Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
How does the US determine which countries receive foreign military financing?
Executive Summary
The United States allocates Foreign Military Financing (FMF) through a legally structured, interagency and congressional process that centers on the Arms Export Control Act and annual appropriations, with eligibility, country allocations, and execution shared among the Secretary of State, the Department of Defense and implementing agencies such as the Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) [1] [2]. Congress sets the money annually, the State Department’s Office of Security Assistance sets policy and eligibility, and the DSCA and DoD execute purchases and program administration; large, predictable recipients (for example Israel and Egypt) reflect statutory and policy choices while other recipients are selected based on security objectives, interoperability, and regional stability goals [3].
1. How the law and budget shape decisions — the system that decides who gets money
The legal and budgetary framework is decisive: the Arms Export Control Act (AECA) empowers the Secretary of State to determine eligibility and amounts, while Congressional appropriations in the annual Foreign Operations/Foreign Assistance bill actually provide FMF funds and priorities [1] [3]. Budgeting is not merely administrative; it is political and programmatic — Congress routinely earmarks or directs funding levels, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) incorporates DSCA and State Department inputs into the President’s budget for security assistance [2] [3]. This arrangement produces both stability for long-standing recipients and the capacity for shifts when administrations and Congress re-prioritize security objectives, meaning statute and annual appropriations together determine both eligibility frameworks and dollar flows [1] [2].
2. Who runs the program — agencies and their roles in choosing recipients
Decision-making is an interagency exercise: the State Department’s Bureau of Political-Military Affairs and its Office of Security Assistance manage FMF policy and eligibility while the Defense Security Cooperation Agency implements programs, issues grants and executes Foreign Military Sales (FMS) transactions on behalf of recipients [3] [1] [2]. The Secretary of State decides eligibility and policy; the Secretary of Defense and DSCA execute and administer purchases and end-use monitoring. The DSCA conducts an annual Security Assistance Program and Budget Review (SAPBR) and issues planning guidance; implementing agencies and geographic combatant commands submit budget requests and capability rationales that feed into allocation decisions [2]. That operational division creates a policy–execution split: State sets the diplomatic/security objectives, DoD and DSCA translate them into materiel and training.
3. Criteria and strategic aims — why some countries are prioritized
Allocations reflect strategic criteria: FMF supports interoperability with U.S. forces, regional stability, burden-sharing, countering malign influence, and sustaining partner defense capabilities while promoting U.S. security interests and human rights considerations where feasible [4] [3]. Major recipients such as Israel and Egypt historically receive large, statutory or long-standing shares, reflecting bilateral security treaties, peace agreements and congressional policy choices; other recipients – Jordan, Pakistan, Taiwan, the Philippines, and Ukraine among those cited — receive FMF when their security ties and policy alignment with U.S. objectives justify investment [3]. The program generally finances procurement via FMS or Direct Commercial Contracts rather than unrestricted cash grants, ensuring funds buy specific defense articles, services, and training [3] [5].
4. Process mechanics — from planning guidance to congressional notification
Operationally, the DSCA’s budgetary and forecasting processes matter: the SAPBR and Foreign Military Sales Forecast inform decisions and the Javits Report to Congress, while DSCA allocations determine FMF administrative funding and contract administration services. Large sales or grants trigger congressional notifications and oversight, and procurement recovers certain non-recurring costs; the President and State Department approve case-by-case programs, especially for Direct Commercial Contracts, meaning the process combines multi-year planning with project-level review [2] [6]. This process-driven approach means country selection is both programmatic and transactional — long-term allocations coexist with ad hoc, policy-driven packages authorized or funded in response to crises or strategic shifts [5].
5. Conflicting emphases and where transparency matters most
The sources describe consensus on structure but show differing emphases: some accounts stress legal authority and Secretary-level choices under the AECA [1], while others emphasize Congress’s budgetary power and the DSCA’s technical execution and forecasting processes [3] [2]. This creates predictable winners (statutory, treaty-backed partners) alongside flexible allocations shaped by political will, regional threats, and oversight. End-use monitoring, human-rights considerations, and congressional conditions are recurring but variably prominent factors in descriptions, pointing to areas where transparency and public reporting determine how clearly the U.S. rationale for specific recipients is visible [4] [3].