US State Dept Oks Possible Sale of F-16 Training, Sustainment for Ukraine
Reuters File Photo
A Hellenic Air Force F-16 flies during NATO's media day for Ramstein Flag 25 (RAFL25) at Leeuwarden Air Base, Netherlands, April 8 2025.
WASHINGTON, May 2 (Reuters) – The U.S. State Department has approved the potential sale of F-16 training and sustainment, along with related equipment, to Ukraine for $310 million, the Pentagon said on Friday.
Days before the deal, Ukraine and the U.S. signed a deal heavily promoted by U.S. President Donald Trump, to give the U.S. preferential access to new Ukrainian minerals deals and fund investment in Ukraine's reconstruction.
Ukraine has previously received F-16 jets from U.S. allies under a jet transfer authorized by former President Joe Biden's administration. Trump has not been as eager to assist Kyiv with weapons support, instead relying on transfers authorized by Biden.
Under Biden, more than $31 billion worth of weapons and equipment was pledged to Ukraine under the Presidential Drawdown Authority (PDA), which allows the president to approve rapid transfers to foreign countries from U.S. military stockpiles, without having to seek congressional approval.
These weapons and others purchased with U.S. funds on behalf of Ukraine and shipped via the same channels continue to flow. This sale is separate from that, and represents an actual weapons deal whose principal contractors include Lockheed Martin Aeronautics LMT.N, BAE Systems BAES.L and AAR Corporation AIR.N, the Pentagon said in a statement.
The sale could include aircraft modifications and upgrades, flight training, maintenance, and sustainment support; spare parts, repair, ground handling equipment, classified software, classified publications and support.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Nikkei Asia
an hour ago
- Nikkei Asia
Nvidia graphics card makers rush shipments to US to beat tariffs
NEW TAIPEI -- Leading gaming PC makers MSI and Gigabyte are racing against time to ship more products to the U.S., including Nvidia's new RTX 5090 graphics cards, before Donald Trump's higher tariffs are set to kick in next month. Joseph Hsu, chairman of MSI, said the Taiwanese company has been building up stock for the U.S. market ahead of the escalation of the tariff war in April. However, because the newest products became available only around April, there was little they could do beforehand.
Asahi Shimbun
2 hours ago
- Asahi Shimbun
Two Chinese aircraft carriers seen in Pacific for first time, Japan says
The Chinese Navy aircraft carrier Liaoning takes part in a naval parade off the eastern port city of Qingdao, to mark the 70th anniversary of the founding of Chinese People's Liberation Army Navy, China, April 23, 2019. (REUTERS) Two Chinese aircraft carriers were spotted conducting simultaneous operations in the Pacific for the first time, Japanese Foreign Minister Takeshi Iwaya said on Tuesday. Japan's Defense Ministry has confirmed the Liaoning and Shandong operating in separate locations in the Pacific on Saturday, both near remote southern islands belonging to Japan. Iwaya said the ministry had communicated with Beijing through China's embassy in Japan and that it would take further 'appropriate steps' as needed. He stopped short of condemning China for the operations. Japan had said a day earlier that Liaoning sailed in the sea within Japan's exclusive economic zone near Minamitorishima, a remote island east of Iwo Jima.
Japan Times
2 hours ago
- Japan Times
Does U.S. law allow Trump to send troops to quell protests?
U.S. President Donald Trump deployed National Guard troops to California after days of protests by hundreds of demonstrators against immigration raids, saying the protests interfered with federal law enforcement and framing them as a possible "form of rebellion' against the authority of the U.S. government. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Monday mobilized 700 active duty Marines as part of the government's response to the protests. California sued the Trump administration on Monday to end the "unlawful" deployment of troops in Los Angeles County and return the state National Guard to California Gov. Gavin Newsom's command. What laws did Trump cite to justify the deployment? Trump cited Title 10 of the U.S. Code, a federal law that outlines the role of the U.S. Armed Forces, in his Saturday order to call members of the California National Guard into federal service. A provision of Title 10 — Section 12406 — allows the president to deploy National Guard units into federal service if the U.S. is invaded, there is a "rebellion or danger of rebellion' or the president is "unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.' What are National Guard troops allowed to do under the law cited in Trump's order? An 1878 law, the Posse Comitatus Act, generally forbids the U.S. military, including the National Guard, from taking part in civilian law enforcement. Section 12406 does not override that prohibition, but it allows troops to protect federal agents who are carrying out law enforcement activity and to protect federal property. For example, National Guard troops cannot arrest protesters, but they could protect U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement who are carrying out arrests. What does California's lawsuit say? California's lawsuit said the deployment of troops in the state without the governor's consent violates federal law and the U.S. Constitution's 10th Amendment, which protects states' rights. The state argues the deployment does not meet any of the requirements in Title 10 because there was no "rebellion,' no "invasion" and no situation that prevented the enforcement of U.S. laws in the state. Trump also did not consult with Newsom before deploying the National Guard, violating Section 12406's requirement that orders to deploy the National Guard "shall be issued through the governors of the States," according to the lawsuit. What is the lawsuit asking for? The lawsuit seeks a declaration from the court Trump's order is unlawful and an injunction blocking it from being enforced. How might a court view the dispute? There is little precedent for such a dispute. Section 12406 has only ever been invoked once before to deploy the National Guard, when President Richard Nixon called upon it to deliver the mail during the 1970 Postal Service Strike, according to Bonta. Five legal experts from both left- and right-leaning advocacy organizations cast doubt on Trump's use of Title 10 in response to the immigration protests and called it inflammatory and reckless, especially without Newsom's support. The protests in California do not rise to the level of "rebellion' and do not prevent the federal government from executing the laws of the United States, experts said. Legal experts were split on whether a court would back Newsom's interpretation of the governor's role under Section 12406. Courts have traditionally given great weight to the word "shall' in interpreting other laws, which supports Newsom's position that governors must be involved in calling in the National Guard. But other experts said the law was written to reflect the norms of how National Guard troops are typically deployed, rather than giving a governor the option to not comply with a president's decision to deploy troops. What other laws could Trump invoke to direct the National Guard or other U.S. military troops? Trump could take a more far-reaching step by invoking the Insurrection Act of 1792, which would allow troops to directly participate in civilian law enforcement, for which there is little recent precedent. Senior White House officials, including Vice President JD Vance and senior White House aide Stephen Miller, have used the term "insurrection" when discussing the protests, but the administration has stopped short of invoking the act thus far. It has been used by past presidents to deploy troops within the U.S. in response to crises like the 1794 Whiskey Rebellion and the rise of the Ku Klux Klan in the immediate aftermath of the American Civil War. The law was last invoked by President George H.W. Bush in 1992, when the governor of California requested military aid to suppress unrest in Los Angeles following the trial of Los Angeles police officers who beat Black motorist Rodney King. But the last time a president deployed the National Guard in a state without a request from that state's governor was 1965, when President Lyndon Johnson sent troops to protect civil rights demonstrators in Montgomery, Alabama. What about the Marines? Trump has more direct authority over the Marines than the National Guard, under Title 10 and in his constitutional role as commander in chief of the armed forces, legal experts said. But unless Trump invokes the Insurrection Act, the Marines are subject to legal restrictions that prevent them from taking part in "any search, seizure, arrest or other similar activity." The Defense Department said on Monday that the Marines were ready to support the National Guard's efforts to protect federal personnel and federal property in Los Angeles, emphasizing the relatively limited scope of their role at the moment.
