Follow us on social

Congress

Congress poised to do less oversight on arms sales

New bills would continue to chip away and the legislative branch's role in shaping US foreign policy

Analysis | Washington Politics

As early as next Tuesday, Congress will vote on two bills that will make it easier for the U.S. government and U.S. arms makers to push weapons out the door to foreign clients more quickly, with less time for congressional scrutiny, and, in some cases, with Congress not even being informed that the sales are happening.

At a time when arms sales are a centerpiece of U.S. foreign policy, for good or for ill, this is a misguided approach that will increase the risks that U.S. arms transfers will sow instability, fuel conflicts, and enable violations of the laws of war.

The centrality of arms sales is a result of the decline in boots-on-the-ground conflicts like Iraq and Afghanistan, and a reduction in drone strikes from the peak reached in the Obama years

Major sales have ranged from transfers aimed at helping Ukraine defend itself from Russia’s invasion to billions in military aid and arms transfers that have enabled Israel’s campaign of mass slaughter in Gaza and its escalation to attacks on Syria, Lebanon, and Iran.

And while sales to these nations have drawn the vast bulk of media, congressional, and public attention, they are far from the only ones. In most years, the United States supplies weapons to over 100 nations, a third of which are categorized as “not free” by Freedom House. And a study by the Quincy Institute during the Biden administration found that 34 of 46 conflicts occurring at that time involved one or more parties armed by the United States.

In short, while some U.S. arms transfers, like supplies to Ukraine, live up to our public commitment to provide weapons to help allies defend themselves without the need to introduce U.S. troops to the conflict, many of them enable serious human rights abuses or fuel destabilizing wars.

Despite these negative impacts of increased arms sales on U.S. global security interests, the bills that Congress will consider next week (described in detail below) would, if passed, reduce vetting of future sales in the name of speeding up the process. It is a dangerous approach that will increase the risks to the security of the U.S. and its allies. This decrease in scrutiny will amount to an abdication of Congress’s responsibility to engage in careful consideration of which deals will be stabilizing and which will escalate already volatile situations in the Middle East, North Africa, and beyond.

The bills in question include Rep. Mike Lawler’s (R-N.Y.) “Abraham Accords Defense Against Terror Act,” which would make it easier to rush arms to members of the Abraham Accords. Current members include Morocco, which has long illegally occupied the Western Sahara; Bahrain, which has systematically cracked down on human rights in the wake of the Arab Spring; and the UAE, which has been a destabilizing force in the region, from partnering with Saudi Arabia in its brutal war on Yemen to shipping weapons to the opposition in Sudan, a group that has been charged with widespread war crimes. Lawler’s bill also includes fast tracking arms to Israel, which many independent experts believe to be engaged in a genocide in Gaza. Claims that bringing these repressive, reckless regimes closer together will increase the chances of peace in the region are wishful thinking at best, and a devil’s bargain at worst.

Another bill will increase the threshold at which an arms sale would need to be reported to Congress. Given that transfers below the current threshold have been used to enable countries like Saudi Arabia and Israel to kill civilians with impunity, it makes no sense to raise those thresholds and make it even easier for the executive branch to keep Congress and the public in the dark about controversial sales.

For example, the Washington Post revealed that in the first few months of Israel’s war on Gaza the U.S. made an astonishing 100 arms deals with Tel Aviv that were below the threshold that would have required them to be reported. Increasing thresholds makes it easier for administrations to do an end run around Congress and the public to transfer arms to questionable regimes. It’s a bad idea, and members of Congress who want to align U.S. arms sales with legitimate U.S. security interests should unite to block it.

Given the central role of arms sales in U.S. foreign and security policies and the devastating consequences of rushing weapons to nations engaged in aggression and internal repression, Congress should be increasing its ability to block dubious deals, not hobbling its own oversight role and ability to meaningfully weigh in on pressing U.S. national security matters.


Top image credit: Bill Perry via shutterstock.com
Analysis | Washington Politics
Rand Paul Donald Trump
Top photo credit: Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) (Shutterstock/Mark Reinstein) and President Trump (White House/Molly Riley)

Rand Paul to Trump: Don't 'abandon' MAGA over Maduro regime change

Washington Politics

Sen. Rand Paul said on Friday that “all hell could break loose” within Donald Trump’s MAGA coalition if the president involves the U.S. further in Ukraine, and added that his supporters who voted for him after 20 years of regime change wars would "feel abandoned" if he went to war and tried to topple Nicolas Maduro, too.

President Trump has been getting criticism from some of his supporters for vowing to release the files of the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and then reneging on that promise. Paul said that the Epstein heat Trump is getting from MAGA will be nothing compared to if he refuses to live up to his “America First” foreign policy promises.

keep readingShow less
Trump ASEAN
Top photo credit: U.S. President Donald Trump looks at Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., next to Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim when posing for a family photo with leaders at the ASEAN Summit in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, October 26, 2025. Vincent Thian/Pool via REUTERS

‘America First’ meets ‘ASEAN Way’ in Kuala Lumpur

Asia-Pacific

The 2025 ASEAN and East Asia Summits in Kuala Lumpur beginning today are set to be consequential multilateral gatherings — defining not only ASEAN’s internal cohesion but also the shape of U.S.–China relations in the Indo-Pacific.

President Donald Trump’s participation will be the first by a U.S. president in an ASEAN-led summit since 2022. President Biden skipped the last two such summits in 2023 and 2024, sending then-Vice President Harris instead.

keep readingShow less
iran, china, russia
Top photo credit: Top image credit: Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov and and Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi shake hands as Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Ma Zhaoxu looks on during their meet with reporters after their meeting at Diaoyutai State Guest House on March 14, 2025 in Beijing, China. Lintao Zhang/Pool via REUTERS

'Annulled'! Russia won't abide snapback sanctions on Iran

Middle East

“A raider attack on the U.N. Security Council.” This was the explosive accusation leveled by Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov this week. His target was the U.N. Secretariat and Western powers, whom he blamed for what Russia sees as an illegitimate attempt to restore the nuclear-related international sanctions on Iran.

Beyond the fiery rhetoric, Ryabkov’s statement contained a message: Russia, he said, now considers all pre-2015 U.N. sanctions on Iran, snapped back by the European signatories of the 2015 nuclear deal (JCPOA) — the United Kingdom, France, Germany — “annulled.” Moscow will deepen its military-technical cooperation with Tehran accordingly, according to Ryabkov.

This is more than a diplomatic spat; it is the formal announcement of a split in international legal reality. The world’s major powers are now operating under two irreconcilable interpretations of international law. On one side, the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and Germany assert that the sanctions snapback mechanism of the JCPOA was legitimately triggered for Iran’s alleged violations. On the other, Iran, Russia, and China reject this as an illegitimate procedural act.

This schism was not inevitable, and its origin reveals a profound incongruence. The Western powers that most frequently appeal to the sanctity of the "rules-based international order" and international law have, in this instance, taken an action whose effects fundamentally undermine it. By pushing through a legal maneuver that a significant part of the Security Council considers illegitimate, they have ushered the world into a new and more dangerous state. The predictable, if imperfect, framework of universally recognized Security Council decisions is being replaced by a system where legal facts are determined by political interests espoused by competing power blocs.

This rupture followed a deliberate Western choice to reject compromises in a stand-off with Iran. While Iran was in a technical violation of the provisions of the JCPOA — by, notably, amassing a stockpile of highly enriched uranium (up to 60% as opposed to the 3.67% for a civilian use permissible under the JCPOA), there was a chance to avert the crisis. In the critical weeks leading to the snapback, Iran had signaled concessions in talks with the International Atomic Energy Agency in Cairo, in terms of renewing cooperation with the U.N. nuclear watchdog’s inspectors.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.