Trump Pulls Out of Treaty Designed to Stop Arms Sales to Terrorists

“This is insane.”

Scott Olson/Getty Images

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

Donald Trump said Friday he would remove the United States from a global arms treaty, the latest example of his administration’s disdain for international agreements and restrictions on weapons sales. His pledge to abandon the “badly misguided” Arms Trade Treaty, which restricts the transfer of weapons to terrorists and other malicious actors outside of the country, drew a standing ovation at the annual National Rifle Association meeting in Indianapolis, where Trump was speaking. 

“We will never allow foreign bureaucrats to trample on your Second Amendment freedoms,” he said. “I hope you’re happy.” 

Quite a few people were unhappy with Trump’s decision, which he announced less than three months after removing the United States from a Reagan-era arms control treaty with Russia. The Arms Trade Treaty was signed by Secretary of State John Kerry in 2013 with overwhelming support from the international community. Only three countries—Iran, North Korea, and Syria—opposed it. 

“THIS IS INSANE,” Alexandra Bell, a former State Department official, said on Twitter. “The whole point of the Arms Trade Treaty is to get the rest of the world to follow American principles on how and when to sell arms. We are pulling out of a treaty that is based on American values.”

On a call with reporters after Trump’s speech, a senior administration official defended the move as a way to shore up the Second Amendment rights of Americans while preserving the ability for the US military to counter China and Russia, two countries that abstained from the treaty and that Washington views as strategic competitors. “This treaty imposes risks but no gains,” the official said. Left unsaid was how ecstatic the pull-out made the NRA, whose leadership has enthusiastically backed Trump and spent millions on his behalf in 2016. The gun rights organization was one of the treaty’s fiercest critics when it was being debated at the United Nations; the group warned that domestic sales of civilian weapons would be affected. Human rights advocates have generally dismissed that fear. 

“It’s a complete myth that this treaty has any effect on an American’s access to firearms,” Daryl G. Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association in Washington, told Mother Jones. “The Arms Trade Treaty sets requirements for all states to have standards and regulations regarding the import and export of conventional arms consistent with their constitutional laws.”

Among the Trump administration’s stated concerns with the treaty was the possibility that, over time, these standards would become more stringent in a way that disadvantaged the United States at the expense of its rivals. “The ATT is, in effect, an escalator: Once you step onto it, you are no longer in control of your direction of travel,” Theodore Bromund, a senior fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation, wrote in a piece last year advocating for Trump to un-sign the treaty. 

Defenders of the agreement note that, by not participating in the treaty, the US effectively yields its influence in pressuring other states to toughen their arms export standards. “We have effectively removed ourselves from the global conversation about conventional arms transfer,” Kimball said. “That’s clearly not in our interest.”

Unshackling the United States from international agreements has long been a primary goal for John Bolton, the president’s increasingly empowered national security adviser, who once said he “felt like a kid on Christmas Day” when as a George W. Bush administration official he ensured the US would not join the International Criminal Court.

Since joining Trump’s staff last March, Bolton has played a crucial role in sinking the Iran nuclear deal and the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces treaty. Evidently no fan of multilateral governance himself, Trump famously withdrew the Paris climate agreement and removed the United States from the UN Human Rights Council. 

“The President’s action today is yet another mistaken step that threatens to make the world less safe, rather than more secure,” Thomas Countryman, the lead US negotiator on the Arms Trade Treaty, said in a statement. “It is sad, but to be expected, that this president opposes efforts to require other countries to meet the high standards of US military export decisions.”

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