “constructive, though not easy.” He insisted that certain matters could only be discussed in person, hinting at a lack of trust or discomfort with the U.S. proposal’s terms.

The Ukrainian president has repeatedly emphasized the need for binding security guarantees, particularly from the U.S., before making any territorial concessions. This demand reflects Ukraine’s core strategic fear: without firm post-war defense commitments, any peace could be short-lived and leave the country vulnerable to future aggression.

European Leaders Step In Amid Growing Concerns

As pressure mounts on Ukraine to accept a deal perceived by many as favorable to Moscow, Zelenskyy has launched a diplomatic tour to rally support in Europe. He is meeting U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer, French President Emmanuel Macron, and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz in London, with further stops planned in Brussels and Rome.

European allies are increasingly anxious that the U.S. may push for a resolution that compromises Ukraine’s sovereignty. The U.K. and France, both members of the self-styled “Coalition of the Willing,” have advocated for the establishment of a post-war reassurance force to secure Ukraine. However, Russia strongly opposes any deployment of foreign troops, calling them legitimate military targets.

This divergence sets up a geopolitical split between Europe and the U.S., especially in light of Trump’s recently released national security strategy, which questions Europe’s reliability as an ally and calls for strategic rebalancing with Russia.

Moscow Talks Show Progress, But Peace Remains Distant

Earlier meetings in Moscow between Witkoff, Kushner, and Russian officials, including President Vladimir Putin and aide Yuri Ushakov, were described by the Kremlin as “useful and constructive,” but no breakthrough was reported. Putin’s spokesperson Dmitry Peskov emphasized the importance of continuing negotiations discreetly to avoid media disruption and ensure substantive progress.

Moscow appears to have embraced elements of Trump’s national security doctrine, viewing it as aligned with Russia’s strategic outlook. This alignment raises concerns in Kyiv and Europe that U.S. positioning may gradually tilt toward appeasement of Russian territorial claims in exchange for broader geopolitical stability.

Uneasy Diplomacy, High Stakes

The standoff between Washington and Kyiv reflects deeper disagreements not just over peace terms, but over the broader architecture of post-war security in Europe. Trump’s public criticism of Zelenskyy underscores a widening gap in expectations, as Ukraine resists pressure to accept a deal that could undermine its territorial integrity and future deterrence posture.

With no breakthrough in sight and rising diplomatic stakes, the next phase of negotiations particularly Zelenskyy’s meetings in Europe may prove decisive in determining whether Ukraine can secure a peace on its terms, or be forced to accept one shaped by competing superpower interests.

Source: CNBC

Risk Warnings and Disclaimers

Add to Favorites

Adam

Bond

The bond market’s reaction to the Federal Reserve’s interest-rate cuts has been highly unusual. By some measures, a disconnect like this, with Treasury yields climbing as the central bank lowers rates, hasn’t been seen since the 1990s.

What the divergence indicates is a matter of heated debate. Opinions are all over the place, from the bullish (a sign of confidence that recession will be averted) to the more neutral (a return to pre-2008 market norms) to the favorite culprit of the so-called bond vigilantes (investors are losing confidence the US will ever rein in the constantly swelling national debt).

But one thing is clear: the bond market isn’t buying President Donald Trump’s idea that faster rate cuts will send bond yields sliding down and, in turn, slash the rates on mortgages, credit cards and other types of loans.

With Trump soon able to replace Chair Jerome Powell with his own nominee, on top of everything else is the risk of the Fed squandering its credibility by caving to political pressure to ease policy more aggressively — which could backfire by fanning already elevated inflation and pushing yields higher.

“Trump 2.0 is all about getting long-term yields down,” said Steven Barrow, head of G10 strategy at Standard Bank in London. “Putting a political figure at the Fed will not get bond yields down.”

Bond Traders Defy Fed and Spark Heated Debate on Wall Street_1

The Fed started pulling its benchmark rate down from a more than two-decade high in September 2024 and has since cut it by 1.5 percentage points to a range of 3.75% to 4%. Traders see another quarter point cut after the next meeting on Wednesday as virtually assured and are pricing in two more such moves next year, which would bring its rate to around 3%.

Yet, key Treasury yields — which serve as the main baseline for the borrowing costs paid by American consumers and corporations — haven’t come down at all. Ten-year yields have risen nearly half a percentage point to 4.1% since the Fed started easing policy and 30-year yields are up over 0.8 percentage point.

Normally, when the Fed moves short-term policy rates up and down, long-term bond yields tend to follow. Even in the only two easing cycles outside of recessions over the past four decades – in 1995 and 1998, when the Fed cut only 75 basis points each time — the 10-year yield dropped outright or rose less than they have during the current episode.

Jay Barry, head of global rates strategy at JPMorgan Chase & Co., sees two factors behind it. The scale of the Fed’s hikes during the post-pandemic inflation surge was so steep that markets started pricing-in the Fed’s about-face well before it started, with 10-year yields peaking in late 2023. That blunted the impact once it began.

Moreover, by slashing interest rates even when inflation remains elevated, he said, the Fed is lessening the risk of a recession, limiting the scope for yields to fall.

“The Fed is looking to sustain this expansion, not end it,” said Barry. “That’s why rates have not moved aggressively lower.”

Others see a less benign interpretation in the so-called term premium, a measure of the extra yield investors demand in return for holding long-term bonds.

That compensates them for potential risks down the line — like elevated inflation or an unsustainable federal debt load. And that premium has risen nearly a full percentage point since the rate-cut cycle began, according to the New York Fed estimates.

Bond Traders Defy Fed and Spark Heated Debate on Wall Street_2

For Jim Bianco, president of Bianco Research, it’s a signal that bond traders are worried that the Fed is cutting rates even as inflation remains stubbornly above its 2% target and the economy keeps defying recession fears.

“The market is really concerned about the policy,” said Bianco. “The concern is that the Fed has gone too far.”

If the Fed continues to cut rates, the mortgage rates will go “vertical,” he added.

There’s also angst that Trump — after breaking sharply from his predecessor’s deference to the Fed’s independence — will succeed in pressuring policymakers to continue cutting rates. Kevin Hassett, the White House National Economic Council Director and a Trump loyalist, is the betting market’s favorite to succeed Powell when his term ends in May.

What Bloomberg Strategists say...

If rate cuts increase the likelihood of stronger growth, they won’t be met with lower yields. We’ll end up with higher ones. In many respects, this is because we’re going back to a normal interest rate regime, where 2% real returns and a 2% Fed inflation target produces a 4% floor for long-term yields. Add in stronger growth and the numbers go higher from there.

So far, though, the broader bond market has remained relatively stable, with 10-year yields hovering not far from 4% over the past few months. And breakeven rates — a main gauge of the bond market’s inflation expectations — have been stable as well, indicating that fears of a Fed-fueled inflation surge down the line may be overstated.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told CBS’ Face the Nation that the “bond market just had the best year since 2020” and that he expects inflation to “roll down strongly” next year.

The yield on 10-year Treasuries rose one basis point to 4.15% at 5:45 a.m. in New York

Robert Tipp, chief investment strategist fixed income at PGIM, said it looks more than anything like a return to the normal levels seen before the Global Financial Crisis, which ushered in a long era of unusually low interest rates that abruptly ended after the pandemic.

“We’re back at the normal level of rates world,” he said.

Standard Bank’s Barrow said the Fed’s lack of control over the longer-term yields reminds him of a similar — if opposite — bind the central bank faced in the mid-2000s that became known as the Greenspan conundrum.

At that time, Chair Alan Greenspan was puzzled why the long-term yields remained low even as he jacked up the short-term policy rate. Greenspan’s successor Ben Bernanke later attributed the conundrum to too much savings from overseas flooding into Treasuries.

Today, Barrow said, that dynamic is reversed as governments around major economies are borrowing too much. That saving glut, in other words, has turned into a bond-supply glut that’s keeping consistently upward pressure on yields.

“It’s possibly a structural move that bond yields are not going down,” Barrow said. “At the end of the day, central banks don’t determine the long term rate.”

Source: Bloomberg

Risk Warnings and Disclaimers

Add to Favorites

Warren Takunda

Economic

A number of well-known consumer and industrial groups — including Costco, Revlon, Kawasaki Motors, and Bumble Bee Foods — are mounting a wave of legal challenges to Donald Trump’s sweeping “Liberation Day” tariffs. The goal is to seek refunds for the duties they have paid so far and prevent further costs.

Court records from the US Court of International Trade show that more than 70 companies have now filed lawsuits asking judges to declare the tariffs unlawful, order refunds, and block the administration from levying the duties in the future.

Many of the filings have been lodged in recent weeks, as the US Supreme Court deliberates on whether Trump had the authority to impose the measures under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).

The IEEPA is a 1977 US law that lets the president declare a national emergency over an external threat and then use broad economic tools — like sanctions and asset freezes — against foreign countries, entities, or individuals.

The companies filing the lawsuits believe the IEEPA is designed for targeted sanctions in emergencies, not classic, across-the-board tariffs on imports.

These recent filings mark a shift in the corporate response to the tariff regime, with earlier cases being brought mainly by smaller importers. The stakes have significantly shifted now that major multinationals with global supply chains are joining in, arguing that the duties have distorted trade flows and driven up costs across multiple markets.

Costco, the US-based warehouse retailer with operations in Asia and Europe, sued the administration in November, demanding a full refund of tariffs it has paid and an injunction against future collections.

It argued that the IEEPA does not clearly authorise the White House to set customs duties and that the tariffs, imposed via emergency powers, should therefore be struck down.

Revlon, the cosmetics group with production and distribution hubs in North America, Europe and Asia, is also seeking reimbursement and a ruling that Trump’s use of IEEPA is unlawful.

In its filing, the company warned that some of the entries on which it has paid duties could be finalised or liquidated as early as mid-December, which would sharply limit its ability to seek refunds later.

Multinational manufacturers in the automotive and industrial sectors are heavily represented among the plaintiffs.

Court filings show that subsidiaries of Japan’s Toyota Group are suing US Customs and Border Protection over higher levies on car parts and metals, while Kawasaki Motors and a cluster of auto suppliers argue that the tariffs on vehicles, steel, and aluminium have significantly increased their costs.

Aluminium producer Alcoa, packaging group Berlin Packaging, fitness equipment maker iFit and plumbing supplier Ferguson Enterprises have also joined the fray.

Food companies with far-flung sourcing networks say they have been hit particularly hard. Bumble Bee Foods, which buys seafood from Brazil, Ecuador, Panama, Mexico, Indonesia, China and India for its global brands, contends that its import costs increased when the tariffs took effect.

The Supreme Court has already heard arguments on the core legal question, namely whether a president can rely on IEEPA to levy broad, country-wide tariffs.

Three lower courts have already ruled against the Trump administration. Several Supreme Court justices also signalled scepticism about the administration’s position during the hearing, but raised concerns about the complexity of any refund process if the duties are overturned, warning that unwinding years of collections could be disruptive.

Costco’s case has drawn additional attention after the retailer recently nominated Gina Raimondo, who served as commerce secretary under President Joe Biden, to its board of directors.

Raimondo’s appointment will be put to a shareholder vote in January, while the Supreme Court’s ruling on the legality of Trump’s tariff strategy is due no later than the end of its term in June 2026.

Source: Euronews

To stay updated on all economic events of today, please check out our Economic calendar

Risk Warnings and Disclaimers

Add to Favorites

Gerik

Economic

Strategic Transition: Combs Exits Berkshire for JPMorgan Leadership Role

In a significant shift that marks the beginning of a new era at both Berkshire Hathaway and JPMorgan Chase, Todd Combs one of Warren Buffett’s most trusted investment officers and CEO of Geico is stepping down to join JPMorgan. His new role will be to head the firm’s newly launched Security and Resiliency Initiative, a large-scale investment program aimed at strengthening national and economic infrastructure across key sectors including defense, aerospace, energy, and healthcare.

Combs, 54, has been a central figure in Berkshire Hathaway’s investment strategy since joining in 2010 from his hedge fund Castle Point. Alongside Ted Weschler, he was groomed to help manage and eventually oversee the sprawling equity portfolio that includes blue-chip holdings such as Apple, Coca-Cola, and Bank of America. His sudden departure comes as Warren Buffett, now 95, prepares to hand over the CEO role to Greg Abel in 2026, leaving the firm’s investment succession plan less defined.

JPMorgan’s $1.5 Trillion Security Initiative Targets Strategic Growth Sectors

Combs’ new role places him at the helm of one of JPMorgan’s most ambitious ventures. Initially seeded with $10 billion in deployable capital, the Security and Resiliency Initiative is ultimately projected to channel $1.5 trillion in investments toward sectors deemed critical for long-term stability and global competitiveness.

This strategic program represents more than just capital deployment it is part of a broader economic doctrine JPMorgan is cultivating, aimed at driving public-private alignment in high-stakes industries. With geopolitical risks rising and national security threats becoming increasingly complex, JPMorgan is positioning itself as a major force in building and securing the infrastructure of the future.

The initiative will be guided by a high-profile advisory council that includes Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, Dell Technologies Chairman Michael Dell, former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, and former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. This blend of tech, policy, and defense leadership underscores the program’s comprehensive, cross-sector mandate.

Buffett and Dimon Signal Mutual Confidence in Leadership Realignment

Warren Buffett praised Combs in Berkshire’s announcement, noting that the executive “made many great hires at GEICO and broadened its horizons.” The Oracle of Omaha’s endorsement implies a cordial and mutually beneficial departure, though it inevitably raises questions about how Berkshire will manage its equity positions moving forward.

JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon, in turn, celebrated Combs’ move as a strategic gain for the bank, stating: “Todd Combs is one of the greatest investors and leaders I’ve known.” Dimon emphasized Combs’ deep understanding of JPMorgan, honed over his nine years on the board, and praised his ability to align financial strategy with broader societal goals “to make the world more secure.”

Combs will also serve as a special advisor to Dimon, highlighting the strategic importance of this hire beyond just investment management.

Implications for Berkshire Hathaway’s Investment Future

Combs’ exit places renewed focus on the internal structure of Berkshire’s future investment management. With Buffett stepping down from the CEO role in 2026 and Ted Weschler remaining as the other senior portfolio manager, questions linger over whether Weschler will assume full responsibility or if a new leadership figure will be introduced to help steward the firm’s enormous equity portfolio.

As Berkshire’s investment decisions carry weight not just for shareholders but also for market sentiment broadly, continuity and clarity in its investment team are critical. Combs’ departure introduces uncertainty at a delicate time for succession planning.

A Redefinition of Strategic Investment Leadership

Todd Combs’ move to JPMorgan signals a major leadership realignment within U.S. financial and investment circles. It not only leaves a notable gap at Berkshire Hathaway but also reinforces JPMorgan’s aggressive push into long-horizon, security-focused investing. By recruiting a seasoned investor with experience under Buffett’s tutelage, JPMorgan is underscoring its strategic intent to align finance with national resilience and global influence.

As traditional finance adapts to a new geopolitical and technological landscape, the intersection of investment, security, and innovation may well define the next phase of capital deployment and Combs is now positioned at the forefront of that transformation.

Source: CNBC

To stay updated on all economic events of today, please check out our Economic calendar

Risk Warnings and Disclaimers

Add to Favorites

Blue River

Forex

Technical Analysis

EUR/USD Technical Analysis

The euro initially rallied a bit during the trading session here on Monday, but it is starting to give back gains again, just like it did on Friday. All things being equal, this is a market that I think is essentially on hold at the moment, as we have the Federal Reserve interest rate decision on Wednesday. But the dynamics of this pair are interesting because the ECB is expected to hold rates, so that has helped firm the euro slightly. And the Federal Reserve is expected to cut rates on Wednesday, but the question then becomes, what did they say during the press conference?

It is because of this, I think the next day or two is probably going to be very choppy and very sideways. As traders wait for the next data point that truly matters, we are in the middle of a consolidation area. That being said, all things being equal, I still favor the downside. But I think we need something to get us going to the downside, such as Jerome Powell giving us a cut, but maybe suggesting that the Fed is hesitant to cut rapidly.

GBP/USD Technical Analysis

The British pound looks like it is rolling over a little bit. And that's not a huge surprise because we had that explosive move a couple of days back due to the budget. The question is, will that budget change the trajectory of the economy? The answer, of course, is no. And recently, the Bank of England came within a whisker of cutting the rate. So, I think the market is starting to focus on that again.

At this point, we'll be watching 1.32 to see if we can break down below it. If we can, then that's a very negative sign. If we bounce from there, then we could head back into the previous consolidation. And just like in the case of the euro, I think it's the Federal Reserve that determines the next move.

EUR/GBP Technical Analysis

The euro rallied slightly during the trading session on Monday, but it's hanging around the 50-day EMA. And I think this is an area that is going to continue to be somewhat noisy. All things being equal, I think we're just killing time here. But if we were to break down below the 0.87 level, then I think the market really starts to drop. If we rally from here and clear the 0.875 level, then I think we go looking at the 0.8850 level again. That being said, this is a very choppy market. It always is choppy. So, I'm not looking for rapid or quick moves.

Source: FX Empire

Risk Warnings and Disclaimers

Add to Favorites

Gerik

Economic

From Drones to Defense Contracts: Startups Hit Scaling Roadblocks

After a meteoric rise in attention and valuations, Silicon Valley–backed defense startups are entering a new, more difficult phase. Once admired for agile innovation and cutting-edge AI-driven military technologies, these companies are now grappling with the structural and operational challenges of building weapons at scale. Their recent success, amplified by the effectiveness of drones in the Russia-Ukraine war, brought a surge of Pentagon interest and funding. However, that same spotlight has exposed their limited manufacturing capabilities and unfamiliarity with the defense sector’s rigid procurement systems.

Startups such as Saronic Technologies and Anduril Industries exemplify the sector’s explosive growth. Saronic, which develops unmanned naval drones, reached a $4 billion valuation in February and is building a shipyard in Louisiana. Anduril, founded by Oculus creator Palmer Luckey, doubled its valuation to $30 billion by June. Meanwhile, Chaos Industries, a sensor and radar tech firm, also saw its valuation double to $4.5 billion after a recent funding round. But turning these valuations into long-term defense supply contracts requires more than technological innovation.

Pentagon Contracts Rise, but the Path to Scale Remains Elusive

According to Govini, a defense analytics firm, startup firms now command 1.3% of U.S. defense contracts, up from 0.6% last year a clear sign of growing inclusion in Pentagon procurement. Despite this, the traditional defense "primes" like Lockheed Martin, Boeing, RTX, and Northrop Grumman still dominate, holding over 92% of contract value. This contrast illustrates a fundamental bottleneck: while the Department of Defense is experimenting with startups, the bulk of major programs continues to flow to legacy contractors.

Christopher Calio, CEO of RTX (formerly Raytheon Technologies), emphasized this barrier: “It’s one thing to design and innovate. It’s another thing to build a prototype, and then it’s an entirely different ball game to scale manufacturing.” This sentiment reflects the causal relationship between scale and institutional trust: without demonstrating the ability to mass-produce and deliver reliably, startups will remain confined to small, exploratory contracts.

Cultural Divide and Pentagon Resistance to Change

The annual Reagan National Defense Forum, held this week in Simi Valley, California, revealed a telling juxtaposition: traditional defense CEOs in suits exchanging ideas with hoodie-wearing startup founders. U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth acknowledged the urgency of evolving the system, pledging to “transform the entire acquisition system to rapidly accelerate the fielding of capabilities and focus on results.”

However, deep-rooted obstacles persist. Entrenched political interests, legacy project backlogs, and a bureaucratic acquisition system designed around multibillion-dollar programs present systemic resistance. According to Zach Shore, chief revenue officer at Hermeus (a hypersonic aircraft startup), most firms struggle to move from $10–30 million prototype awards to full production-scale programs. This reveals a persistent structural barrier: despite policy rhetoric, the Pentagon’s procurement architecture remains largely inaccessible to newcomers beyond the pilot stage.

New Partnerships Signal a Shifting Landscape

While challenges remain, some large defense players are beginning to recognize the innovation edge that startups bring. L3Harris Technologies CEO Chris Kubasik highlighted the need for collaboration: “We need to leverage the established companies and the new entrants.” Recent partnerships support this idea. For example, Shield AI has partnered with HII, America’s largest military shipbuilder, to co-develop autonomous naval vessels. Anduril has also joined forces with South Korea’s HD Hyundai Heavy Industries for military and commercial shipbuilding.

These collaborations could serve as a bridge over the “valley of death” many startups face a term referring to the phase between innovation and sustainable revenue from large-scale contracts. JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon, who recently committed $10 billion in equity investments to defense tech and manufacturing, warned that legacy firms are not immune to stagnation. “There’s a valley of death for big companies too, driven by complacency, arrogance, bureaucracy,” he stated, underscoring the risk of institutional inertia in both old and new players.

A Tipping Point in U.S. Defense Innovation

Silicon Valley’s growing presence in U.S. defense contracting marks a significant cultural and technological shift. Yet, despite impressive valuations and media attention, the challenge remains deeply structural. Scaling up to meet Pentagon demands requires more than technical prowess it demands long-term manufacturing capabilities, patient capital, and systemic procurement reform.

As innovation pressure builds particularly with geopolitical concerns such as China’s military expansion the Pentagon’s ability to integrate nimble startups into its traditionally slow-moving system could determine the future shape of U.S. military competitiveness. In the words of Anduril’s strategy head Zach Mears, “The light switch is in the middle of being flipped.” Whether it stays on will depend on whether startups can transition from flashy prototypes to full-fledged defense partners and whether Washington lets them.