As citizens clamored the streets of Colombia in protest of a tax reform, police brutality, and longstanding inequality, the country responded by suppressing protests with grenade launchers sourced from the United States. One year later, a Saudi-led coalition killed at least 80 civilians in Yemen using American precision-guided munition. Another year later, a Nigerian drone strike hit its own civilians once, then twice, with American bombs. 

American exportation of arms dominates the global market at 40% of all arms exports, compared to Russia’s 16%, France’s 11%, and China’s 5.2%. In 2023, the country reported a record $238 billion in arms revenue, a 16% increase from the previous year. This overwhelming plurality of the global market provides the United States a uniquely strong bargaining position within arms trade markets. While this power should be used to uphold international law and protect civilians, there is little indication that the United States is willing or able to do so. Language hiding within the Senate’s bipartisan border deal threatens to further disempower human rights standards.

Currently, under the Arms Export Control Act (AECA), the president is required to notify Congress of transfers of arms for sales of defense equipment totaling $14 million or more or services valued at $50 million or more. These standards change for certain countries of which Congress must only be notified for sales of $25 million or more in defense equipment and $100 million for defense services. Of course, the executive branch may easily bypass even these rules by making multiple, smaller transfers. The Department of Defense and the Commerce Department, which have the combined authority to train and equip foreign security forces and export older-generation military equipment and certain small arms, are not required to notify Congress of their exportation of arms to countries with consistent violations of human rights.

As the leader in arms exports, the United States has an immediate obligation to improve the state of its arms exportation regulation. Yet, American aid in Israel’s warfare in Gaza illuminates substandard regulatory procedures that result in American weapons being used for flagrant violations of international law and human rights. On two occasions, President Biden has entirely bypassed congressional review of weapons transfer and sent over $250 million worth of weapons to Israel due to the AECA, which allows for immediate arms transfers under emergency situations. Through a provision in the bipartisan Senate border deal, he is now seeking to expedite any and all arms sales to Israel without the need to even notify Congress. With this provision on the Senate floor, congressional oversight of arms regulation–and, by extension, public oversight of arms regulation–hangs in the balance. 

There is reason to worry about the deregulation of arms transfers to Israel. When an arms deal is presented before Congress, the bill is subjected to a number of human rights considerations, including whether or not the weapons would be used for violations of international law or the United Nations Charter. Weapons must be understood to be used primarily in self-defense, which by customary international law must be “necessary and proportional to the threat faced.” Israel’s actions have not met this standard: in response to the deaths of about 1,200 and hostage-taking of about 250 Israelis, the country unleashed a counterattack resulting in the deaths of over 25,000 Palestinians, with two-thirds of the dead being women and minors as of January 21st. Now under investigations for war crimes and committing “plausible” genocide, Israel has consistently proved unwilling to comply with international law. This military response is not necessary, nor proportional. By avoiding congressional review, President Biden is able to provide weapons to Israel while  avoiding confrontation with these human rights standards. 

Congress should strike the provision within the Senate bill that would allow the executive branch unfettered, unregulated access to providing weapons to a country under investigation of violating international laws of war. Using Section 502B of the Foreign Assistance Act, Congress should also request a report from the Secretary of State on the state of human rights within Israel and its occupied territories.

The story of American aid in human rights violations did not begin with Israel, nor with Colombia, nor with Yemen, nor with Nigeria. All of these attacks, sourced from American weapons, obligate a deep investigation into the motivations for and regulation of arms transfer. While a much greater reform into the arms transfer process is needed, it is immediately necessary to prevent further harm from being done by deregulation and substandard human rights provisions. If deregulation of arms transfer continues, the United States will be only more complicit in the violation of international law and human rights.