Trump administration facing legal action over ‘rushed’ sale of arms to UAE

Exclusive: Lawsuit claims the US ‘rushed a review process that normally takes years, to authorize and finalize a sale of roughly $23 billion worth of the most technologically advanced weapons in the world’

Donald Trump has come under criticism for forcing through the last-minute deal before Joe Biden takes over (Getty Images)

The Trump administration is facing legal action over the “rushed” sale of $23bn (£17bn) worth of arms to the United Arab Emirates, amid concern the weapons could be used indiscriminately in the ongoing Yemen civil war.

After the US Senate defeated efforts to block the transfer of advanced fighter jets, drones and munitions to the UAE, the New York Center for Foreign Policy Affairs (NYCFPA) has decided to file a lawsuit against the Department of State and secretary Mike Pompeo.

In a submission to be made to the US District Court for the District of Columbia on 30 December, and seen by The Independent, the NYCFPA claims that the sale “fails to meet the most basic requirements under the law” and should be deemed “invalid”.

“In just a few months, the Department rushed a review process that normally takes years, to authorize and finalise a sale of roughly $23bn worth of the most technologically advanced weapons in the world,” the document reads.

The constitution gives the sitting president major powers to conduct foreign policy and national security matters. However, US law also requires congressional review of major arms deals that have been secured by the White House. These sales need to be blocked by a two-thirds majority in the Senate and House of Representatives to overcome a presidential veto. 

Typically, certain factors must be taken into consideration when authorising a sale of this kind, including its impact on world peace and US security. The Department of State is also expected to provide a clear explanation for its decision making and address any change in foreign policy that is connected to these deals, according to the Administrative Procedures Act.

The NYCFPA claims the government failed to dedicate enough time to the review process and has not provided suitable evidence that justifies the sale of arms to the Emirates.

Instead, the think tank argues, the deal risks disturbing Middle East relations and could jeopardise America’s own security if the weapons fall into the hands of its enemies.

The Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT) said the arms sale was “dangerous” and “will provide political support for the Emirate dictatorship, while fuelling tensions in the region and the brutal bombardment of Yemen.”

The Trump administration first told Congress on 10 November that it had approved the sale to the UAE of weapons made by General Atomics, Lockheed Martin Corp and Raytheon Technologies Corp.

Congress was given a month to consider the deal and, on 9 December, voted narrowly against two resolutions that sought to invalidate it.

The sale includes 50 F-35 jets, one of the world’s most advanced fighter planes, more than 14,000 bombs and munitions, and would be the second-largest sale of US drones to a single country.

The White House said the deal directly supports US foreign policy and national security objectives by “enabling the UAE to deter increasing Iranian aggressive behaviour and threats” in the wake of its recent deal with Israel.

In its court submission, the NYCFPA says that “this threadbare, conclusory explanation … cannot be seen as ‘a reasoned explanation’.”

“Widespread and publicly available evidence suggests that the weapons being sold will be used in direct contravention of world peace and US security, as well as prior US policy,” the document adds.

It claims the sale of F-35 fighter jets and drones to the UAE is the first of its kind in the Middle East, and represents “a change in policy” for the US, “which has previously declined to authorise such sales due to concerns over the technology or weapons themselves ending up in the wrong hands”.

According to the lawsuit, one senior State official said that the department “has not received the necessary assurances from the UAE to address concerns regarding the security of US weapons technology.”

It highlighted that top members of the committees for Senate Foreign Relations and Senate Armed Forces, including Robert Menendez and Jack Reed, have “decried the authorization process for the sale as incomplete”.

Both senators have criticised the Department of State over its “recklessly accelerated timeline,” arguing that the Trump administration has ignored “long-standing, deliberative, internal US processes” in order to “meet a political deadline”.

The lawsuit says that the US government has “violated” the law by “making an arbitrary and capricious decision to authorize the sale of weapons to the UAE”, and calls for the deal to be rescinded.

Critics have warned that the weapons will lead to an arms race in the Middle East and be used in current conflicts in Yemen and Libya, undermining any inference that the sale promotes world peace.

A report issued only last month by the Pentagon’s inspector general for counterterrorism operations in Africa noted that the Department of State had failed to adequately consider the effect of the deal on civilian causalities in Yemen.

The UAE has been criticised for its involvement in a Saudi-led coalition that has conducted air campaigns in Yemen as part of the country’s ongoing civil war, resulting in the deaths of civilians. The conflict has been described by the United Nations as “the largest humanitarian crisis in the world.”

The inspector general’s report also found that the UAE is helping to finance the Russian mercenary group Wagner in Libya, raising further fears over the Emirates arms deal.

Seth Binder, an advocacy officer at the Project on Middle East Democracy, said that the sale of weapons to the UAE amounted to an “endorsement” of the country’s actions and policies within the region.

The lawsuit added that there had been “no indication the Department of State adequately considered US national security, given the widespread concerns that” the weapons will be transferred beyond the UAE to American adversaries.

Democratic senator Chris Murphy highlighted that the UAE has violated past arms sales agreements, with US weapons ending up in the arms of dangerous militia groups.

Earlier this month, he said the sale had been forced through after Joe Biden was elected as president back in November.

“Re the UAE arms sale, the normal process allows the Foreign Relations Committee time to review and ask questions about major arms sales,” he tweeted on 8 December.

“But after Trump lost, he needed to jam the sale before Biden took office to tie Biden’s hands. So he just ignored the process. Unprecedented.”

NYCFPA, which will announce its court case on Wednesday, said it was “possibly precedent setting as very few, if any, other organisation such as ours have challenged the state department and the US government on foreign military sales such as this.

“We are excited to be taking on such a case and possibly setting the groundwork for the cancellation of the sale of F-35s to the UAE.”

Attempts to block the sale in the Senate at the start of the month failed, with two resolutions against the deal falling short by two and four votes respectively.

Mr Biden has repeatedly condemned US arms sales to Saudi Arabia and White House support for the war in Yemen. He is expected to review the deal after being sworn into office next month.

Mr Menendez argued a deal of this scale risked bringing further instability to the region.

“If we really want to talk about countering Iran, we need a comprehensive diplomatic strategy,” he said. “Arming partners with complex weapon systems that could take years – years – to come online, isn’t a serious strategy to confront the very real and timely threats from Iran.”

CAAT said it would be following the legal challenge raised by NYCFPA “very closely”.

“In the UK, the Court of Appeal set an important precedent in halting the flow of new arms sales from the UK,” spokesperson Andrew Smith told The Independent. “If that precedent is built on internationally then it could make a major difference.

“This war [in Yemen] is only possible because of the political and military support from the US and other arms dealing governments.

“Historically, Democrats have been just as hypocritical and hawkish as Republicans. However, Joe Biden has criticised these arms sales in the past and promised to stop them. If he lives up to his word and ends US support then it could be a crucial step in ending the conflict.”

The Independent has approached the US Department of State for comment.