“The MIC wanted to divest itself of retrieved materials”. What do they stand to gain of it?

I have been thinking a lot lately trying to connect the dots as to why any Military Industrial Complex company may want to divest itself of retrieved materials, especially its connection to the pro-disclosure vs non-disclosure movement.

A business, more often than not, operates on the for-profit approach. I speculated (and I don’t have any evidence of it) that the MIC stand to gain something out of the divestment of retrieved materials which most probably was part of their original agreement with the government.

So it would be great if any of the Redditors could shed a light on how certain things are usually done when it comes to Government Contractual Agreements with regards to ownerships to the research and intellectual property.

Assuming that Government retain a certain rights, the contractor definitely need permission for approval for any transfer with national security implications. I have so many questions:

Could it be that the Schumer’s Amendment was actually being sponsored by the MIC themselves, because the MIC knows that they themselves would not be able to profiteer from whatever technology they learned, until they return it back to the government?

What if the Mike(s) of the Congress were trying to keep everything as status quo, since knowing what the original deal was with the MICs, understanding that if the objects are being returned to the government, the MICs can somehow partially use the rights of it?