Lobbyists and U.S. Foreign Arms Sales: Shaping Global Defense Deals-

The United States is the world’s largest exporter of arms, accounting for nearly 40% of global weapons sales. From fighter jets and missile defense systems to armored vehicles and drones, U.S. weapons are sold to allies and strategic partners across the globe.

While the State Department and Pentagon formally manage these sales through the Foreign Military Sales (FMS) and Direct Commercial Sales (DCS) programs, Congress must approve large transactions.

Behind the scenes, lobbyists representing defense contractors, foreign governments, and industry associations play a decisive role in shaping the outcome of these sales.

They do not just promote the economic benefits of arms deals—they actively shape the geopolitical narratives, build coalitions of support in Congress, and fend off opposition based on human rights or regional stability concerns.

1. The Legal and Political Framework of Foreign Arms Sales

Foreign arms sales follow two pathways:

1. Foreign Military Sales (FMS): Government-to-government sales overseen by the Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA).

2. Direct Commercial Sales (DCS): Sales negotiated directly between defense contractors and foreign governments, requiring State Department approval.

In both cases, Congress has the authority to block or condition sales. While vetoes are rare, debates around controversial clients—such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, or Turkey—highlight how lobbying becomes critical in securing approval.

2. Who Are the Lobbyists?

A. Defense Industry Representatives

Companies like Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Raytheon/RTX, General Dynamics, and Northrop Grumman deploy lobbyists to push for international contracts. Winning foreign sales is crucial to sustaining production lines, lowering unit costs, and increasing profits.

B. Foreign Governments

Foreign nations often hire U.S.-based lobbying firms or law firms to make their case in Washington. Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the UAE, and Turkey spend millions annually lobbying Congress and the executive branch to secure arms deals.

C. Trade Associations and Think Tanks

Groups like the Aerospace Industries Association and defense-oriented think tanks often issue reports framing arms sales as essential for alliances, jobs, and national security. Many of these institutions receive funding from defense contractors.

3. Mechanisms of Influence

A. Campaign Contributions

Defense contractors contribute heavily to lawmakers on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the House Foreign Affairs Committee, and the Armed Services Committees. These members directly oversee arms sales. Contributions encourage lawmakers to vote in favor of sales, even when strategic or ethical questions arise.

B. Jobs and Economic Arguments

Lobbyists frame arms sales as job creators for U.S. districts. For example, Boeing will emphasize how an F-15 sale to Qatar supports thousands of jobs in Missouri, while Raytheon highlights how missile exports sustain workers in Arizona. This makes opposition politically costly.

C. Narrative Framing

Lobbyists often tie foreign arms sales to geopolitical imperatives—deterring Iran, countering China, supporting NATO, or maintaining stability in the Middle East. Framing arms sales as strategic necessities overshadows concerns about human rights abuses or regional arms races.

D. Coalition Building

Foreign governments frequently hire former Congressional staffers, retired diplomats, and PR firms to lobby lawmakers. These lobbyists arrange meetings, organize briefings, and sometimes finance trips to partner nations. This builds networks of support that extend beyond simple contract advocacy.

E. Blocking Opposition

When lawmakers introduce resolutions to block controversial sales, lobbyists mobilize rapidly. They pressure undecided members, run local ad campaigns about “job losses,” and coordinate with Pentagon officials to emphasize security risks of blocking sales.

4. High-Profile Examples

A. Saudi Arabia and the Yemen War

• During the Yemen conflict, Congress attempted multiple times to block arms sales to Saudi Arabia, citing civilian casualties.

• Defense contractors like Raytheon and Lockheed Martin, alongside Saudi-funded lobbying firms, lobbied aggressively to protect deals.

• Despite bipartisan resistance, several sales were pushed through, often with the executive branch invoking emergency powers.

B. F-35 Sales to the Middle East

• The U.S. approved the sale of F-35 jets to the UAE following the Abraham Accords.

• Lockheed Martin lobbied heavily, emphasizing both regional deterrence against Iran and the economic benefits of sustaining the F-35 program.

• Opposition raised concerns about regional arms races, but lobbying efforts prevailed.

C. Turkey and the F-16 Debate

• Turkey’s bid for upgraded F-16s has faced resistance due to tensions over NATO and human rights.

• Turkish lobbyists in Washington, backed by industry advocates, continue pushing the sale by framing Turkey as indispensable to NATO.

D. Taiwan Arms Sales

• Sales to Taiwan, including advanced missile systems and aircraft, are politically sensitive given Chinese opposition.

• Lobbyists highlight Taiwan’s role in deterring China and sustaining U.S. defense manufacturing. The bipartisan political benefits of appearing “tough on China” make these sales easier to approve.

5. How Often Does Lobbying Sway Outcomes?

While outright Congressional vetoes of arms sales are rare, the intensity of lobbying directly correlates with approval odds:

• Sales to democracies or NATO allies often sail through with minimal debate.

• Controversial sales to authoritarian regimes rely heavily on lobbying to overcome human rights objections.

• Even when Congress tries to block sales, as with Saudi Arabia, lobbying pressure often ensures deals move forward either through executive action or by watering down restrictions.

6. Consequences of Lobbyist-Driven Arms Sales

A. Human Rights Concerns

Arms sales to regimes accused of repression or war crimes often continue, undermining U.S. claims to prioritize human rights in foreign policy.

B. Regional Arms Races

Lobbyist-driven deals can escalate tensions, as rivals respond by acquiring more advanced systems. This is evident in the Middle East, where U.S. sales to Saudi Arabia and the UAE fuel Iranian military buildups.

C. Distorted Priorities

Rather than aligning with long-term U.S. strategic needs, arms sales often reflect short-term political and economic gains.

D. Entrenchment of the Military-Industrial Complex

Foreign sales help sustain production lines for weapons the Pentagon may no longer need domestically. Lobbyists use foreign buyers as justification to keep programs alive.

7. Transparency Challenges

Although lobbying disclosures are required under U.S. law, foreign influence is often opaque. Nations use intermediary firms, PR agencies, and nonprofits to obscure direct lobbying activity. Similarly, think tank reports funded by foreign or defense industry money can influence debate without clear attribution.

8. Potential Reforms

• Stricter lobbying disclosures for foreign clients and defense firms involved in arms sales.

• Stronger Congressional oversight mechanisms, making it harder for the executive branch to bypass Congress.

• Human rights conditionality, requiring more rigorous review before sales are approved.

• Limits on revolving-door hires, reducing the number of former officials lobbying on behalf of foreign clients.

Lobbyists are central to the U.S. foreign arms sales process. They frame deals as national security imperatives, highlight economic benefits, and build political coalitions to overcome opposition. Their influence helps explain why the U.S. continues to sell billions in arms annually—even to controversial regimes—cementing America’s role as the world’s top arms exporter.

While arms sales undeniably strengthen alliances and sustain the U.S. defense industrial base, the heavy role of lobbyists often tilts decisions toward profit and political gain over human rights or long-term stability. Reforming this system would require rebalancing the power of lobbyists with greater transparency and stronger Congressional oversight.