US State Dept approves $3.5 billion missile sale to Saudi Arabia
By Mike Stone
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The U.S. State Department approved a possible foreign military sale to Saudi Arabia of AIM-120C-8 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missiles and related support for $3.5 billion, the Pentagon said in a statement on Friday.
The U.S. is poised to offer Saudi Arabia an arms package worth well over $100 billion during U.S. President Donald Trump's visit to the kingdom in May.
The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia requested 1,000 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missiles (AMRAAM), 50 AMRAAM guidance sections and other equipment including spares, missile containers, and spare parts, and logistics support services.
The Pentagon's Defense Security Cooperation Agency notified Congress of the possible sale on Friday.
Despite approval by the State Department, the notification does not indicate that a contract has been signed or that negotiations have concluded.
The principal contractor will be RTX Corp, according to the Pentagon.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
12 minutes ago
- Yahoo
China's Xi meets with Lukashenko of 'all-weather' partner Belarus
BEIJING (Reuters) -Chinese President Xi Jinping on Wednesday met with President Alexander Lukashenko of Belarus in Beijing, the official Xinhua news agency reported, as the two "all-weather" partners looked to further deepen strategic ties and cooperation. Lukashenko's visit to Beijing was his first to the Chinese capital since he was declared a winner of a presidential election in January, extending his 31-year rule of the former Soviet republic.
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump's Haste Begets Lawlessness
Last week, a federal court ruled that President Donald Trump had exceeded his statutory authority by imposing a raft of tariffs based on the "national emergency" supposedly caused by the longstanding U.S. trade deficit. Those tariffs are part of an alarming pattern: In his rush to enact his agenda, Trump frequently treats legal constraints as inconveniences that can be overridden by executive fiat. The U.S. Court of International Trade rejected Trump's reliance on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to justify sweeping import taxes he announced in February and April. The three-judge panel said that 48-year-old law, which does not even mention tariffs and had never been used this way before, does not authorize the president to "impose unlimited tariffs on goods from nearly every country in the world." That decision did not affect tariffs that Trump has imposed or proposed under different statutes, such as his taxes on cars, steel, and aluminum. But by invoking the IEEPA, Trump hoped to avoid the specific rationales and sometimes lengthy procedures those laws mandate. Trump's immigration crackdown features similar legal shortcuts. After he asserted the power to summarily deport alleged members of a Venezuelan gang as "alien enemies," for example, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that they had a due process right to contest that designation. That decision did not address Trump's dubious interpretation of the 227-year-old Alien Enemies Act. But several federal judges, including a Trump appointee, subsequently concluded that it made no sense to portray gang members as "natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects" of a "hostile nation or government" that had launched an "invasion or predatory incursion against the territory of the United States." As with tariffs, Trump had a more legally defensible option: deportation of unauthorized residents under the Immigration and Nationality Act. But in both cases, he chose the course he thought would avoid pesky procedural requirements. Something similar happened when Immigration and Customs Enforcement suddenly terminated thousands of records in the database of foreign students with visas authorizing them to attend American universities. Although that move was described as part of a "Student Criminal Alien Initiative," it affected many people without disqualifying criminal records—in some cases, without any criminal records at all. Those terminations "reflect an instinct that has become prevalent in our society to effectuate change: move fast and break things," U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White wrote when he issued a preliminary injunction against the initiative on May 22. "That instinct must be checked when it conflicts with established principles of law." The same instinct is apparent in Trump's conflict with Harvard University. The administration froze more than $2 billion in federal research grants to Harvard, ostensibly because the university, by tolerating antisemitism on campus, had failed to meet its "responsibility to uphold civil rights laws." That decision ignored the legal process for rescinding federal funding based on such alleged violations. The process includes "a lot of steps, but they're important," the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression notes. "They protect students by making sure colleges live up to their obligations. And they protect colleges by making sure they have an opportunity to contest the allegations as well as a chance to make things right." Trump's disregard for the law is coupled with angry dismay at judicial review. As he sees it, any judge who dares to impede his will is a "Radical Left Lunatic," a "troublemaker" and "agitator" who "should be IMPEACHED!!!" After the tariff ruling, a White House spokesman argued that the court charged with interpreting and applying trade laws had no business doing that. "It is not for unelected judges to decide how to properly address a national emergency," he insisted. Contrary to that take, "it is emphatically the province and duty" of the judicial branch to "say what the law is," as Chief Justice John Marshall put it 222 years ago. Especially when the executive branch is headed by someone who does not seem to care. © Copyright 2025 by Creators Syndicate Inc. The post Trump's Haste Begets Lawlessness appeared first on
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
What is debanking? Why Citi said it won't debank for political reasons anymore?
Citigroup released a statement Tuesday saying that the bank will be changing its policies to make it clear that it does not debank or discriminate on political grounds. This statement comes after President Donald Trump and other Republican leaders accused the banking industry of discriminating against certain customers based on political affiliation, according to The Wall Street Journal. 'Citi has always been fully committed to treating all current and potential clients fairly and we have policies, procedures and controls in place for this express purpose. At the same time, we appreciate the concerns that are being raised regarding 'fair access' to banking services, and we are following regulatory developments, recent Executive Orders and federal legislation that impact this area,' said the bank's statement. In the statement, the bank also announced it will no longer have a specific policy regarding firearms following regulatory developments and 'fair access' concerns. 'These changes reinforce our commitment to serve all clients fairly, and we will continue to work with regulators and elected officials on ways to improve transparency and trust in the banking sector,' the bank's statement read. Citigroup's firearms policy was adopted in 2018 shortly after the mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, where 17 students and staff were fatally shot by a 19-year-old, per The Wall Street Journal. The policy restricted how the bank provided services to firearm manufacturers, sellers and resellers, according to NBC. 'Our U.S. Commercial Firearms Policy was implemented in 2018 and pertained to sale of firearms by our retail clients and partners. The policy was intended to promote the adoption of best sales practices as prudent risk management and didn't address the manufacturing of firearms. Many retailers have been following these best practices, and we hope communities and lawmakers will continue to seek out ways to prevent the tragic consequences of gun violence,' Citi's statement said. According to The Wall Street Journal, when the bank implemented the policy, it said it wasn't because of an ideological mission but that the company wanted to do its part to prevent guns from 'getting into the wrong hands.' The policy required clients to 'adhere to these best practices: (1) they don't sell firearms to someone who hasn't passed a background check, (2) they restrict the sale of firearms for individuals under 21 years of age, and (3) they don't sell bump stocks or high-capacity magazines,' per NBC. Citi's firearms policy received backlash from right-wing news outlets and pro-gun groups. Debanking is the idea of banks closing the accounts of organizations or people that are perceived to pose a financial, legal, regulatory or reputational risk to the bank. For years, banks have faced criticism from groups and individuals saying they were unfairly dropped as customers, according to The Wall Street Journal. These claims have been partially fueled by the fact that banks most often don't give explanations when closing a client's account. Political pressure around debanking has increased recently as right-wing officials and tech leaders have alleged that certain people, including cryptocurrency proponents and conservatives, were being blocked by the Biden administration from banking services, per NBC. Since President Donald Trump's return to the White House, he has confronted the CEOs of Bank of America and JPMorgan Chase and he raised complaints at the World Economic Forum in Switzerland earlier this year. Both of the confronted banks said they would never close an account on political grounds, per NBC. As the debate of debanking has continued, banks have repeatedly said they don't discriminate against customers based on beliefs or background. 'They have said account closures are driven by anti-money-laundering rules or other regulatory reasons, which can cause them to drop risky customers who might be engaging in suspicious activity,' per The Wall Street Journal. Republicans in Congress have proposed legislation to address concerns around debanking. Concerns have also been raised by Democrats, such as Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who claim that banks have unfairly shut down accounts linked to formerly incarcerated clients or on the basis of religion. Monday's statement from Citigroup follows the concerns raised on both sides of the political spectrum over the last few months. 'We will update our employee Code of Conduct and our customer-facing Global Financial Access Policy to clearly state that we do not discriminate on the basis of political affiliation in the same way we are clear that we do not discriminate on the basis of other traits such as race and religion,' per Citi's statement.
