President Joe Biden’s administration just released its Conventional Arms Transfer policy, which dictates who can buy U.S. weapons and how the arms transfers process should function. These policies come directly from the White House; former President Donald Trump issued the last Conventional Arms Transfer policy in 2018, which was primarily focused on the economic benefits from weapons transfers.

The Biden administration’s Conventional Arms Transfer policy makes two notable changes. First, it adds text about norms and human rights. Specifically, it notes that the U.S. should “prevent arms transfers that risk facilitating or otherwise contributing to violations of human rights or international humanitarian law.”

Secondly, while the previous Conventional Arms Transfer policy would only stop transfers if the State Department had “actual knowledge” these weapons would be used to violate human rights, the new policy says the State Department can stop sales if it determines U.S. arms will “more likely than not” be used to violate human rights. This, therefore, lowers the standard required before the State Department can intervene to stop a problematic sale.

Overall, it is good to see the Biden administration is analyzing risks of U.S. weapons being used to violate human rights. With that said, up until this point, the Biden administration has a mixed record on this issue. They have sent billions of dollars’ worth of weapons to human rights abusers like Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, and Turkey.

To promote debate and help improve U.S. decision making about arms sales, I have worked alongside other Cato scholars to create the Arms Sales Risk Index. This index measures the factors linked to negative outcomes of arms sales, such as dispersion, diversion, and the misuse of weapons by recipients. The index provides a way to assess the risk involved with selling arms to another nation.

The average risk score of countries that purchased more than $1 billion in U.S. weapons since 2009 is 43, and states that rank in the top quartile of the risk index – or, in other words, the riskiest customers – play a prominent role in lowering the score. Out of these countries, the Biden administration has delivered over $100 million in weapons over the last two years to the following nations:

• Saudi Arabia (risk score of 73, over $26 billion in weapons received since 2009)
• The United Arab Emirates (risk score of 57, over $10 billion in weapons received since 2009)
• Egypt (risk score of 73, over $8.5 billion in weapons received since 2009)
• Turkey (risk score of 74, over $5.4 in weapons received since 2009)
• Pakistan (risk score of 69, over $3.6 billion in weapons received since 2009
• India (risk score of 57, over $2.6 billion in weapons received since 2009)
• Colombia (risk score of 55, over $1.9 billion in weapons received since 2009)
• Afghanistan (risk score of 92, over $1.2 billion in weapons received since 2009).

Given these high numbers, one hopes that the Biden administration is serious about removing risks in arms transfers. Transferring U.S. weapons without considering the risks can create human rights violations abroad and security threats to the United States. Reducing risk in weapons sales is necessary, as current policy has resulted in U.S. weapons being used by drug lords in Latin America, terrorists in the Middle East, and partners hoping to draw America into wars, like Saudi Arabia in Yemen.

Nonetheless, the Biden administration’s previous transfers raise questions about their commitment to avoiding risk. Biden’s Conventional Arms Transfer policy could be the first step forward, but it requires the administration to match rhetoric with action. As I wrote about this policy in November 2021, “changing the Conventional Arms Transfer policy to avoid America’s current contributions to human rights abuses and hostile actors will make the United States more secure and the world safer.” Unfortunately, policy change is harder than policy pronouncements, and the Biden administration needs to show that it can avoid risks from U.S. arms transfers.