Weapons first: How US arms sales bury human rights under the rubble
5 Min Read
A new research brief by the Quincy Institute highlights how the US government’s pursuit of military primacy continues to override its professed human rights commitments.
-
Protesters gather outside the US embassy in Tunis, Tunisia, on Saturday, April 5, 2025, in support of Palestinians in Gaza and against normalization with "Israel" (AP)
Despite decades of professed commitment to defending human rights, the United States continues to prioritize global weapons sales — even to governments with well-documented abuses — exposing a stark contradiction at the heart of US foreign policy. This contradiction has grown sharper as America clings to military primacy in an increasingly multipolar world, with human rights concerns consistently sidelined in favor of preserving arms deals and strategic influence.
Since the 1970s, US lawmakers have passed legislation aimed at limiting arms transfers to regimes that violate international human rights standards. Yet, in practice, such constraints have rarely been enforced. No congressional vote has ever successfully blocked a major weapons deal, and successive administrations — Democrat and Republican alike — have continued to arm repressive allies under the guise of strategic necessity.
Quincy Institute report exposes US complicity in Gaza atrocities
A new research brief by the Quincy Institute reveals how this long-standing dynamic played out once again since October 7 and the subsequent Israeli genocide in Gaza. Despite mounting evidence of war crimes and violations of both US and international law by Israeli forces, the Biden administration placed no meaningful conditions on the flow of American arms to Tel Aviv. Instead, it expedited additional military support.
The Trump administration, which returned to power after the 2024 election, has since doubled down on this policy — embracing an even more uncritical stance toward Israeli aggression and continuing to position the US as "Israel’s" unshakable defense partner.
This willingness to overlook humanitarian concerns is nothing new. The brief tracks how human rights considerations have been instrumentalized throughout modern US history — used selectively to demonize what the US perceives as adversaries like Iran, Cuba, and DPRK, while ignored in dealings with longstanding allies like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and now, "Israel".
Human rights take back seat to profits, power in US foreign policy
What emerges is a clear pattern: when human rights violations are committed by governments aligned with US military or economic interests, those concerns are swiftly deprioritized. Meanwhile, the defense industry — one of the most powerful lobbying forces in Washington — helps ensure that weapons exports remain a central pillar of American foreign policy, regardless of the moral consequences.
Though defense manufacturing comprises only a small fraction of the American labor market, it wields outsized influence. The industry’s alignment with military primacy has transformed foreign arms sales into a domestic political issue, insulated from public accountability. Successive administrations have conflated US self-interest with the role of being the world’s top weapons exporter — falsely equating arms sales with global leadership.
This conflation persists even when such deals undermine broader American security. By flooding the global market with sophisticated weapons, often in volatile regions, the US may inadvertently fuel the very instability it seeks to contain. Yet, as long as military primacy remains the organizing principle of the US foreign policy, officials will continue to prioritize arms transfers over accountability for rights abuses.
Biden’s Gaza silence highlights US double standard on human rights
The contradiction came into stark relief during the Biden presidency. While Biden framed his support for Ukraine as a defense of democracy and international law, critics pointed to his silence on the Gaza war as evidence of a double standard — one that further eroded America’s already-damaged credibility as an alleged defender of universal human rights.
“In backing Ukrainian sovereignty but ignoring Palestinian suffering, Washington has undermined its moral authority on the global stage,” the brief argues. “The gap between America’s rhetoric and its actions has never been more visible.”
A meaningful shift, the authors contend, would require a fundamental reimagining of US global strategy — one that embraces military restraint over primacy. This would enable Washington to uphold existing legal obligations to suspend arms transfers to human rights abusers and disentangle foreign policy from the profit motives of defense contractors.
Such a shift would not only align American policy with its stated values but would also reduce the number of weapons pouring into fragile regions — lowering the risk of future conflicts. It would also allow the US to redirect resources away from endless militarization and toward pressing domestic needs such as health care, education, and infrastructure.
But as long as weapons sales remain a cornerstone of US global influence — and the military-industrial complex maintains its grip on Congress — the myth that American power promotes human rights will remain just that: a myth.
The brief closes by revisiting a question posed nearly 50 years ago by then-presidential candidate Jimmy Carter: “Can we be both the world’s leading champion of peace and the world’s leading supplier of the weapons of war?”
For now, the US answer seems unchanged: yes — and don’t ask too many questions.
Read next: Trump’s 'You Are DEAD' threat to Gaza 'genocidal': The Intercept
