GoKawiilExecutive summary
This 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 findings
The 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.
... continue reading