Research Dossier

Gaza, Lebanon, and Middle East arms complicity

US arms transfers and diplomatic actions enabling military operations in Gaza and Lebanon, including ceasefire vetoes and white phosphorus use.

Records
6
Last updated
March 26, 2026
Generated
April 8, 2026
Source
https://trumpswarcrimes.com

This dossier is generated from the public archive at https://trumpswarcrimes.com. Classifications are editorial assessments, not legal determinations. See the full methodology at https://trumpswarcrimes.com/about.

Table of Contents

  1. US Arms Transfers to Israel During ICJ Genocide Proceedings October 7, 2024 · War Crime / Crime Against Humanity
  2. Repeated US Vetoes of UN Security Council Gaza Ceasefire Resolutions June 4, 2025 · Serious Rights Violation
  3. US-Supplied White Phosphorus Used Over Lebanese Civilian Areas October 8, 2023 · War Crime / Crime Against Humanity
  4. 2026 Lebanon War — US Weapons Complicity in Mass Civilian Casualties and White Phosphorus Attacks March 2, 2026 · War Crime / Crime Against Humanity
  5. Emergency Arms Sales to Gulf States: $23 Billion Bypassing Congressional Review February 21, 2025 · Serious Rights Violation
  6. America First Arms Transfer Strategy: Human Rights Safeguards Removed From Weapons Exports February 6, 2026 · Serious Rights Violation
War Crime / Crime Against Humanity Complicity in Genocide Reported record probable Ongoing

US Arms Transfers to Israel During ICJ Genocide Proceedings

Incident: October 7, 2024 · Updated: March 25, 2026

Continued US arms transfers to Israel during ICJ genocide proceedings, including emergency bypasses of Congressional review, combined with active diplomatic defense of Israel at the ICJ, raising serious questions of complicity in genocide under the Genocide Convention.

Key Facts

  • Since October 2023, the US has delivered 90,000 tons of arms to Israel on 800 transport planes and 140 ships, continuing throughout ICJ genocide proceedings.
  • The Trump administration approved 12,000+ thousand-pound bombs via emergency authority in 2026, bypassing Congressional review of the transfer.
  • On March 12, 2026, the US filed an unprecedented declaration of intervention at the ICJ defending Israel against genocide charges brought by South Africa.
  • Multiple UN experts have described the situation in Gaza as genocide, with 92% of housing units, 88% of school buildings, and 68% of road networks damaged.
  • The ICJ found South Africa's genocide claims 'plausible' in its January 2024 provisional measures ruling; arms transfers continued and accelerated after this finding.

Metadata

Victims
Palestinian civilian population in Gaza, including over 45,000 killed as of early 2026 according to Gaza health authorities, with 92% of housing units damaged, 88% of school buildings damaged, and 68% of road networks destroyed
Actors
President Biden (initial transfers), President Trump (escalation and ICJ intervention), Secretary of State Rubio, Department of Defense
International law
Genocide Convention Article III(e) Complicity in genocide; Genocide Convention Article I Obligation to prevent and punish genocide; Geneva Conventions Common Article 1 Obligation to ensure respect for the conventions in all circumstances; Arms Trade Treaty Article 6(3) Prohibition on transfers where knowledge exists they will be used in genocide or Geneva Convention violations; US Leahy Law 22 U.S.C. 2378d Prohibition on assistance to foreign security force units credibly implicated in gross human rights violations; Rome Statute Article 25(3)(c) Aiding, abetting, or otherwise assisting in commission of a crime within ICC jurisdiction
Legal issues
Genocide Convention Articles I and III(e), Common Article 1 of the Geneva Conventions, Arms Trade Treaty Article 6(3), US Leahy Law (22 U.S.C. 2378d), Rome Statute Article 25(3)(c)

Timeline

  1. January 26, 2024 — ICJ issues provisional measures in South Africa v. Israel
    The International Court of Justice ruled that South Africa's genocide claims were plausible and ordered provisional measures requiring Israel to prevent acts of genocide.
  2. October 7, 2024 — Ongoing arms transfers since October 2023
    Since October 7, 2023, the US has delivered 90,000 tons of arms to Israel on approximately 800 transport planes and 140 ships, making the US the primary weapons supplier for Israel's military operations in Gaza.
  3. January 4, 2025 — Biden administration notifies Congress of $8 billion arms sale to Israel
    The outgoing Biden administration notified Congress of a planned $8 billion arms sale to Israel, continuing the pattern of large-scale military assistance during ICJ proceedings.
  4. February 4, 2025 — Human Rights Watch calls for arms suspension
    HRW published a comprehensive report demanding the US suspend arms transfers to end complicity in Israeli abuses, citing violations of US and international law.
  5. January 15, 2026 — Trump administration bypasses Congressional review for 12,000+ bombs
    Using emergency authority, the Trump administration approved the transfer of more than 12,000 thousand-pound bombs to Israel without standard Congressional review procedures.
  6. March 12, 2026 — US files intervention at ICJ defending Israel
    The United States filed a formal declaration of intervention in the ICJ genocide case (South Africa v. Israel), defending Israel against genocide charges. This was an unprecedented step -- the first time the US intervened in a genocide case to defend the accused party.

Analysis

What Happened

Since October 2023, the United States has delivered approximately 90,000 tons of arms to Israel on roughly 800 transport planes and 140 ships, making the US the primary weapons supplier for Israel's military campaign in Gaza. These transfers have continued without interruption despite the International Court of Justice's January 2024 finding that South Africa's genocide claims against Israel were "plausible" and its issuance of provisional measures ordering Israel to prevent acts of genocide.

The transfers have accelerated under the Trump administration. In 2026, the administration used emergency authority to approve the transfer of more than 12,000 thousand-pound bombs to Israel, bypassing standard Congressional review. Earlier, the outgoing Biden administration had notified Congress of a planned $8 billion arms sale in January 2025.

On March 12, 2026, the United States took the unprecedented step of filing a formal declaration of intervention at the ICJ in the genocide case brought by South Africa, actively defending Israel against the charges. This was the first time the United States has intervened in a genocide case to defend the accused party.

Scale of Destruction in Gaza

The arms being transferred have been used in a campaign that has caused extraordinary destruction in Gaza. As of January 2025, publicly available data showed:

  • 92% of housing units in Gaza damaged or destroyed
  • 88% of school buildings damaged or destroyed
  • 68% of road networks damaged
  • Over 45,000 Palestinians killed according to Gaza health authorities
  • Multiple UN experts have described the situation as genocide

Genocide Convention Obligations

The Genocide Convention imposes two distinct obligations on the United States that are directly implicated by the arms transfers:

Article I requires all state parties to "prevent and punish" genocide. The ICJ held in Bosnia v. Serbia (2007) that a state violates this obligation when it has the capacity to influence the situation and fails to use that capacity. As Israel's primary arms supplier, the United States possesses significant leverage and has chosen not to exercise it to prevent the conduct the ICJ has found plausibly genocidal.

Article III(e) criminalizes "complicity in genocide." Providing the weapons used to carry out acts that the ICJ has found plausibly genocidal, with full knowledge of how they are being used, creates substantial exposure under this provision. The continued and accelerating nature of the transfers -- including emergency bypasses of Congressional review -- strengthens the inference of knowledge and intent.

Common Article 1 of the Geneva Conventions

Common Article 1 requires all High Contracting Parties to "ensure respect" for the Geneva Conventions "in all circumstances." This has been interpreted by the ICRC and the ICJ as imposing an affirmative obligation to use available influence to ensure compliance by other parties. Arms transfers that enable violations of the conventions are inconsistent with this obligation.

Arms Trade Treaty and Leahy Law

While the US has not ratified the Arms Trade Treaty, it is a signatory and thus obligated not to defeat the treaty's object and purpose. The treaty prohibits transfers where the state has knowledge the arms will be used in genocide or Geneva Convention violations.

Domestically, the Leahy Law (22 U.S.C. 2378d) prohibits US assistance to foreign security force units where there is credible information of gross human rights violations. Multiple credible reports document such violations by units receiving US arms.

ICC Jurisdiction

Under Rome Statute Article 25(3)(c), aiding, abetting, or otherwise assisting in the commission of a crime within ICC jurisdiction constitutes individual criminal responsibility. ICC jurisdiction over the situation in Palestine was established in 2021. US officials who authorized arms transfers with knowledge of their use in potential war crimes or genocide may face individual criminal liability.

US Intervention at the ICJ

The US declaration of intervention filed March 12, 2026 represents a qualitative escalation of complicity beyond the provision of arms. By actively defending Israel against genocide charges at the world's highest court, the United States has moved from passive enabling to active diplomatic protection of conduct the ICJ has found plausibly genocidal. The Center for Constitutional Rights has argued this constitutes a new form of state complicity that goes beyond prior precedent.

Why This Is Classified Extreme

This incident receives an extreme severity classification because:

  • Active ICJ genocide proceedings: The ICJ has found South Africa's claims plausible and issued provisional measures. Arms transfers continue in defiance of the spirit of those measures.
  • Scale of civilian destruction: The percentage of infrastructure destroyed in Gaza is without modern precedent in such a concentrated area.
  • Emergency bypass of Congressional review: The Trump administration circumvented the normal legislative oversight process to accelerate weapons deliveries, indicating awareness that standard review might block the transfers.
  • Unprecedented ICJ intervention: The US intervened at the ICJ to defend the accused party in a genocide case for the first time in history.
  • Multiple UN expert characterizations: Numerous UN Special Rapporteurs and independent experts have characterized the situation in Gaza as genocide.

International Law Violations

Statute Provision Nature of Violation
Genocide Convention Art. I Obligation to prevent genocide Failure to use available leverage to prevent acts the ICJ found plausibly genocidal
Genocide Convention Art. III(e) Complicity in genocide Providing 90,000 tons of arms used in campaign characterized as genocidal
Geneva Conventions Common Art. 1 Duty to ensure respect Arms transfers enabling documented violations of IHL in Gaza
Arms Trade Treaty Art. 6(3) Prohibition on transfers for genocide Continued transfers despite knowledge of end use
US Leahy Law Prohibition on aid to abusive units Transfers to units credibly implicated in gross human rights violations
Rome Statute Art. 25(3)(c) Individual criminal responsibility for aiding US officials authorizing transfers with knowledge of potential war crimes

Sources (7)

  1. Suspend Arms Transfers to End US Complicity in Israeli Abuses — Human Rights Watch
    https://www.hrw.org/news/2025/02/04/suspend-arms-transfers-end-us-complicity-israeli-abuses
    Archived: https://web.archive.org/web/2026/https://www.hrw.org/news/2025/02/04/suspend-arms-transfers-end-us-complicity-israeli-abuses
  2. Exporting Complicity: US Arms to Israel (UPR Submission) — Center for Constitutional Rights
    https://ccrjustice.org/sites/default/files/attach/2025/04/US%20Arms%20Exports%20to%20Israel%20-%20UPR%20Submission%20Final.pdf
    Archived: https://web.archive.org/web/2026/https://ccrjustice.org/sites/default/files/attach/2025/04/US%20Arms%20Exports%20to%20Israel%20-%20UPR%20Submission%20Final.pdf
  3. Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel) — International Court of Justice
    https://www.icj-cij.org/case/192
    Archived: https://web.archive.org/web/2026/https://www.icj-cij.org/case/192
  4. Building the Case for US Complicity — Center for Constitutional Rights
    https://ccrjustice.org/home/press-center/ccr-news/building-case-us-complicity
    Archived: https://web.archive.org/web/2026/https://ccrjustice.org/home/press-center/ccr-news/building-case-us-complicity
  5. End unfolding genocide or watch it end life in Gaza — OHCHR
    https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/05/end-unfolding-genocide-or-watch-it-end-life-gaza-un-experts-say-states-face
    Archived: https://web.archive.org/web/2026/https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/05/end-unfolding-genocide-or-watch-it-end-life-gaza-un-experts-say-states-face
  6. US Declaration of Intervention at ICJ in South Africa v. Israel — Courthouse News Service
    https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/united-states-declaration-of-intervention-genocide-in-the-gaza-strip-icj.pdf.pdf
    Archived: https://web.archive.org/web/2026/https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/united-states-declaration-of-intervention-genocide-in-the-gaza-strip-icj.pdf.pdf
  7. Enforce the War Crimes Act Against Americans Who Committed Them In Gaza — Center for International Policy
    https://internationalpolicy.org/publications/enforce-the-war-crimes-act-against-americans-who-committed-them-in-gaza/
    Archived: https://web.archive.org/web/2026/https://internationalpolicy.org/publications/enforce-the-war-crimes-act-against-americans-who-committed-them-in-gaza/

Full record: https://trumpswarcrimes.com/incident/gaza-arms-complicity

Serious Rights Violation Foreign Policy & War Official executive action enabling Ongoing

Repeated US Vetoes of UN Security Council Gaza Ceasefire Resolutions

Incident: June 4, 2025 · Updated: March 25, 2026

The US was the sole dissenter blocking Gaza ceasefire resolutions supported by all other Security Council members, while famine and allegations of genocide continued in Gaza. The pattern of vetoes enabled continued military operations with devastating humanitarian consequences.

Key Facts

  • In June 2025, the US cast its sole veto against a resolution demanding 'an immediate, unconditional and permanent ceasefire in Gaza' — the resolution received 14 votes in favor from all other council members.
  • In September 2025, the US vetoed another ceasefire resolution, the sixth such veto, being the only member to not support it. The vote took place at the council's 10,000th meeting, where famine and possible genocide were discussed.
  • US Representative Dorothy Shea described the resolutions as 'unacceptable,' stating the US would not support any measure that fails to condemn Hamas or call for Hamas to disarm.
  • Amnesty International called the sixth veto 'a greenlight for Israel's campaign of annihilation in Gaza.'
  • The vetoes were cast while the International Court of Justice had an ongoing advisory opinion proceeding and the ICC had issued arrest warrants related to the conflict.

Metadata

Victims
Civilians in Gaza, including children, women, and medical workers. As of September 2025, tens of thousands had been killed and millions displaced.
Actors
US delegation to the United Nations, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Trump administration
International law
Geneva Conventions Common Article 1 High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention in all circumstances; Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide Article 1 The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish; Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Article 8 War crimes — intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population; International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Article 6 Right to life — obligation to protect; UN Charter Article 24 Security Council members have primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security
Legal issues
Geneva Conventions Common Article 1, Genocide Convention Article 1, Rome Statute Article 8, ICCPR Article 6, UN Charter Article 24

Timeline

  1. October 18, 2023 — First US veto of Gaza ceasefire resolution
    The US vetoes a Brazil-drafted Security Council resolution calling for humanitarian pauses in the Israel-Gaza conflict to allow aid delivery. The resolution received support from 12 council members, with the UK and Russia abstaining.
  2. December 8, 2023 — Second US veto of Gaza ceasefire resolution
    The US vetoes a UAE-drafted resolution backed by over 90 member states calling for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire in Gaza. The resolution received 13 votes in favor with the UK abstaining; the US was the sole veto.
  3. February 20, 2024 — Third US veto of Gaza ceasefire resolution
    The US vetoes an Algeria-drafted resolution demanding an immediate humanitarian ceasefire in Gaza. Thirteen council members voted in favor and one abstained; the US was again the sole veto.
  4. November 20, 2024 — Fourth US veto of Gaza ceasefire resolution
    US Ambassador Robert Wood vetoes a resolution demanding an unconditional ceasefire, stating the US could not support any ceasefire not tied to the release of hostages held by Hamas. All other 14 council members voted in favor.
  5. June 4, 2025 — Fifth US veto of Gaza ceasefire resolution
    The US casts its sole veto against a draft resolution calling for 'an immediate, unconditional and permanent ceasefire in Gaza,' which received 14 votes in favor from all other Security Council members.
  6. September 18, 2025 — Sixth US veto of Gaza ceasefire resolution
    The US vetoes another Gaza ceasefire resolution at the Security Council's 10,000th meeting. Amnesty International calls it 'a greenlight for Israel's campaign of annihilation.'

Analysis

What Happened

In 2025, the United States vetoed at least two UN Security Council resolutions demanding an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, bringing the total US vetoes on Gaza ceasefires to six. In each case, the US was the sole dissenting vote — all other 14 members of the Security Council voted in favor.

June 2025 Veto

The draft resolution called for "an immediate, unconditional and permanent ceasefire in Gaza." It received 14 votes in favor from all ten elected members and four of the five permanent members. The United States was the sole veto.

September 2025 Veto

The US vetoed another ceasefire resolution at the Security Council's historic 10,000th meeting, where famine and the possibility of genocide in Gaza were discussed. Amnesty International called the veto "a greenlight for Israel's campaign of annihilation in Gaza."

US Representative Dorothy Shea called the resolutions "unacceptable," stating the US would not support any measure that fails to condemn Hamas and does not call for Hamas to disarm and leave Gaza.

  1. Geneva Conventions Common Article 1: The US has an obligation to "ensure respect" for the conventions — blocking ceasefire resolutions while violations are documented is inconsistent with this obligation.
  2. Genocide Convention Article 1: The obligation to prevent genocide requires affirmative action; blocking ceasefire resolutions while genocide allegations are under investigation may constitute failure to prevent.
  3. UN Charter Article 24: Security Council members bear "primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security" — serial vetoes blocking peace measures undermine this responsibility.
  4. ICJ proceedings: The vetoes occurred while the ICJ had ongoing proceedings related to the conflict, and while the ICC had issued arrest warrants.

Why This Is Classified Severe

  • Sole dissenter: The US was the only country blocking consensus ceasefire demands.
  • Enabling role: Each veto enabled continued military operations with documented civilian casualties.
  • Genocide context: The September veto occurred during a meeting where genocide was being discussed.
  • Pattern: Six total vetoes demonstrates a systematic policy of enabling, not an isolated decision.

Sources (6)

  1. US vetoes Security Council resolution demanding permanent ceasefire in Gaza — UN News
    https://news.un.org/en/story/2025/06/1164056
  2. US sixth veto is a greenlight for Israel's campaign of annihilation in Gaza — Amnesty International
    https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2025/09/us-sixth-veto-of-ceasefire-resolution-greenlight-for-israels-campaign-of-annihilation-in-gaza/
  3. Security Council Fails to Adopt Resolution on Gaza Ceasefire — UN Security Council
    https://press.un.org/en/2025/sc16174.doc.htm
  4. US vetoes UN Security Council resolution demanding Gaza ceasefire — CNN
    https://www.cnn.com/2025/06/04/middleeast/us-vetoes-un-security-council-gaza-ceasefire-latam-intl
  5. US blocks UN Security Council resolution calling for a ceasefire in Gaza — JURIST
    https://www.jurist.org/news/2025/09/us-blocks-un-security-council-resolution-calling-for-a-ceasefire-in-gaza/
  6. Veto of the United Nations Security Council Resolution on Gaza — US State Department
    https://www.state.gov/releases/office-of-the-spokesperson/2025/06/veto-of-the-united-nations-security-council-resolution-on-gaza

Full record: https://trumpswarcrimes.com/incident/gaza-ceasefire-vetoes

War Crime / Crime Against Humanity Complicity in Genocide Reported record probable Ongoing

US-Supplied White Phosphorus Used Over Lebanese Civilian Areas

Incident: October 8, 2023 · Updated: March 25, 2026

Israel deployed US-supplied white phosphorus over Lebanese civilian areas in 191 attacks across 17+ municipalities since October 2023, continuing through March 2026. HRW verified the attacks as unlawfully indiscriminate and called for suspension of US arms transfers.

Key Facts

  • Over 918 hectares hit across 191 white phosphorus attacks in southern Lebanon since October 2023, with 39% striking directly over civilian areas and only 44% in uninhabited zones.
  • HRW verified the March 3, 2026 use of airburst white phosphorus over residential homes in Yohmor, classifying it as unlawfully indiscriminate under international humanitarian law.
  • US-supplied white phosphorus munitions were confirmed used in attacks on Lebanese border villages including Dhayra, documented by both Amnesty International and the Washington Post.
  • HRW called on states providing Israel with weapons, including the United States, to immediately suspend military assistance and arms sales, citing complicity in unlawful attacks.
  • The continued supply of white phosphorus munitions despite documented unlawful use creates state responsibility for the US under the Arms Trade Treaty and complicity doctrines.

Metadata

Victims
Lebanese civilians in at least 17 municipalities across southern Lebanon, including the towns of Yohmor, Dhayra, Aita al-Chaab, and al-Mari. White phosphorus causes severe burns, respiratory damage, and persistent contamination. Civil defense workers responding to fires are also at risk.
Actors
Israeli military (direct use of white phosphorus munitions), United States (supply of white phosphorus munitions and continued arms transfers despite documented unlawful use)
International law
Protocol III to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons Article 2 Prohibition on making civilians the object of attack by incendiary weapons, and on using air-delivered incendiary weapons against military targets within concentrations of civilians; Geneva Conventions Additional Protocol I, Article 51 Prohibition on indiscriminate attacks that are not directed at a specific military objective; Geneva Conventions Additional Protocol I, Article 35 Prohibition on methods or means of warfare which cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering; Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Article 8(2)(b)(xx) War crime: employing weapons, projectiles, material and methods of warfare which cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering; Arms Trade Treaty Article 6 States shall not authorize transfer of arms if they have knowledge the arms would be used in attacks directed against civilians or civilian objects
Legal issues
CCW Protocol III (incendiary weapons), Additional Protocol I Articles 35 and 51 (indiscriminate attacks, superfluous injury), Rome Statute Article 8(2)(b)(xx) (war crimes), Arms Trade Treaty Article 6 (prohibition on arms transfers with knowledge of unlawful use)

Timeline

  1. October 8, 2023 — White phosphorus use in Lebanon begins
    Israeli forces begin using white phosphorus munitions in southern Lebanon, with HRW documenting use in municipalities along the border in the days following October 7, 2023.
  2. June 5, 2024 — HRW documents white phosphorus use across 17 municipalities
    Human Rights Watch publishes detailed findings documenting Israeli white phosphorus use in at least 17 municipalities across southern Lebanon, including five where airburst munitions were used over populated residential areas.
  3. December 3, 2025 — Study reveals persistent contamination danger
    France 24 reports on a study revealing persistent danger from white phosphorus contamination in southern Lebanese communities, including risks to returning civilians and agricultural workers.
  4. January 14, 2026 — Investigation confirms widespread use across southern Lebanon
    France 24 Observers team publishes investigation confirming widespread Israeli use of white phosphorus across southern Lebanon, documenting 191 attacks covering over 918 hectares.
  5. March 3, 2026 — Airburst white phosphorus deployed over homes in Yohmor
    Israeli military fires airburst white phosphorus munitions over residential homes in the southern Lebanese town of Yohmor. HRW verifies and geolocates eight images showing the attack and resulting fires in homes and vehicles.
  6. March 9, 2026 — HRW demands halt to white phosphorus use and arms transfers
    Human Rights Watch publishes its latest report classifying the Yohmor attack as unlawfully indiscriminate and calling on states providing Israel with weapons, including white phosphorus munitions, to immediately suspend military assistance.

Analysis

What Happened

Since October 2023, the Israeli military has deployed white phosphorus munitions extensively across southern Lebanon, with attacks continuing through March 2026. The munitions include US-supplied white phosphorus shells, creating direct US complicity in attacks that Human Rights Watch has classified as unlawfully indiscriminate under international humanitarian law.

Scale of Use

A comprehensive investigation by France 24's Observers team documented 191 white phosphorus attacks across southern Lebanon, striking over 918 hectares (2,268 acres). The geographic distribution reveals the indiscriminate nature of the campaign:

  • 39% of strikes hit directly over civilian areas
  • 16% struck agricultural land
  • Only 44% targeted uninhabited areas or areas far from residents

Human Rights Watch verified white phosphorus use in at least 17 municipalities across southern Lebanon, including five where airburst munitions were deployed directly over populated residential areas.

March 2026 Yohmor Attack

On March 3, 2026, the Israeli military fired airburst white phosphorus munitions over residential homes in the southern Lebanese town of Yohmor. HRW verified and geolocated eight images showing the attack, documenting fires in at least two homes and one car caused by the burning phosphorus. The organization classified this as unlawfully indiscriminate — airburst white phosphorus in populated areas cannot meet the legal requirement to take all feasible precautions to avoid civilian harm.

US-Supplied Munitions

The Washington Post and multiple human rights organizations have confirmed that US-supplied white phosphorus munitions were used in attacks on Lebanese border villages including Dhayra, Aita al-Chaab, and al-Mari. The United States continues to supply arms to Israel despite repeated documentation of unlawful use.

Persistent Contamination

White phosphorus leaves persistent chemical contamination. A December 2025 study documented ongoing danger from white phosphorus residue in southern Lebanese communities, posing risks to returning civilians, agricultural workers, and children.

Direct Violations by Israel

The use of airburst white phosphorus over populated residential areas violates:

  • CCW Protocol III: Prohibits making civilians the object of attack with incendiary weapons and using air-delivered incendiary weapons against targets within concentrations of civilians.
  • Additional Protocol I Article 51: Prohibits indiscriminate attacks not directed at a specific military objective.
  • Rome Statute Article 8(2)(b)(xx): War crime of employing weapons causing superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering.

US Complicity Through Arms Transfers

The United States bears responsibility as an arms supplier:

  • Arms Trade Treaty Article 6: Prohibits authorization of arms transfers when the state has knowledge the arms would be used to commit attacks directed against civilian objects. The extensive documentation by HRW, Amnesty International, and the Washington Post provides constructive knowledge.
  • Customary international law: States that provide material assistance to another state knowing it will be used to commit internationally wrongful acts share responsibility under the doctrine of complicity.
  • Continued supply: HRW has specifically called on the US to suspend arms transfers. The continued supply of white phosphorus munitions and other weapons after documented unlawful use strengthens the basis for complicity claims.

Why This Is Classified Extreme

  • Scale: 191 attacks covering 918+ hectares, with 39% striking directly over civilian areas.
  • Verified war crimes: HRW has classified multiple attacks as unlawfully indiscriminate under international humanitarian law.
  • US-supplied munitions: Direct link between US arms transfers and documented unlawful attacks on civilians.
  • Continuing and escalating: Attacks documented as recently as March 2026, indicating no change in practice despite international condemnation.
  • Persistent harm: Chemical contamination poses ongoing risks to civilian populations long after strikes.
  • ICC jurisdiction: The situation is within ICC jurisdiction, creating potential liability for both Israeli and US officials.

International Law Violations

  1. CCW Protocol III (Incendiary Weapons): Use of white phosphorus over populated areas violates restrictions on incendiary weapons.
  2. Additional Protocol I Article 51: Indiscriminate attacks on civilian areas.
  3. Additional Protocol I Article 35: Methods of warfare causing superfluous injury.
  4. Rome Statute Article 8(2)(b)(xx): War crime of using weapons causing unnecessary suffering.
  5. Arms Trade Treaty Article 6: US supply of weapons with knowledge of unlawful use.

Sources (7)

  1. Lebanon: Israel Unlawfully Using White Phosphorus — Human Rights Watch
    https://www.hrw.org/news/2026/03/09/lebanon-israel-unlawfully-using-white-phosphorus
  2. Israel unlawfully used white phosphorus in Lebanon: HRW — Al Jazeera
    https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/3/9/israel-unlawfully-used-white-phosphorus-in-lebanon-hrw
  3. Lebanon: Israel's White Phosphorous Use Risks Civilian Harm — Human Rights Watch
    https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/06/05/lebanon-israels-white-phosphorous-use-risks-civilian-harm
  4. Study reveals persistent danger from Israel's white phosphorus strikes — France 24
    https://www.france24.com/en/middle-east/20251203-study-reveals-persistent-danger-israeli-white-phosphorus-strikes-southern-lebanon
  5. Israel used white phosphorus over civilian homes in Lebanon, HRW says — JURIST
    https://www.jurist.org/news/2026/03/rights-group-demands-israel-to-halt-use-of-incendiary-weapon-in-lebanon/
  6. Lebanese parliament extends term as Israel intensifies attacks on Lebanon — Washington Post
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2026/03/09/lebanon-israel-hezbollah-hrw-white-phosphorus/23c45b22-1b7d-11f1-a29c-fd43da9a479a_story.html
  7. Israeli Officials Signal Stepped-Up Atrocities in Lebanon — Human Rights Watch
    https://www.hrw.org/news/2026/03/23/israeli-officials-signal-stepped-up-atrocities-in-lebanon

Full record: https://trumpswarcrimes.com/incident/white-phosphorus-lebanon-complicity

War Crime / Crime Against Humanity Complicity in Genocide Reported record probable Ongoing

2026 Lebanon War — US Weapons Complicity in Mass Civilian Casualties and White Phosphorus Attacks

Incident: March 2, 2026 · Updated: March 25, 2026

Israel's 2026 Lebanon offensive — conducted with US-supplied weapons including white phosphorus munitions used over civilian areas — has killed over 1,000 people, wounded nearly 3,000, and displaced 700,000. The United States bears complicity through continued arms transfers despite documented violations. HRW and UN experts have called for suspension of military assistance.

Key Facts

  • Since the renewed Israeli offensive beginning March 2, 2026, over 1,072 people have been killed in Lebanon including at least 121 children, with nearly 3,000 wounded, according to Lebanon's Health Ministry.
  • Nearly 700,000 people — 20% of Lebanon's population — have been displaced, including 200,000 children. An additional 85,000-90,000 have fled across the border to Syria.
  • Human Rights Watch documented in a March 9, 2026 report that Israel unlawfully used white phosphorus in Lebanon, with airburst munitions deployed over residential areas. HRW classified the use as unlawfully indiscriminate.
  • Israel used a US-made JDAM guidance kit in an unlawful March strike on a relief center in south Lebanon, killing seven emergency and relief volunteers.
  • UN experts have denounced the aggression on Lebanon, warning of devastating regional escalation. Spain's PM said Israel intends to inflict on Lebanon the same destruction as in Gaza.

Metadata

Victims
Over 1,072 people killed including at least 121 children and 240 health and rescue workers. Nearly 3,000 wounded. Nearly 700,000 displaced within Lebanon (20% of the population), including 200,000 children. An additional 85,000-90,000 refugees have crossed into Syria.
Actors
Israeli military forces conducting the offensive, Trump administration providing weapons and military support, US defense contractors manufacturing the weapons used including JDAM guidance kits and white phosphorus munitions
Civilian casualties
1,072
International law
Geneva Conventions Common Article 1 High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention — continued arms transfers while violations are documented constitutes failure to ensure respect; Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Article 8(2)(b)(i) War crime — intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such; Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Article 8(2)(b)(iv) War crime — intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated; Protocol III to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons Article 2 Prohibition on use of incendiary weapons against civilian populations — airburst white phosphorus over residential areas is unlawfully indiscriminate; International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Article 6 Right to life — the deliberate targeting of residential areas and displacement of civilian populations violates the right to life; Arms Trade Treaty Article 6 State Party shall not authorize any transfer of conventional arms if it has knowledge that the arms would be used in the commission of attacks directed against civilian objects or civilians
Legal issues
Geneva Conventions Common Article 1, Rome Statute Articles 8(2)(b)(i) and 8(2)(b)(iv), Protocol III to CCW (incendiary weapons), ICCPR Article 6 (right to life), Arms Trade Treaty Article 6

Timeline

  1. February 28, 2026 — US-Israeli strikes on Iran trigger regional escalation
    The United States and Israel launch Operation Epic Fury against Iran. Hezbollah launches retaliatory strikes on Israel, and Israel responds with a renewed large-scale military offensive across Lebanon.
  2. March 2, 2026 — Israeli offensive in Lebanon escalates dramatically
    Israel launches widespread strikes across Lebanon, including the capital Beirut. The offensive marks a dramatic escalation beyond the ceasefire that had held since November 2024.
  3. March 5, 2026 — OCHA Flash Update — humanitarian emergency declared
    The UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs issues a flash update on the escalation of hostilities in Lebanon. Mass displacement begins.
  4. March 6, 2026 — At least 217 killed in first days of offensive
    Lebanon's Health Ministry reports at least 217 people killed in the first four days since the March 2 escalation. Democracy Now reports from Beirut on the destruction.
  5. March 9, 2026 — HRW documents unlawful white phosphorus use
    Human Rights Watch publishes a report documenting Israel's unlawful use of white phosphorus in Lebanon, with airburst munitions deployed over residential homes. HRW classifies the attacks as unlawfully indiscriminate and calls for suspension of military assistance.
  6. March 20, 2026 — Death toll passes 1,000 with 1 million displaced
    Democracy Now reports from Beirut: over 1,000 killed and more than 1 million displaced, with many fearing long-term Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon.
  7. March 23, 2026 — HRW warns of 'stepped-up atrocities' signaled by Israeli officials
    Human Rights Watch publishes a report that Israeli officials have signaled stepped-up atrocities in Lebanon, calling for immediate international action including arms suspension.
  8. March 25, 2026 — Strikes continue — death toll and displacement rising
    Israeli strikes continue across Lebanon, including near Roman ruins. Nearly 700,000 displaced in Lebanon alone plus 85,000-90,000 who have crossed into Syria. Spain's PM warns Israel intends to inflict Gaza-level destruction on Lebanon.

Analysis

What Happened

On March 2, 2026, Israel launched a renewed large-scale military offensive across Lebanon in the context of the broader regional war triggered by the US-Israeli strikes on Iran on February 28. The offensive has killed over 1,072 people including at least 121 children, wounded nearly 3,000, and displaced nearly 700,000 — approximately 20% of Lebanon's entire population. An additional 85,000 to 90,000 people have fled across the border into Syria.

The offensive is being conducted with US-supplied weapons. Human Rights Watch has documented the use of US-made JDAM guidance kits in unlawful strikes, and the use of white phosphorus munitions deployed as airburst weapons over residential areas — a use that HRW has classified as unlawfully indiscriminate.

White Phosphorus Over Residential Areas

On March 9, 2026, Human Rights Watch published a detailed report documenting Israel's unlawful use of white phosphorus in Lebanon. Airburst white phosphorus was deployed over residential homes, a delivery method that scatters burning particles across a wide area and is inherently indiscriminate in populated environments. White phosphorus burns at approximately 800 degrees Celsius and causes deep, severe burns on contact with skin.

The use of airburst white phosphorus over populated areas does not meet the requirement under international humanitarian law to take all feasible precautions to avoid civilian harm. HRW classified the attacks as unlawfully indiscriminate.

US-Made Weapons in Unlawful Strikes

Israel used a US-made JDAM guidance kit in a strike on a relief center in southern Lebanon that killed seven emergency and relief volunteers. The targeting of humanitarian workers with US-supplied precision munitions is a direct manifestation of the complicity that arises from continued arms transfers.

Mass Displacement

The UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs reported that nearly 700,000 people have been displaced within Lebanon, including approximately 200,000 children. The displacement represents 20% of Lebanon's population. Spain's Prime Minister warned that Israel intends to inflict on Lebanon the same destruction it has carried out in Gaza.

US Complicity Through Arms Transfers

The question of US complicity is central to this incident. The United States has continued arms transfers to Israel despite:

  1. Documented use of US weapons in unlawful attacks — JDAM kits used in strikes on humanitarian workers
  2. White phosphorus deployment over residential areas — documented by HRW as unlawfully indiscriminate
  3. Explicit calls for arms suspension — HRW has called on the US to suspend military assistance and impose targeted sanctions
  4. UN expert denunciations — OHCHR has denounced the aggression and warned of devastating regional escalation

Under the Arms Trade Treaty and under the Leahy Law, the United States has obligations to halt arms transfers when there is knowledge that weapons will be used in violations of international humanitarian law.

  1. Geneva Conventions Common Article 1: The obligation to "ensure respect" for the conventions requires the US to take affirmative action — including suspending arms — when an ally is documented committing violations.
  2. Rome Statute Article 8(2)(b)(i): Intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population is a war crime. The scale of civilian casualties — over 1,000 dead including 121 children — demonstrates a pattern.
  3. Rome Statute Article 8(2)(b)(iv): Launching attacks knowing they will cause civilian harm clearly excessive to military advantage anticipated.
  4. Protocol III to CCW: The use of incendiary weapons (including white phosphorus) against civilian populations is prohibited. Airburst deployment over residential areas is unlawfully indiscriminate.
  5. Arms Trade Treaty Article 6: States shall not authorize arms transfers with knowledge they will be used in attacks on civilians.

Why This Is Classified Extreme

  • Civilian death toll: Over 1,072 killed including at least 121 children and 240 health and rescue workers.
  • Mass displacement: 700,000 displaced — 20% of the country's entire population — creating a humanitarian catastrophe.
  • White phosphorus: Documented use of incendiary weapons over residential areas, classified by HRW as unlawfully indiscriminate.
  • US weapons in unlawful strikes: Direct evidence of US-made weapons used in attacks on humanitarian workers.
  • Continued arms transfers: The US continues supplying weapons despite documented violations, creating direct complicity under international law.
  • Regional escalation: The offensive is part of a broader regional war, with potential for further expansion.

International Law Violations

  1. Geneva Conventions Common Article 1: Failure to ensure respect through continued arms transfers.
  2. Rome Statute Articles 8(2)(b)(i) and (iv): War crimes of targeting civilians and disproportionate attacks.
  3. Protocol III to CCW: Unlawful use of incendiary weapons over civilian areas.
  4. ICCPR Article 6: Violation of the right to life through indiscriminate attacks.
  5. Arms Trade Treaty Article 6: Continued transfers despite knowledge of use in violations.
  6. Customary IHL: Principles of distinction and proportionality violated.

Sources (8)

  1. Lebanon: Israel Unlawfully Using White Phosphorus — Human Rights Watch
    https://www.hrw.org/news/2026/03/09/lebanon-israel-unlawfully-using-white-phosphorus
  2. Israeli Officials Signal Stepped-Up Atrocities in Lebanon — Human Rights Watch
    https://www.hrw.org/news/2026/03/23/israeli-officials-signal-stepped-up-atrocities-in-lebanon
  3. Report from Beirut: 1,000+ Dead, 1M+ Displaced, Many Fear Long-Term Occupation — Democracy Now
    https://www.democracynow.org/2026/3/20/lebanon_israel
  4. Nearly 700,000 displaced in Lebanon as Middle East crisis escalates — UN News
    https://news.un.org/en/story/2026/03/1167098
  5. Lebanon Flash Update #1 — Escalation of hostilities in Lebanon — OCHA
    https://www.unocha.org/publications/report/lebanon/lebanon-flash-update-1-escalation-hostilities-lebanon-5-march-2026
  6. UN experts denounce aggression on Iran and Lebanon, warn of devastating regional escalation — OHCHR
    https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2026/03/un-experts-denounce-aggression-iran-and-lebanon-warn-devastating-regional
  7. Israel unlawfully used white phosphorus in Lebanon: HRW — Al Jazeera
    https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/3/9/israel-unlawfully-used-white-phosphorus-in-lebanon-hrw
  8. 2026 Lebanon war — Wikipedia
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_Lebanon_war

Full record: https://trumpswarcrimes.com/incident/lebanon-war-us-complicity

Serious Rights Violation Foreign Policy & War Reported record enabling Ongoing

Emergency Arms Sales to Gulf States: $23 Billion Bypassing Congressional Review

Incident: February 21, 2025 · Updated: March 26, 2026

Using emergency waivers under the Arms Export Control Act, the administration has bypassed Congress to approve massive arms sales to Gulf states, including to the UAE despite documented evidence of UAE weapons flowing to the RSF in Sudan's genocide. The simultaneous rescission of NSM-20 removed all human rights conditions from US arms transfers.

Key Facts

  • The Trump administration invoked wartime emergency powers to force through more than $23 billion in arms sales to the UAE, Kuwait, and Jordan, bypassing the mandatory congressional review process under the Arms Export Control Act.
  • Secretary of State Marco Rubio issued an emergency waiver to bypass the standard 30-day congressional review period, citing the Iran war as justification.
  • The UAE has been documented arming the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) in Sudan, which the US State Department determined in January 2025 was committing genocide. A UN panel identified an RSF supply route running from Abu Dhabi International Airport through eastern Chad into western Sudan.
  • On February 21, 2025, the administration rescinded NSM-20, the Biden-era policy requiring recipients of US arms to provide written assurances they would comply with international humanitarian law. On March 14, 2025, the conventional arms transfer policy (NSM-18) was also rescinded.
  • The rescission of NSM-18 left the US without a conventional arms transfer policy for the first time since 1977, removing all human rights conditions from the world's largest arms transfer program.

Metadata

Victims
The primary victims are the civilian populations in Sudan's Darfur region suffering genocide at the hands of the RSF, which the UAE has armed using weapons that may include US-origin materiel. Broader victims include populations in conflict zones where Gulf state recipients may deploy US weapons without human rights conditions.
Actors
Trump administration (rescission of NSM-20 and NSM-18, emergency bypass of congressional review), Secretary of State Marco Rubio (emergency waiver authorization), National Security Adviser Michael Waltz (NSM-20 rescission order). The UAE government is the proximate perpetrator of arms transfers to the RSF.
International law
Arms Trade Treaty Article 6 A State Party shall not authorize any transfer of conventional arms if it has knowledge at the time of authorization that the arms would be used in the commission of genocide, crimes against humanity, or war crimes; Arms Trade Treaty Article 7 States must assess whether arms could be used to commit or facilitate serious violations of international humanitarian law or human rights law; Geneva Conventions Common Article 1 High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention in all circumstances — interpreted as requiring states not to facilitate violations by third parties; Arms Export Control Act Section 36 Major arms sales require a 30-day congressional notification period during which Congress may block the sale through a joint resolution of disapproval; Genocide Convention Article III(e) Complicity in genocide is punishable — supplying arms to a party known to be committing genocide may constitute complicity
Legal issues
Arms Trade Treaty Articles 6 and 7 (prohibitions on transfers facilitating genocide and IHL violations), Geneva Conventions Common Article 1 (obligation to ensure respect for conventions), Genocide Convention Article III(e) (complicity in genocide), Arms Export Control Act Section 36 (congressional review requirement), Leahy Law (prohibition on assistance to units committing gross violations of human rights)

Timeline

  1. January 20, 2025 — US State Department determines RSF committed genocide in Sudan
    The State Department concludes that members of the Rapid Support Forces and allied militias have committed genocide in Sudan. Human Rights Watch and a UN panel have documented RSF atrocities in West Darfur, including ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity against the Masalit people.
  2. February 21, 2025 — NSM-20 rescinded, removing human rights conditions from arms transfers
    National Security Adviser Michael Waltz relays Trump's decision to immediately rescind NSM-20, the Biden-era policy requiring recipients of US weapons to provide written assurances of compliance with international humanitarian law. This removes the primary safeguard against arms being used for human rights abuses.
  3. March 14, 2025 — Conventional arms transfer policy (NSM-18) rescinded
    President Trump rescinds NSM-18, the conventional arms transfer policy. The revocation leaves the United States without a CAT policy for the first time since 1977, eliminating the framework governing how the world's largest arms exporter evaluates sales.
  4. May 1, 2025 — Trump pushes through major arms sales to UAE; congressional resolutions of disapproval introduced
    The administration pushes forward with major arms packages to the UAE. Legislators in both chambers introduce joint resolutions of disapproval to block the sales, citing the UAE's documented role in arming the RSF in Sudan's genocide. The resolutions are defeated along party lines.
  5. March 19, 2026 — $23 billion in emergency arms sales to Gulf states announced
    Secretary of State Marco Rubio issues an emergency waiver under the Arms Export Control Act to bypass congressional review for over $23 billion in arms sales to the UAE, Kuwait, and Jordan. Packages include $2.1 billion in counter-drone systems for the UAE, $8 billion in radar systems for Kuwait, and additional sales to Jordan. The Iran war is cited as the emergency justification.

Analysis

What Happened

The Trump administration has used emergency authority to push through over $23 billion in arms sales to Gulf states — principally the UAE, Kuwait, and Jordan — while simultaneously dismantling every human rights safeguard governing American weapons exports. The combination of emergency congressional bypass, rescission of human rights conditions, and sales to a country documented as arming genocidal forces in Sudan represents a systematic removal of the legal guardrails designed to prevent US complicity in atrocities.

The Emergency Arms Sales

In March 2026, Secretary of State Marco Rubio issued an emergency waiver under the Arms Export Control Act to bypass the mandatory 30-day congressional review period for arms sales exceeding specified dollar thresholds. The administration cited the ongoing war with Iran as justification for the emergency.

The approved packages include $2.1 billion worth of 10 FS-LIDS counter-drone interception systems and 240 Coyote drone interceptor systems for the UAE, approximately $8 billion in air and missile defense radar systems for Kuwait, and additional packages for Jordan. While some reports cite a $16.5 billion total, other reporting places the combined value at over $23 billion when all packages are included.

The emergency waiver mechanism is legally available under the Arms Export Control Act but has historically been used sparingly. Its use here bypasses the congressional review process that serves as the primary democratic check on arms transfers.

Dismantling Human Rights Conditions

The arms sales occurred against the backdrop of the administration's systematic removal of human rights conditions from weapons exports:

On February 21, 2025, National Security Adviser Michael Waltz relayed Trump's decision to immediately rescind NSM-20, the Biden-era National Security Memorandum requiring recipients of US weapons to provide "credible and reliable written assurances" of compliance with international humanitarian law and facilitation of humanitarian aid delivery. NSM-20 had been issued on February 8, 2024, specifically in response to concerns about US weapons being used in violations of international law.

On March 14, 2025, the administration rescinded NSM-18, the conventional arms transfer policy itself. This left the United States — the world's largest arms exporter — without a conventional arms transfer policy for the first time since 1977.

The UAE and Sudan's Genocide

The sales to the UAE are particularly significant because of the UAE's documented role in arming the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) in Sudan. In January 2025, the US State Department concluded that members of the RSF and allied militias had committed genocide in Sudan. A UN panel monitoring compliance with the Darfur arms embargo identified an RSF supply route running from Abu Dhabi International Airport through eastern Chad into western Sudan. A September 2024 New York Times investigation concluded the UAE was secretly "expanding its covert campaign to back a winner in Sudan, funneling money, weapons and, now, powerful drones."

Senator Chris Van Hollen and Representative Sara Jacobs, after reviewing classified intelligence, publicly confirmed the UAE was providing weapons to the RSF in contradiction to its assurances to the United States. Congressional efforts to block arms sales to the UAE pending cessation of RSF support were defeated along party lines.

The Arms Trade Treaty — which the United States has signed but not ratified — prohibits the authorization of arms transfers where the exporting state "has knowledge at the time of authorization that the arms would be used in the commission of genocide, crimes against humanity, or war crimes." While the US is not bound by the treaty as a non-ratifying signatory, the treaty reflects the international legal consensus on responsible arms transfers.

More directly applicable is Common Article 1 of the Geneva Conventions, which the United States has ratified. Common Article 1 requires High Contracting Parties "to respect and to ensure respect for" the conventions "in all circumstances." The International Court of Justice and the ICRC have interpreted this as imposing a positive obligation on states not to facilitate violations of international humanitarian law by third parties. Selling arms to the UAE without conditions — while possessing documented evidence of UAE arms flowing to genocidal forces in Sudan — is difficult to reconcile with this obligation.

The Genocide Convention's Article III(e) makes complicity in genocide punishable. Providing arms to a state known to be arming a force committing genocide raises serious questions of complicity, particularly when the human rights conditions that might have mitigated this risk have been deliberately removed.

The Leahy Law, a US domestic statute, prohibits the furnishing of assistance to foreign security forces where there is credible information that the unit has committed gross violations of human rights. The rescission of NSM-20 does not repeal the Leahy Law, but the removal of the associated vetting and assurance framework undermines its practical enforcement.

Why This Is Classified Severe

This incident receives a severe severity classification because:

  • Scale of transfers: Over $23 billion in arms sales represents one of the largest emergency bypasses of congressional review in US history.
  • Genocide nexus: The UAE has been documented by a UN panel, the New York Times, and US lawmakers as arming the RSF, which the US State Department has determined is committing genocide. Selling weapons to the UAE without conditions creates a direct pipeline to genocidal forces.
  • Deliberate removal of safeguards: The rescission of NSM-20, NSM-18, and the conventional arms transfer policy framework was not incidental — it was a deliberate, systematic dismantling of every human rights safeguard governing US arms transfers.
  • Democratic bypass: The emergency waiver mechanism circumvents the congressional review process that serves as the primary democratic check on arms transfers.

International Law Violations

The following international law provisions are implicated:

  1. Geneva Conventions Common Article 1: The obligation to "ensure respect" for the conventions requires states not to facilitate IHL violations by third parties. Selling arms to the UAE while it arms genocidal forces in Sudan is a potential violation.
  2. Arms Trade Treaty Articles 6 and 7: While the US has not ratified the ATT, its provisions reflect customary international law prohibiting transfers that facilitate genocide, crimes against humanity, or serious IHL violations.
  3. Genocide Convention Article III(e): Complicity in genocide is punishable. Providing arms to a state arming a genocidal force, after a US genocide determination, raises questions of complicity.
  4. Arms Export Control Act Section 36: The emergency waiver mechanism is legally available but its use to circumvent democratic oversight on this scale raises questions about the good-faith application of the statute.

Sources (12)

  1. Trump invokes emergency powers with $23 billion in Gulf arms sales as Iran war wages on — CNBC
    https://www.cnbc.com/2026/03/20/us-arms-weapon-sales-middle-east-iran-israel-war.html
  2. Rubio Declares Emergency to Push $23B in Gulf Arms Sales Past Congress — The Dupree Report
    https://www.thedupreereport.com/2026/03/trump-23b-arms-sales-gulf-states/
  3. US fast-tracks $16.5B arms sales to UAE, Jordan, Kuwait amid Iran attacks — Al-Monitor
    https://www.al-monitor.com/originals/2026/03/us-fast-tracks-165b-arms-sales-uae-jordan-kuwait-amid-iran-attacks
  4. US approves $16.5bn arms deal to Gulf states amid rising Iran tensions — Al Jazeera
    https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2026/3/19/us-approves-16-5bn-arms-deal-to-gulf-states-amid-rising-iran-tensions
  5. US expedites sale of air defence and weapons package to UAE — The National
    https://www.thenationalnews.com/news/us/2026/03/20/us-expedites-sale-of-air-defence-and-weapons-package-to-uae/
  6. Trump repeals Biden directive linking U.S. arms to human rights — The Washington Post
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2025/02/24/trump-israel-gaza-us-weapons/
  7. Trump Rescinds Biden's Arms Transfers Policy — Arms Control Association
    https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2025-04/news-briefs/trump-rescinds-bidens-arms-transfers-policy
  8. Policy Void: What Trump's Rescinding of the U.S. Conventional Arms Transfer Policy Means — Stimson Center
    https://www.stimson.org/2025/policy-void-what-trumps-rescinding-of-the-u-s-conventional-arms-transfer-policy-means/
  9. Why Lawmakers Want to Block Arms Sales to the UAE — Just Security
    https://www.justsecurity.org/113703/lawmakers-block-uae-arms-sales/
  10. The US Sudan Genocide Determination Requires the Suspension of Arms Sales to the UAE — Just Security
    https://www.justsecurity.org/106305/genocide-determination-uae-arms-sales/
  11. GOP Blocks Bill to Ban Arms Sales to UAE Until It Stops Arming Sudan Genocidaires — Truthout
    https://truthout.org/articles/gop-blocks-bill-to-ban-arms-sales-to-uae-until-it-stops-arming-sudan-genocidaires/
  12. Take Action: NO Weapons Sales to the UAE Until They End Support for Genocide in Sudan — Refugees International
    https://www.refugeesinternational.org/actions/take-action-no-weapons-sales-to-the-uae-until-they-end-support-for-atrocities-in-sudan/

Full record: https://trumpswarcrimes.com/incident/emergency-arms-sales-congressional-bypass

Serious Rights Violation Foreign Policy & War Reported record enabling Ongoing

America First Arms Transfer Strategy: Human Rights Safeguards Removed From Weapons Exports

Incident: February 6, 2026 · Updated: March 26, 2026

An executive order stripped human rights safeguards from the US arms transfer framework, replacing decades of bipartisan policy with a commerce-first approach. The subsequent emergency bypass of congressional review for $23+ billion in Gulf arms sales demonstrated the immediate consequences of removing these guardrails.

Key Facts

  • Executive Order 14383, signed February 6, 2026, establishes the 'America First Arms Transfer Strategy,' which reorders US arms export priorities to prioritize commercial and economic objectives over strategic, human rights, and humanitarian considerations.
  • The EO makes no mention of human rights, international humanitarian law, or civilian protection — a stark departure from all previous administrations' arms transfer policies, including Trump's own 2018 policy.
  • Biden's 2023 policy had committed the US to refrain from transfers 'more likely than not' to contribute to atrocities. This standard has been eliminated.
  • In March 2026, Secretary of State Rubio invoked emergency powers under Section 36(b) of the Arms Export Control Act to bypass congressional review for $23+ billion in arms sales to the UAE, Kuwait, and Jordan.
  • The emergency bypass included $7 billion in weapons to the UAE approved through channels that do not require public disclosure, undermining transparency.

Metadata

Victims
No direct casualties from the policy change itself. The removal of human rights safeguards from the world's largest arms exporter's transfer framework enables future atrocities by eliminating the mechanisms that would prevent arms from reaching forces that commit violations of international humanitarian law. The $23B+ in Gulf arms sales bypassed the congressional review process designed to catch precisely these risks.
Actors
President Donald Trump (signed EO 14383), Secretary of State Marco Rubio (invoked emergency powers to bypass congressional review), Pentagon and State Department officials (implementing the new commercial-first framework)
International law
Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) Article 7 Exporting states shall assess the potential that arms could be used to commit or facilitate serious violations of international humanitarian law or human rights law; International Humanitarian Law State responsibility to ensure that arms transfers do not facilitate violations of IHL — duty of due diligence; Arms Trade Treaty Article 6 Prohibition on transfers where the state has knowledge that the arms would be used in the commission of genocide, crimes against humanity, or war crimes; Geneva Conventions Common Article 1 High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the Conventions in all circumstances — includes ensuring arms recipients comply with IHL; International Law Commission Articles on State Responsibility Article 16 A state which aids or assists another state in the commission of an internationally wrongful act is internationally responsible if it does so with knowledge of the circumstances
Legal issues
Arms Trade Treaty Article 7 (human rights risk assessment), ATT Article 6 (prohibition on transfers facilitating war crimes), Geneva Conventions Common Article 1 (ensure respect for IHL), IHL duty of due diligence, ILC Articles on State Responsibility Article 16 (aid or assistance)

Timeline

  1. February 23, 2023 — Biden establishes human-rights-centered arms policy
    President Biden signs a policy committing the US to refrain from transferring arms that are 'more likely than not' to contribute to genocide, crimes against humanity, or serious violations of international humanitarian law — the strongest human rights standard in US arms transfer policy history.
  2. March 1, 2025 — Trump reinstates 2018 CAT policy, rescinds Biden's
    Upon returning to office, the Trump administration rescinds Biden's 2023 arms transfer policy and reinstates the 2018 Conventional Arms Transfer Policy, which placed less emphasis on human rights considerations.
  3. February 6, 2026 — Executive Order 14383 signed
    President Trump signs 'Establishing an America First Arms Transfer Strategy,' which reorders US arms export priorities to elevate commercial and economic objectives. The order makes no mention of human rights, international humanitarian law, or civilian protection.
  4. February 11, 2026 — EO published in Federal Register
    Executive Order 14383 is published in the Federal Register, making its provisions official and establishing the new framework for all US arms transfer decisions.
  5. March 19, 2026 — Rubio invokes emergency powers for $23B+ Gulf arms sales
    Secretary of State Marco Rubio declares an emergency requiring immediate approval of arms transfers to Gulf partners, bypassing congressional review for over $23 billion in weapons sales to the UAE ($8.4B), Kuwait ($8B), and Jordan, plus $7B to the UAE through non-public channels.

Analysis

What Happened

On February 6, 2026, President Trump signed Executive Order 14383, "Establishing an America First Arms Transfer Strategy," which fundamentally restructured the framework governing US weapons exports — the largest in the world. The order elevated commercial and economic objectives to the top of the priority hierarchy for arms transfer decisions, displacing the strategic, human rights, and humanitarian considerations that had occupied that position under all previous administrations of both parties.

What Changed

The executive order makes no mention of human rights, international humanitarian law, or civilian protection. This is unprecedented. Even Trump's own 2018 Conventional Arms Transfer Policy retained language about foreign policy considerations, including human rights. Biden's 2023 policy had gone further, committing the US to refrain from transferring arms that were "more likely than not" to contribute to genocide, crimes against humanity, or serious violations of international humanitarian law.

The Stimson Center, a nonpartisan security think tank, analyzed the order and found that it "fundamentally reordered CAT policy priorities, giving primacy to domestic economic and industrial objectives at the expense of the strategic focus that had been at the center of all past directives." In practice, this means arms sales will be evaluated primarily on their economic benefit to the US, with little or no weight given to whether the recipient is likely to use the weapons to commit atrocities.

The $23 Billion Emergency Bypass

The consequences of the new framework were demonstrated almost immediately. On March 19, 2026, Secretary of State Marco Rubio invoked emergency powers under Section 36(b) of the Arms Export Control Act to force through more than $23 billion in weapons sales to Gulf states — bypassing the congressional review process that exists specifically to scrutinize whether proposed arms sales comply with human rights standards and serve US strategic interests.

The packages included:

  • UAE: $8.4 billion — THAAD radar ($4.5B), counter-drone systems ($2.1B), air-to-air missiles ($1.22B), F-16 munitions ($644M)
  • Kuwait: $8 billion — air and missile defense sensor radars
  • Jordan: Additional air defense systems
  • UAE (non-public): $7 billion in additional weapons approved through channels not requiring public disclosure

The use of emergency powers to bypass congressional review for $23+ billion in arms sales — combined with $7 billion routed through non-public channels — represents a fundamental erosion of democratic oversight over US weapons exports.

Arms Trade Treaty: While the US signed but did not ratify the ATT, Article 7 requires exporting states to assess the potential that arms could be used to commit or facilitate serious violations of international humanitarian law or human rights law. The removal of human rights considerations from the US transfer framework contradicts the treaty's core purpose.

Geneva Conventions Common Article 1: All High Contracting Parties — including the US — undertake to "respect and to ensure respect" for the Conventions. This has been interpreted to include a duty of due diligence in arms transfers — ensuring that weapons are not provided to forces likely to violate IHL. The elimination of human rights safeguards undermines this obligation.

State responsibility for aiding violations: Under the International Law Commission's Articles on State Responsibility, a state that aids or assists another state in the commission of an internationally wrongful act is internationally responsible if it does so with knowledge of the circumstances. Removing the mechanisms designed to assess these risks does not eliminate responsibility — it may actually increase it, by demonstrating deliberate indifference.

Why This Is Classified Severe

This incident receives a severe severity classification because:

  • Systematic removal of safeguards: The executive order eliminates human rights considerations from the world's largest arms exporter's transfer framework — not a one-time decision but a structural change affecting all future sales.
  • Immediate consequences: The $23B+ emergency bypass demonstrated the framework's real-world impact within weeks of implementation.
  • Democratic oversight erosion: Bypassing congressional review for billions in arms sales, including $7B through non-public channels, undermines the checks designed to prevent complicity in atrocities.
  • Historical rupture: No previous administration of either party had removed human rights from the arms transfer framework entirely.
  • Enabling future harm: The policy enables unlimited arms sales to any recipient regardless of their human rights record, creating the conditions for future complicity in atrocities.

International Law Violations

The following international law provisions are implicated:

  1. Arms Trade Treaty Article 7 (Risk Assessment): The removal of human rights risk assessment contradicts the ATT's core requirement for exporting states.
  2. ATT Article 6 (Prohibition on Facilitating War Crimes): Eliminating mechanisms to screen arms sales for war crime risk increases the likelihood of facilitating violations.
  3. Geneva Conventions Common Article 1 (Ensure Respect): The duty to ensure IHL compliance includes due diligence in arms transfers — which the new framework abandons.
  4. IHL Duty of Due Diligence: States have an obligation to take reasonable steps to ensure their arms do not facilitate IHL violations.
  5. ILC Articles Article 16 (Aid or Assistance): Removing safeguards while continuing large-scale arms sales demonstrates the kind of deliberate indifference that can give rise to state responsibility.

Sources (6)

  1. Establishing an America First Arms Transfer Strategy — White House
    https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2026/02/establishing-an-america-first-arms-transfer-strategy/
  2. The 'America First Arms Transfer Strategy' Reorders US Arms Transfer Priorities — Stimson Center
    https://www.stimson.org/2026/the-america-first-arms-transfer-strategy-reorders-us-arms-transfer-priorities/
  3. Establishing an America First Arms Transfer Strategy — Federal Register
    https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/02/11/2026-02814/establishing-an-america-first-arms-transfer-strategy
  4. Trump invokes emergency powers with $23 billion in Gulf arms sales — CNBC
    https://www.cnbc.com/2026/03/20/us-arms-weapon-sales-middle-east-iran-israel-war.html
  5. Understanding the Evolution and Emerging Volatility of US Arms Transfer Policies — Stimson Center
    https://www.stimson.org/2026/understanding-the-evolution-and-emerging-volatility-of-us-arms-transfer-policies/
  6. Arms Control Association analysis of arms transfer policy changes — Arms Control Association
    https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2026-03/news/new-start-expires-us-urges-modernized-treaty

Full record: https://trumpswarcrimes.com/incident/america-first-arms-transfer-strategy

About This Dossier

Generated from the public archive at https://trumpswarcrimes.com. This archive documents allegations, not adjudicated findings. No person named has been convicted by any tribunal. Classifications are editorial assessments informed by legal analysis. See the full methodology at https://trumpswarcrimes.com/about.

Data exports: https://trumpswarcrimes.com/archive.json · https://trumpswarcrimes.com/archive.csv