Trump’s Massive Saudi Arms Sale Was All Sizzle And No Substance

“It’s fake news… The numbers don’t add up.”

President Donald Trump and King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud of Saudi Arabia sign a "joint strategic vision" agreement in May

President Donald Trump and King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud of Saudi Arabia sign a "joint strategic vision" agreement in MayThe White House

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

In mid-May, President Donald Trump announced that he’d applied his legendary dealmaking skills to close one of the largest arms sales in history. His administration hyped the $110 billion deal to supply Saudi Arabia with American-made ships, planes, bombs, and other military as an diplomatic and economic success. White House spokesman Sean Spicer claimed the weapons sale and other investment deals with the Saudis would create employment for hundreds of thousands of Americans:

During his subsequent visit to the Middle Eastern kingdom, Trump and King Salman bin Abd al-Aziz Al Saud participated in an signing ceremony in that seemed to seal the deal.

Now it seems that the weapons trade—like so many Trump “wins”—is not what it seems. In a blistering assessment of the deal, Bruce Reidel, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, writes, “It’s fake news”:

I’ve spoken to contacts in the defense business and on the Hill, and all of them say the same thing: There is no $110 billion deal. Instead, there are a bunch of letters of interest or intent, but not contracts. Many are offers that the defense industry thinks the Saudis will be interested in someday. So far nothing has been notified to the Senate for review. The Defense Security Cooperation Agency, the arms sales wing of the Pentagon, calls them “intended sales.” None of the deals identified so far are new, all began in the Obama administration.

A recent analysis by the New York Times also concludes that “Mr. Trump’s figures are inflated and premature.”

A look at the fine print shows that the smaller deals that make up the supposed $110 billion arms package are “intended sales” that have not been finalized. As the Pentagon itself notes, actual arms sales will occur only after the “normal” review process, which includes officially notifying Congress. Additionally, the Times reports, the administration appears to have double counted its proposed arms deals in its tally of new Saudi investments in American companies. And Reidel says it’s not clear that Saudi Arabia can actually afford $110 billion in weapons, “due to low oil prices and the two-plus years old war in Yemen.”

Some analysts noted that the Saudi arms deal was too good to be true when it was first announced. “Where are they gonna get $100 billion worth of stuff to sell? I don’t see where it is going to come from—are we going to ship our whole Navy over there?” William Hartung, director of the Arms and Security Project at the Center for International Policy, told Mother Jones in May. Hartung also predicted that the deal might prove as illusory as Trump’s other headline-grabbing stunts: “It seems like part of this is: Trump just likes big numbers. It’s like when he claims credit for jobs he didn’t really help create.”

Sure enough, the White House’s claims that the arms deal will generate thousands of US jobs aren’t holding up. When the Washington Post contacted American weapons makers, none would—or could—say if they would hire more people to supply the Saudis:

A spokesman for Raytheon, one of the companies that along with Lockheed Martin, Boeing and General Dynamics signed memorandums of understanding with Saudi Arabia as part of the deal, was unable to even speculate as to whether or how many jobs the arms package will add. […]

Lockheed Martin’s chief executive said in a statement that the deal would “support” thousands of jobs in the United States and Saudi Arabia. Boeing said the deal would “create or sustain” jobs in both countries. Neither company would put a specific number on new jobs being created in the United States.

Reidel concludes that the whole thing was an exercise in wishful thinking: “What the Saudis and the administration did is put together a notional package of the Saudi wish list of possible deals and portray that as a deal. Even then the numbers don’t add up.” Yet again, the shine has quickly rubbed off of a gold-plated Trump deal.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate