U.S. Arms Sales Lack Oversight, Fueling Global Security Risks, Watchdog Finds
A new Government Accountability Office (GAO) report reveals a deeply flawed system for tracking U.S. weapons sold overseas, raising concerns that American-made arms are falling into the wrong hands and undermining both national and international security. Despite clear legal requirements for monitoring the “end-use” of exported weapons – ensuring they are used for authorized purposes and don’t end up in illicit channels – the state Department’s oversight is riddled with inconsistencies and a lack of clear guidance.
The Arms Export Control Act mandates that Congress be notified of ample violations regarding the purpose, transfer, or security of U.S. arms, or of any unauthorized transfers. Though, the GAO report, published in September, found that the State Department has reported a mere three end-use violations to Capitol Hill as 2019, despite the Pentagon flagging over 150 incidents that could represent violations. This discrepancy points to a systemic failure to adequately investigate and report potential misuse of American weaponry.
“It was really shocking to see how far the U.S. had fallen behind,” said Kathi Lynn Austin, executive director of the conflict Awareness Project. “The number of potential incidents flagged was unusual.” Experts warn that this lack of accountability not only violates U.S. law but also jeopardizes national security at a time of heightened global volatility.
The core of the problem, according to the GAO, is a disconnect between the agencies responsible for oversight. Defence Department personnel stationed abroad are often the first to observe potential violations, but the State Department has not provided clear instructions on what constitutes a reportable incident, or established consistent timelines for investigation. In certain specific cases, the GAO found no record that the State Department even decided whether reporting thresholds had been met.
“we are violating our law and not protecting our own security,” Austin emphasized. “We need to understand this is urgent, and Congress needs to push to make changes.” The GAO recommends concrete guidance to the Pentagon, standardizing investigations with defined timelines, and establishing clear procedures for reporting to Congress. Though, the GAO lacks the authority to force these changes, relying rather on voluntary compliance. If these recommendations are not implemented, Congress will remain largely uninformed about the potential negative impacts of U.S.arms sales on national and international security.
The infrastructure for tracking weapons does exist – the state Department vets direct buyers,and the Pentagon has a program for “enhanced end-use monitoring.” But the GAO found a critical lack of coordination between these programs. “The fact that this report is mostly about things that happened during the Biden administration, and the second part of Trump, shows it’s a systemic problem,” said John Lindsay-Poland, coordinator of the nonprofit Stop U.S. Arms to Mexico. “It shows that we are going sell things and not bother.” Lindsay-Poland further noted that the GAO report only covers a fraction of U.S. arms exports, as the majority are commercial sales and small arms.
The timing of the GAO’s report is particularly sensitive, coming amid intense scrutiny of U.S. arms sales to Israel. In 2024, the Biden administration implemented a policy requiring assessments of whether partners in active conflicts were using U.S. arms in accordance with international humanitarian law. A May 2024 report to Congress concluded it was “reasonable to assess” that Israel had used U.S.-provided arms in ways “inconsistent” with international law in some instances, a finding that drew criticism from human rights groups and rejection from Israel. That policy was afterward scrapped in February 2025.
The situation in Gaza underscores the critical need for a functioning end-use system. independent investigators and journalists have documented alleged instances of U.S.-origin munitions being used in strikes against protected sites or in indiscriminate ways.
“around the world,” said Jeff Abramson, a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy, “we are trying to make friends, but when they have seen our weapons being misused it undermines that ability, and makes us seem hypocritical, dangerous.” Failure to monitor and report end-use violations,Abramson argues,can create a diplomatic chokehold for American foreign policy.
