How does U.S. Foreign Military Financing (FMF) work and can recipient countries use it domestically?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Foreign Military Financing (FMF) is a U.S. government security‑assistance program that provides grants — and occasionally loans — to allied and partner governments to buy U.S. defense articles, services, and training, authorized under the Arms Export Control Act and funded annually through congressional appropriations [1] [2] [3]. The program is policy‑controlled by the State Department’s security assistance office and executed through the Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA), and its money is intended to be spent through U.S. foreign military sales channels rather than given as unrestricted cash to partner treasuries [1] [4] [5].
1. What FMF is and where its authority comes from
FMF derives legal authority from the Arms Export Control Act as incorporated in the Foreign Assistance Act and is appropriated each year in the State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs account; Congress sets appropriations and statutory strings that govern how funds may be used [1] [2] [3]. The program’s stated aim is to enable partners to acquire U.S.‑origin defense equipment and training to strengthen U.S. security interests, regional stability, and interoperability with American forces [1] [4].
2. How the money flows: grants, loans, FMS and execution
FMF typically takes the form of non‑repayable grants but can include direct loans and loan guarantees; the DSCA and State coordinate to deliver funds into Foreign Military Sales (FMS) trust accounts or to finance direct commercial contracts, with the U.S. government negotiating contracts or approving direct commercial purchases of U.S. defense items [6] [7] [8] [5]. The mechanics include placing FMF in country trust accounts or executing FMS Letters of Offer and Acceptance so that funds pay U.S. contractors and the U.S. government, not the recipient’s general treasury, for specific defense articles, services, or training [7] [9].
3. What FMF pays for in practice
FMF is earmarked to cover procurement of U.S. defense hardware (aircraft, missiles, vehicles), sustainment, training, and related services — for example, longstanding FMF support to Israel and Egypt and sizable packages for countries in the Middle East and North Africa have funded missile defense, aircraft purchases, and other systems [1]. The State Department’s Office of Security Assistance frames FMF as a tool to enhance partner capabilities, counter malign actors, and support U.S. industrial base jobs by channeling purchases to American firms [10] [4].
4. Can recipient countries “use” FMF domestically (i.e., as fungible budget)?
FMF is not delivered as an unrestricted cash grant to a partner government to spend on any domestic priority; it is programmed and controlled to purchase U.S.‑origin defense articles and services through FMS or authorized direct commercial contracts, meaning recipients receive defense capability rather than fungible budget support [6] [5]. There are limited varieties of financing — such as FMF direct loans or loan guarantees — that change repayment and funding flows, and trust‑fund arrangements or repayments do appear in DoD financial regulations, but the available documentation shows those mechanisms still channel money toward authorized defense transactions rather than general domestic spending [7] [9].
5. Political constraints, oversight and competing narratives
Because FMF is congressionally appropriated and administered by State with DoD execution, it is subject to statutory conditions, congressional oversight, and policy priorities — critics point to its political role in cementing alliances and supporting U.S. defense firms while proponents stress interoperability and shared security benefits, a tension visible in debates over funding levels and recipients [3] [10]. Public examples such as earmarked missile defense funding for Israel and recurring packages for Egypt and Jordan illustrate how FMF can both shape partner capabilities and reflect U.S. strategic priorities [1].
6. Limits of available reporting
The sources reviewed describe FMF’s legal basis, administration, financing vehicles, and use through FMS and DCC mechanisms, and they show FMF is intended for U.S.‑origin defense purchases rather than direct budgetary support [1] [6] [7] [5], but they do not provide exhaustive case‑by‑case legal texts or examples of every exception; where specifics about unique country agreements or the minutiae of trust‑fund accounting are needed, primary statute, appropriation language, or individual Letter of Offer and Acceptance documents would be required for definitive confirmation [2] [9].