Divestitures & Carve-Outs in Defense & Government Contracting: Where Portfolio Strategy Collides with National Security Reality in 2025

Divestitures in defense and government contracting have accelerated in 2025 as large primes, diversified industrial groups, and private equity sponsors reassess portfolios built through years of acquisition and program expansion. From a strategic standpoint, many of these transactions resemble familiar carve-outs: a business is deemed non-core, separated from the parent, and marketed to an owner with a more focused mandate. In practice, defense carve-outs operate under a fundamentally different logic. Financial performance alone does not determine value. Regulatory trust, national security considerations, and continuity of stewardship increasingly dominate transaction outcomes.

‍

Sellers typically frame defense divestitures as clean portfolio actions supported by attractive fundamentals. Long-term government contracts, visible backlog, mission-critical capabilities, and stable agency relationships form the core of the sell-side narrative. These attributes are real and continue to underpin buyer interest. However, in 2025 they are no longer sufficient to carry valuation or execution certainty on their own. Buyers and regulators look beyond backlog to assess whether control, compliance, and institutional credibility can survive separation without degradation.

‍

From the buyer’s perspective, underwriting a defense carve-out involves a dual mandate. Economic value must be evaluated alongside regulatory acceptability, while government customers independently assess whether a change in ownership preserves national interest. This process frequently exposes a level of parent dependency that is not immediately visible in financial disclosures. Contracts that appear transferable often require novation, customer consent, or reassessment of contractor responsibility. In the current environment, agencies apply heightened scrutiny to ownership changes, particularly where private equity structures or foreign capital are involved. Even where approvals are ultimately granted, timing risk alone can materially affect valuation and deal structure.

‍

Security and compliance infrastructure represents another critical fault line. Many defense businesses rely on parent-level systems for export controls, ITAR compliance, cleared facilities, and cybersecurity governance. While sellers may assume these capabilities can be replicated post-close, buyers understand that rebuilding them independently is time-consuming, costly, and subject to regulatory oversight. Assets that lack clearly established, standalone security and compliance functions face immediate valuation pressure, as buyers price in both execution risk and potential delays to operating autonomy.

‍

Program continuity further shapes outcomes. Government agencies evaluate whether key personnel will remain in place, whether facility and personnel clearances will transfer smoothly, and whether program oversight will remain credible under new ownership. In 2025, continuity of performance has become a gating issue rather than an expectation. Even short periods of disruption can trigger additional oversight, affect award decisions, or slow contract modifications. Buyers therefore assess not only historical execution, but the resilience of the operating team through transition.

‍

Value erosion in defense carve-outs rarely stems from demand uncertainty. It arises from approval risk and execution friction. Delays in contract novation, the cost and complexity of rebuilding security infrastructure, attrition among cleared personnel, and extended reliance on transitional service arrangements all contribute to widening gaps between initial valuation expectations and executable outcomes. Once these risks surface, buyers seek protection through price adjustments, contingent consideration, or delayed closings, often late in the process.

‍

At the center of these dynamics is regulatory trust, which functions as a form of capital in defense and government contracting. Agencies assess whether a new owner has a credible compliance track record, can safeguard sensitive information, maintains alignment with national security priorities, and possesses sufficient financial and operational stability to steward programs over time. This assessment does not reset automatically at closing. In 2025, regulatory comfort is earned gradually and can be undermined quickly by missteps during separation or early ownership.

‍

Transitional service arrangements have consequently taken on greater signaling importance. While TSAs are unavoidable in many defense carve-outs, particularly for security, information technology, and compliance functions, their scope and duration are closely scrutinized. Short, tightly defined arrangements suggest that the carved-out entity is prepared to assume responsibility. Extended or open-ended TSAs imply unresolved dependencies that may concern regulators as much as buyers, and they are increasingly interpreted as indicators of national security and execution risk rather than operational convenience.

‍

For sellers, achieving strong outcomes in 2025 requires approaching defense divestitures as regulatory transitions rather than simple ownership changes. Successful processes are characterized by early mapping of novation requirements, deliberate separation of security and compliance functions, proactive retention of cleared personnel, and early engagement with government customers. Reducing uncertainty before launch is critical, as uncertainty is the primary driver of value erosion in defense transactions.

‍

For buyers, discipline and patience remain essential. The most successful acquirers recognize that credibility and trust with government customers compound over time and cannot be accelerated through financial structuring alone. Where regulatory comfort is high and separation readiness is clear, capital remains competitive. Where it is not, buyers proceed cautiously or elect not to engage.

‍

These dynamics are amplified by current conditions. Heightened geopolitical tension, increased defense spending, intensified scrutiny of foreign ownership, growing cybersecurity concerns, and expanded oversight of contractor responsibility have all raised the stakes around defense divestitures. In this environment, separation risk is inseparable from national interest.

‍

Divestitures and carve-outs in defense and government contracting are therefore not judged solely on financial logic or portfolio fit. They are judged on whether stewardship, compliance, and trust endure through transition. In 2025, the most successful transactions reflect a clear understanding of a fundamental truth in this sector: value follows trust, not the other way around.