While Trump Hyped Defense Jobs, Weapons Makers Were Exporting Their Operations Overseas

A new report looks at the growing practice of offshoring American military manufacturing.

President Donald Trump talks with Lockheed Martin CEO Marillyn Hewson at the Made in America Product Showcase at the White House in July 2018.Alex Wong/AP

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

When President Donald Trump tried to justify selling American weapons to Saudi Arabia last year, he claimed that arms sales to the kingdom would create “hundreds of thousands of jobs” and bring “much additional wealth to the United States.” Defense analysts have knocked down his shifting claims that that these deals could create as many as a million jobs. Now a new report finds that not only were Trump’s numbers grossly inflated but that American defense companies are increasingly sending jobs overseas while helping other countries expand their capacity to build weapons systems.

“One of the biggest claims that Trump makes is that this is a huge job creator,” said William Hartung, the director of the Arms and Security Project at the Center for International Policy and a coauthor of the report, in a call with reporters. According to the newly released report, the Trump administration inked $78.8 billion in international arms deals in 2018, a slight drop from the year before. “One of the most interesting things we’ve found is that about 25 percent of the $78.8 billion in deals were for licenses to manufacture US weapons or US weapons’ components overseas—40 licenses worth over $19 billion,” Hartung said.

Agreeing to let countries manufacture American arms has become “a way to close a deal,” Hartung said. “When you’re making a foreign sale, [defense companies] may say, ‘We’ll let you build this thing there if you buy it from us’… It is a substantial practice. It’s one that’s not discussed when President Trump brags about jobs.”

The number and value of licenses granted to manufacture US weapons and weapons components overseas increased by more than 50 percent from 2017 to 2018. In 2018, there were six arms licensing deals with Japan, five with the United Kingdom, three with Israel, and three with South Korea.

Some of these agreements to make American weapons overseas involve “substantial numbers of jobs,” Hartung said.  For example, “if they’re assembling F-35s in Italy and they built a factory for that, it would not only assemble the planes bought by Italy, but the ones going to Europe.” Similarly, engines and completed F-35s will be made in Japan, likely not just for Japan but other Asian countries purchasing the next generation of American jet fighter. “That’s a significant export of jobs just in those two,” says Hartung. 

Even before accounting for the potential of offshoring defense jobs, the total number of jobs provided by arms sales are less than two-tenths of one percent of the US labor force, according to Hartung. A White House statement released in May 2017 when the US signed a major arms deal with Saudi Arabia noted that it would “potentially” support “tens of thousands of new jobs in the United States”—a far cry from as many as 1 million Trump later claimed. But exporting jobs could pose long-term challenges to the arms industry. “In some cases, these deals are actually building up potential competitors,” Hartung says. “It’s not just jobs in the moment, but possibly jobs in the future.”

Beyond the jobs issue, there’s the question of how these US-supplied arms and technologies will be used. The Center for International Policy study also found that while US foreign military arms sales decreased by a few billion dollars in 2018, the value of firearms deals shot up by more than 14 percent to $759 million. Saudi Arabia was the biggest customer, signing deals worth $579 million of machine guns, sniper rifles, and grenade launchers that could be used in its war in Yemen, where it has been accused of indiscriminate killing. 

The UK landed a $2 billion deal to license the production of Paveway bombs, which Hartung notes have been used in the war in Yemen, including the bombing of a school bus, killing 40 children, last year. “Another questionable offer,” the study notes, “was a $22 million deal for handguns to the Philippines, where the military and police have engaged in extrajudicial killings that have left thousands dead and injured.”

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