House Committee Rebukes Trump Administration's Emergency Arms Deal

Bipartisan members of the House Foreign Affairs Committee criticized the Trump administration’s emergency decision to sell millions of dollars worth of arms to Saudi Arabia and other Middle East countries, with the committee's top-ranking Democrat promising to explore “every possible avenue” to block the sales.

The arms sales were announced May 24 by the State Department, which used an emergency provision in the Arms Export Control Act to allow the agency to bypass congressional approval and certify 22 arms transfers to Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Jordan. The arms sales are worth about $8.1 billion, the State Department said. The sales are "to deter Iranian aggression and build partner self-defense capacity," according to a statement by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.

Both Democrats and Republicans condemned the decision at a June 12 hearing, questioning the validity of the emergency and saying the administration should have consulted with congress first. “There is no emergency. It’s phony. It’s made up. And it’s an abuse of the law,” said Committee Chairman Rep. Eliot Engel, D-N.Y. “We are not going to permit this to go by without a whimper.” Engel said he is “looking at every possible avenue to stop these transactions before they go forward.”

Engel and Rep. Mike McCaul of Texas, the committee’s top-ranking Republican, said they are working on legislation to tighten export controls on similar arms sales and are considering changing the AECA’s emergency sale provision. “There have been times when international emergencies required expedited sales,” McCaul said, “but the recent use of this emergency authority, in my judgment, was unfortunate.”

McCaul was not the only Republican to express concerns over the administration's decision. While Rep. Scott Perry, R-Pa., said he understood the emergency declaration, several committee members -- including Republicans Reps. Ted Yoho of Florida, Ann Wagner of Missouri and John Curtis of Utah -- said they sided with some of the points raised by Engel and McCaul. “I want to support the administration,” Yoho said, but added that he “questions” the decision. “What guarantees do we have that this equipment won’t get into the hands of radical Islamic terrorists?”

R. Clarke Cooper, the State Department’s assistant secretary for political-military affairs, defended the decision, saying the emergency declaration was necessary to support U.S. partners in the region and counter security threats from Iran. He declined to give specific answers about how the U.S. will ensure end-user checks on the sales or how long it will take to complete each of the 22 arms sales. McCaul said some of the arms won’t be delivered for “over a year,” which he said contradicts the notion of an emergency.

But Cooper said the sales will send a strong message. “It will reassure our partners that we’re still with them,” he said, adding that the weapons will not “fundamentally alter the balance of power” in the region.

Committee members questioned the State Department’s justification for bypassing Congress. “If, as you mentioned, the sales won't alter the military balance of power in the region, why are emergency procedures necessary?” Wagner questioned. Rep. Albio Sires, D-N.J., said he is skeptical the transfer would add significant support to the U.S.’s Middle East partners. “Are the Saudis running out of arms and ammunition that we had to do this as an emergency?” he asked. Rep. Brad Sherman, D-Calif., called the emergency declaration “bogus,” saying a court “in a few years” may decide it was illegitimate. “It appears as if your adversary is Congress and the message is loud and clear,” Sherman said. “You will stretch every statute beyond its breaking point in order to make Congress irrelevant to the decision-making process.”

The hearing was not the first time the administration received backlash from Congress regarding the weapons sales. Seven bipartisan senators announced on June 5 their intentions to block the sale by forcing 22 resolutions of disapproval, saying the administration's move was “unprecedented” and “at odds with longstanding practice and cooperation between the Congress and the executive branch.”