Biden Administration Arms Sales Review - 2021

Picture
This resource page details developments related to a January 27 announcement by the Biden administration that it was conducting a broad review of arms sales and a February 4 statement by the President that the US was ending some arms sales in relation to the war in Yemen. The narrative below generally follows in chronological order, with most recent updates near the top.

May

On May 19, Senator Warren and 15 other Senators sent a letter to President Biden, with the request that he "leverage all influence and tools available, including the potential impact on pending weapons sales, U.S.-Saudi military cooperation, and U.S.-Saudi ties more broadly, to demand that Saudi Arabia immediately and unconditionally stop the use of blockade tactics" in relation to Yemen (emphasis added -- not in original letter)

On May 5, the Biden administration notified Congress of a possible direct commercial sale of $735 million in precision-guided weapons to Israel, which became controversial as fighting in Israel intensified and the notification became more broadly public around May 17. Members of Congress introduced resolutions of disapproval on May 19 and 20. See separate resource page.

April

On April 29, Democratic Senators Bob Menendez, Tim Kaine, Patrick Leahy, Chris Coons, Dianne Feinstein, Patty Murray, and Brian Schatz in introduced the Safeguarding Human Rights in Arms Exports Act of 2021, which if passed could impact future sales and Congressional oversight of them.

At a hearing April 21, Senator Murphy expressed concerns about UAE and other sales, the same day the House of Representatives passed the Protection of Saudi Dissidents Act by a vote of 350-71(first re-introduced on Feb. 26), which could put limits on sales to Saudi Arabia.

On April 16, Senator Foreign Relations Committee Chair Bob Menendez with Senator Dianne Feinstein introduced the Secure F-35 Exports Act that could impact the sale of F-35s to the UAE (or other countries in the Middle East, aside from Israel). 

On April 13, news broke that the administration had decided to proceed with arms sales to the United Arab Emirates, with details still to be agreed before any delivery would take place--at least a few years from now.  On April 14, House Foreign Affairs Committee Chair Gregory Meeks issued a statement of concern. Relatedly, on April 14, the New York Center for Foreign Policy Affairs amended its complaint on these arms sales, and released a statement about it. See expert commentary below for additional responses.

February

On February 26, after the release of a report on the murder of Jamal Khashoggi, members of the House introduced legislation to stop arms sales to Saudi Arabia. On March 2, 42 organizations included a similar recommendation in a broad reaching response.

On February 25, 41 members of the House, endorsed by many civil society organizations, issued a letter to President Biden asking for clarity on weapons sales to Saudi Arabia and the UAE, expressing their "strong support for your decision to end U.S. participation in offensive operations in the Saudi/UAE-led war in Yemen, as well as related weapons sales..."

On February 11, more than 75 organizations and experts issued a letter detailing $36.5 billion in arms sales and services to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates that they believe should be consider relevant to "offensive operations" and permanently stopped. (See related Foreign Policy exclusive.)

On February 4, President Biden announced the end of "all American support for offensive operations in the war in Yemen, including relevant arms sales." (More information is still needed to clarify what this means for some specific sales, including to the United Arab Emirates, but includes precision guided munitions to Saudi Arabia according to Jake Sullivan during a press conference earlier in the day.)

January

On January 27, Secretary of State Blinken indicated that the State Department was reviewing arms sales, responding to a press question by saying that "Generally speaking when it comes to arms sales, it is typical at the start of an administration to review any – any pending sales, to make sure that what is being considered is something that advances our strategic objectives and advances our foreign policy. So that’s – that’s what we’re doing at this moment.."

This was separately and widely reported as including review of recent controversial arms sales to Saudi Arabia and the UAE:  

  • Saudi Arabia (see resource page) -  3,000 small diameter bombs (GBU-39) for $290 million notified December 29, 2020; and 7,500 precision-guided, air-to-ground munitions valued at $478 million notified a week earlier.
  • United Arab Emirates (see resource page) -  $23+ billion notified in November 2020 for up to 50 F-35 Lightning II aircraft, valued at $10.4 billion; up to 18 MQ-9B Unmanned Aerial Systems, valued at $2.97 billion; a package of air-to-air and air-to-ground munitions, valued at $10 billion; and a revised earlier sale of to add hundreds of Sidewinder missiles. 

Numerous Congressional and civil society leaders have applauded this review and recommended that sales be stopped altogether or conditioned. See resources below, which will be continually updated.

last updated April 30, 2021.

Experts to contact: Kate Kizer, William Hartung, Scott Paul, Annie Shiel, Jeff Abramson, Brittany Benowitz, Elias Yousif, Seth Binder, Jodi Vittori (corruption)

Select Resources

Government (Biden administration)​
Congress​
​Civil Society
EXPERT RESPONSES
Forum on the Arms Trade-listed experts* provided the following public comments on this topic. Please contact experts directly for further comments:  ​
William Hartung Director, Arms and Security Project, Center for International Policy - April 14, 2021
The Biden administration's decision to go ahead with the Trump administration's lame-duck arms package of F-35 combat aircraft, armed drones, and billions of dollars worth of bombs to the UAE contradicts its pledge to make human rights and U.S. security interests the central concerns in deciding which nations to supply with U.S. weaponry.  From its role in the brutal intervention in Yemen, to its violation of the UN arms embargo on opposition forces in Libya, to its severe internal human rights abuses, the UAE should not be receiving U.S. arms sales at this time. Continuing to endorse and enable the UAE's reckless conduct in the Middle East and North Africa will only serve to undermine stability in the region and reduce the prospects for a peaceful resolution of conflicts in the area.
See also "Issue Brief: Transferring Arms To The UAE Is Not In U.S. Security Interests," Center for International Policy, April 15, 2021; 
Jeff Abramson Senior Fellow, Arms Control Association - ​April 14, 2021
The Biden administration needs to be serious about no longer arming abusive regimes, especially those with a track record of misuse of weapons. The decision to continue arming the United Arab Emirates is the wrong one.
Annie Shiel Senior Advisor for U.S. Policy and Advocacy, Center for Civilians in Conflict (CIVIC) - April 14, 2021
Moving forward with these sales undermines President Biden's and Secretary Blinken's commitment to center human rights in foreign policy, betrays the will of the majority of Democrats who voted against the sales in December, and sends a clear signal of impunity for the UAE’s conduct -- including likely violations of international humanitarian law -- that will be heard around the world. Most importantly, it's a slap in the face to victims of conflict in Yemen and beyond.
A. Trevor Thrall   Associate Professor, George Mason University  ||  Senior Fellow, Cato Institute - April 17, 2021
with Jordan Cohen  Emerging Expert    see full Defense One opinion
The Biden administration told Congress on April 13 that it plans to proceed with a $23 billion sale of advanced weaponry to the United Arab Emirates originally approved by the Trump team – including the F-35 advanced joint fighter aircraft. Biden has yet to provide a clear rationale for continuing the sale, but following the previous administration’s logic, advocates believe it will help curb Iran’s ambitions in the Middle East. The reality, however, is that these sales will further entangle the United States and amplify existing conflicts in the troubled region.
See also select comments from experts not listed by the Forum

Abdullah Alaoudh, Research Director for Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates at Democracy for the Arab World Now (DAWN) - April 14, 2021
Fulfilling arms deals with the UAE rewards the Emirati government for war crimes it has committed in Yemen and Libya and for its support for dictators like Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and Egyptian President Abdel-Fatah al-Sisi. It sends a message to dictators around the world that Biden is continuing Trump’s bromance with dictators.
Justin Thomas Russell, Principal Director, New York Center for Foreign Policy Affairs - April 14, 2021 see full press release and related amended legal complaint 
We had hoped that the Biden team would take into account the impact that these weapons could have in the wrong hands. We had hoped that the Biden Administration would have been up front with the global community regarding their reasoning... We had hoped that the Biden Administration would have put the mitigation of the humanitarian crises in Libya and Yemen above starting what could be an arms race in this sensitive region of the world. We had hoped for better things out of the Biden Administration...and now those hopes have been dashed.
Sunjeev Bery, Executive Director, Freedom Forward - April 14, 2021 
President Biden is turning one of Donald Trump's worst decisions on arming dictators into a permanent reality. The UAE monarchy has helped kill thousands of civilians in Yemen and worked to block democracy across the Middle East. The Biden administration decision to allow billions of dollars in arms sales to the UAE dictatorship pours vast amounts of gasoline on the fires set by a regional dictator who should be shunned.
Philippe Nassif, Advocacy Director, Middle East and North Africa, Amnesty International USA - April 14, 2021 see full statement
These are not the actions of a President committed to upholding human rights in the United States and abroad. The startling fact that the Biden administration continues the previous administration’s unflinching support of providing weapons that risk adding to the devastating toll of Yemeni civilians unlawfully killed and injured by United States-made weapons should shake to the core every person who supports human rights.
 Cavan Kharrazian, Progressive Foreign Policy Campaigner,  Demand Progress - April 14, 2021 see full statement
The United Arab Emirates’ appalling track record in Yemen has contributed significantly to the worst humanitarian crisis in the world, and the UAE’s past arm transfers of U.S. equipment to al-Qaeda-linked militias in Yemen and mercenaries in Libya should be a non-starter for any further U.S. weapons sales.
Afrah Nasser, Yemen Researcher, Middle East and North Africa Division, Human Rights Watch, see full article
​Resuming arms sales without first ensuring that the UAE is taking meaningful steps towards accountability for previous unlawful attacks just creates a situation in which those violations could happen again, with no one being held responsible. In resuming these arms sales, the US government once again risks complicity in future violations.
Kate Kizer Policy Director, Win Without War - January 27, 2021
“...Simply freezing these sales and later resuming them would only be a slap in the face to the victims of these two monarchies’ actions in these conflicts. This must be a first step towards real accountability, not only for the repeated violations of international and domestic law, but also for the U.S. alliances with these monarchies that have, thus far, been a blank check for impunity. To fully fulfill his campaign promises, the Biden administration must stop arming unaccountable authoritarian governments for good."  See full statement here.

​*  Inclusion on the Forum on the Arms Trade expert list does not indicate agreement with or endorsement of the opinions of others. Institutional affiliation is indicated for identification purposes only. Please contact experts directly for further comments.