On paper, the guidelines governing the export of U.S. weapons are straightforward. Partner governments that receive these arms commit to three key principles: they will use the weapons solely for authorized purposes, ensure their security, and refrain from transferring them to third parties. However, a recent report from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) reveals a troubling reality: the mechanisms designed to enforce these commitments are inconsistent and lack the necessary rigor.
The State Department is mandated to investigate any violations of these conditions and, in many cases, to notify Congress. Yet, the GAO report highlights a significant gap in this process. Since 2019, the Pentagon has flagged over 150 potential violations, yet the State Department has reported only three to Congress. This discrepancy raises serious concerns about the effectiveness of oversight in U.S. arms sales, particularly given the current global volatility.
Kathi Lynn Austin, executive director of the Conflict Awareness Project, expressed her alarm at these findings, stating, “We are violating our law and not protecting our own security — at a time when there is so much volatility in the world.” Her sentiment echoes a growing concern among experts in arms trafficking and conflict monitoring, who argue that the lack of transparency and accountability in U.S. arms dealings poses a threat not only to national security but also to global stability.
The GAO’s report, which went largely unnoticed upon its release, underscores a fundamental mismatch in the reporting structure. Defense personnel stationed abroad are often the first to identify potential violations, yet they receive little guidance from the State Department on what constitutes a reportable incident. This lack of clarity means that many significant cases may slip through the cracks, never receiving the scrutiny they require.
The Arms Export Control Act mandates that Congress be notified when there is credible information suggesting a substantial violation regarding the purpose, transfer, or security of U.S. weapons. Despite this low threshold for reporting, the GAO found no formal procedures within the State Department for documenting or sharing decision-making processes related to potential violations. The absence of clear guidelines has left the State Department reliant on the discretion of military officials, who must use their “professional judgment” to determine what merits further investigation.
This ambiguity is particularly concerning given the potential consequences of unregulated arms transfers. U.S.-made weapons have been linked to illicit activities worldwide, from fueling regional conflicts to empowering criminal organizations. For instance, in Afghanistan, a significant amount of U.S.-supplied arms has found its way into black markets, exacerbating violence and instability. Similarly, a recent investigation revealed that U.S.-manufactured ammunition was used in violent cartel confrontations in Mexico, raising alarms about the domestic implications of foreign arms sales.
Brandon Philips, a public affairs professor at California State University, East Bay, emphasizes the risks posed to American citizens, stating, “The biggest concern for the average American citizen is the potential for these arms to be used against us.” As the U.S. grapples with its international reputation, the failure to monitor and report on arms misuse undermines efforts to foster trust and cooperation with other nations.
The GAO report also highlights the need for robust tracking systems to prevent arms from falling into the wrong hands. In Ukraine, for example, initial Pentagon reviews identified shortcomings in monitoring sensitive items amid ongoing conflict. However, subsequent evaluations showed marked improvements as the U.S. implemented enhanced end-use monitoring and increased staffing. This experience underscores the importance of sustained oversight, particularly in regions where arms flows are difficult to control.
Despite the existence of systems designed to vet buyers and monitor end-use, the GAO found that these programs often operate in silos, lacking the necessary integration to ensure effective oversight. John Lindsay-Poland, coordinator of the nonprofit Stop U.S. Arms to Mexico, pointed out that the report reflects systemic issues that transcend individual administrations, indicating a persistent neglect of the implications of arms sales on global security.
As the U.S. navigates complex geopolitical landscapes, the stakes surrounding arms exports have never been higher. The recent GAO findings come at a critical juncture, particularly in light of the Biden administration’s efforts to assess whether partner nations are using U.S. arms in compliance with international humanitarian law. However, the rollback of these policies in early 2025 raises questions about the commitment to accountability in arms dealings.
The ongoing conflict in Gaza serves as a poignant example of the urgent need for a functioning end-use monitoring system. Reports of U.S.-supplied munitions being used in ways that violate international law have sparked outrage among human rights advocates, who demand greater oversight and accountability. Jeff Abramson, a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy, warns that the failure to monitor and report on arms misuse can undermine U.S. foreign policy, making it difficult to build diplomatic relationships.
In conclusion, the GAO report sheds light on a critical oversight gap in U.S. arms exports, highlighting the urgent need for reform. Without clear guidelines and consistent enforcement, Congress will remain in the dark regarding the
