arms

Revenues from sales of weapons and military services by the 100 largest global arms-producing companies reached a record $679bn in 2024, according to new data released by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI).

The Gaza and Ukraine wars, as well as global and regional geopolitical tensions and ever-higher military expenditures, increased revenues generated by the companies from sales of military goods and services to customers domestic and abroad by 5.9 percent compared to the year before, the organisation said in a report published on Monday.

Recommended Stories

list of 4 itemsend of list

The bulk of the global rise was attributed to companies based in Europe and the United States, but there were year-on-year increases in all regions except for Asia and Oceania, where issues within the Chinese arms industry drove down the regional total.

Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and General Dynamics led the pack in the US, where the combined arms revenues of arms companies in the top 100 grew by 3.8 percent in 2024 to reach $334bn, with 30 out of the 39 US companies in the ranking increasing their revenues.

However, SIPRI said widespread delays and budget overruns continue to plague key projects such as the F-35 fighter jet, the Columbia and Virginia-class submarines, and the Sentinel intercontinental ballistic missile.

Elon Musk’s SpaceX appeared in the list of top global military manufacturers for the first time, after its arms revenues more than doubled compared with 2023 to reach $1.8bn.

Excluding Russia, there were 26 arms companies in the top 100 based in Europe, and 23 of them recorded increases in revenues from sales of weapons and equipment. Their aggregate arms revenues grew by 13 percent to $151bn.

After boosting revenues by 193 percent to reach $3.6bn through making artillery shells for Ukraine, Czech company Czechoslovak Group recorded the sharpest percentage increase in arms revenues of any top 100 company in 2024.

As Ukraine faces a relentless Russian offensive in its eastern regions, the country’s JSC Ukrainian Defense Industry increased its arms revenues by 41 percent to $3bn.

European arms companies have been investing in new production capacity to fight off Russia, the SIPRI report said, but it cautioned that sourcing materials – particularly in the case of dependence on critical minerals – could pose a “growing challenge” as China also tightens export controls.

Rostec and United Shipbuilding Corporation are the only two Russian arms companies in the ranking, and they also increased their combined arms revenues by 23 percent to $31.2bn despite being hit by Western-led sanctions over the Ukraine war.

Last year, weapons makers in Asia and Oceania still registered $130bn in revenues after a 1.2 percent decline compared to 2023.

The regional drop was due to a combined 10 percent decline in arms revenues among the eight Chinese arms companies in the ranking, most prominently the 31 percent fall in the arms revenues of NORINCO, China’s primary producer of land systems.

“A host of corruption allegations in Chinese arms procurement led to major arms contracts being postponed or cancelled in 2024,” said Nan Tian, Director of the SIPRI Military Expenditure and Arms Production Programme. “This deepens uncertainty around the status of China’s military modernisation efforts and when new capabilities will materialise.”

But Japanese and South Korean arms manufacturers’ sales surged on the back of strong demand from European as well as domestic customers amid simmering tensions over Taiwan and North Korea.

Five Japanese companies in the ranking increased their combined arms revenues by 40 percent to $13.3bn, while four South Korean producers saw a 31 percent jump to $14.1bn in revenue. South Korea’s largest arms company, Hanwha Group, recorded a 42 percent surge in 2024, with more than half coming from arms exports.

Israel reaps profits of Gaza genocide

For the first time, nine of the top 100 arms companies were based in the Middle East, according to SIPRI. The nine companies racked up a combined $31bn in revenue in 2024, showing a regional increase of 14 percent.

As the United Arab Emirates continues to face international allegations of arming the devastating war in Sudan, the institute noted its regional figure excludes Emirati-based EDGE Group due to a lack of revenue data for 2023. The UAE rejects the accusations.

The three Israeli arms companies in the ranking increased their combined arms revenues by 16 percent to $16.2bn amid the ongoing genocidal war on Gaza, which has killed nearly 70,000 Palestinians and destroyed most of the besieged enclave.

Elbit Systems pocketed $6.28bn in profits, followed by Israel Aerospace Industries with $5.19bn and Rafael Advanced Defense Systems with $4.7bn.

SIPRI said there was an international surge in interest in Israeli unmanned aerial vehicles and counter-drone systems. Rafael’s surge was tied to Iran, as demand for the company’s air defence systems rose to “unprecedented levels” after Iran’s large-scale retaliatory strikes against Israel in April and October 2024 that used ballistic missiles and drones.

Five Turkish companies were in the top 100 – also a record. Their combined arms revenues amounted to $10.1bn, showing an 11 percent increase.

Baykar, which makes, among other things, advanced drones most recently sold to Ukraine, saw 95 percent of its $1.9bn in arms revenue in 2024 come from exports to other countries.

Military companies from the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, India, Taiwan, Norway, Canada, Spain, Poland and Indonesia were in the ranking as well.

Sudan was teetering on the edge of crisis long before open war erupted in April 2023. Decades of authoritarian rule under Omar al-Bashir resulted in a fragile economy, fragmented security forces, and entrenched paramilitary structures.

Following the coup that overthrew al-Bashir in 2019, a fragile civilian-military transitional arrangement failed to unite competing factions. Political instability, localised rebellions, and a simmering rivalry between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) – the successor to the Popular Defence Forces, government-backed militia known as the Janjaweed who committed war crimes in Darfur in the early 2000s – escalated into full-blown conflict.

By mid-2023, Sudan was effectively split into contested zones, with major urban centres, such as Khartoum and Omdurman, transformed into battlefields, and millions of civilians displaced internally or forced across borders as refugees.

Although geographically removed, the European Union played a consequential role in these developments. For nearly a decade, it pursued a strategy of “externalising” migration control, directing aid, training, and equipment to African states ostensibly to reduce irregular migration towards Europe.

In Sudan, this approach produced unintended and devastating consequences that the EU is yet to be held accountable for. Funding initially justified under “migration management” and “capacity building” intersected with opaque arms flows, Gulf intermediaries, and weak oversight. European money and materiel, intended to stabilise populations and impose border forces to buffer the migratory ambitions of Africans, may have indirectly reinforced the very actors now perpetrating war crimes in Sudan.

Between 2014 and 2018, the EU channelled more than 200 million euros ($232m at the current exchange rate) into Sudan via the EU Emergency Trust Fund for Africa (EUTF) and the Better Migration Management (BMM) initiative.

These programmes formally aimed to strengthen migration control, border security and anti-trafficking enforcement. In reality, they entrenched cooperation between the EU and Sudan’s security structures, including units that effectively merged into the RSF.

As early as 2017, the Enough Project, an advocacy group focused on conflict, corruption and human rights, published a report titled Border Control from Hell, warning that “the gravest concern about the EU’s new partnership with Sudan is that the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), one of the most abusive paramilitary groups in the country, stands to benefit from EU funding” and that “the equipment that enables identification and registration of migrants will also reinforce the surveillance capabilities of a Sudanese government that has violently suppressed Sudanese citizens for the past 28 years”.

Two years later, the EU had to suspend several migration-control activities in Sudan because there was a risk that resources could be “diverted for repressive aims”, according to an EU official document cited by German news outlet Deutsche Welle.

And yet, a factsheet titled What the EU really does in Sudan, published on the bloc’s website in 2018, claimed: “The EU does not provide any financial support to the Government of Sudan … The Rapid Support Forces of the Sudanese military do not benefit directly or indirectly from EU funding.”

All this raises an important question: If the EU knew of the risk of diversion, why did it still invest hundreds of millions into a context where control over the end use of training, equipment and funds was manifestly weak?

What is worse is that the EU’s role was not limited to supplying funds that could be misappropriated. It also provided weapons, albeit indirectly.

As the conflict deepened, investigators started uncovering foreign-manufactured weapons and ammunition circulating widely among the RSF and the SAF. Verified imagery, open-source analysis and serial number tracing have revealed European-manufactured systems on Sudan’s battlefields. In November 2024, Amnesty International released an investigation disclosing that Nimr Ajban armoured personnel carriers (APCs) were equipped with French-made Galix defensive systems. Amnesty’s analysts verified images and videos from multiple Sudanese locations and concluded that, if deployed in Darfur, their use would breach the longstanding United Nations arms embargo on the region.

In April, investigations by France24 and the Reuters news agency traced 81mm mortar shells found in an RSF convoy in North Darfur back to Bulgaria. The markings on this ammunition matched mortar bombs manufactured by a Bulgarian firm and exported legally to the United Arab Emirates in 2019. The Bulgarian government had not authorised the re-export of the shells from the UAE to Sudan.

In October, The Guardian reported that British military equipment, including small-arms target systems and engines for APCs, had been used by the RSF in Sudan, and they may have been supplied by the UAE.

Taken together, these findings illustrate a pattern: European-made arms and weapons systems, legally exported to third countries, have subsequently been diverted into Sudan’s conflict, despite embargoes and supposed safeguards.

Although the UAE denies it plays any role in the conflict, its position as an intermediary hub for re-exported weaponry has been repeatedly documented. Still, European suppliers, bound by end-user agreements and export-control frameworks, share responsibility for ensuring compliance.

Under the United Kingdom and EU regulations, governments must deny or revoke licences when there is a clear risk of diversion to conflict zones or human rights abusers. The use of European-made arms and weapons systems in Sudan, therefore, demands a rigorous reassessment of post-shipment monitoring and enforcement.

Despite this, European and British governments have continued to issue new export licences to potential violators, including the UAE. Recent reporting by Middle East Eye shows that the UK approved roughly $227m in military exports to the UAE between April and June this year, even after being informed that Emirati-supplied equipment had reached the RSF.

European countries are by far not an exception in failing to ensure that their weapons are not diverted to war zones under embargo.

My own country, South Africa, has also faced criticism over the lack of control over its arms shipments. In the mid-2010s, the National Conventional Arms Control Committee (NCACC) faced international and domestic scrutiny after South African-manufactured weapons and ammunition were reportedly used by Saudi and Emirati forces in Yemen.

As a result, in 2019, the NCACC delayed or withheld export approvals, especially for “the most lethal” items, amid disputes over updated inspection clauses and human rights concerns. The South African authorities demanded that they be granted access to facilities in importer countries to ensure compliance with the end-user agreement – something the UAE and Saudi Arabia, along with several other countries, refused to provide. By 2022, previously withheld consignments were eventually cleared under renegotiated terms.

Today, evidence suggests that South African weapons may have been diverted to Sudan as well. Investigators and open-source analysts claim to have identified munitions consistent with South African manufacture in Sudan.

The South African case illustrates that even when there is political will to ensure compliance with the end-user agreements for arms sales, enforcement can be challenging. And yet, it is a necessary and crucial part of peacebuilding efforts.

If democratic governments wish to reclaim credibility, end-use monitoring must be enforceable, not a bureaucratic concession. The NCACC in Pretoria and export control authorities in Brussels, Sofia, Paris and London must publish transparent audits of past licences, investigate credible diversion cases, and suspend new approvals where risk remains unmitigated.

In parallel, the EU must ensure migration management funding cannot be coopted by armed actors.

Without such measures, Europe’s migration policy and South Africa’s defence trade risk complicity in a grim paradox: initiatives justified in the name of security that foster insecurity.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial policy.

MOSCOW — Speaker of the House Jim Wright, winding up a weeklong visit to the Soviet Union, said Saturday that he will advise President Reagan that the United States has its best chance in 50 years to make an acceptable agreement with the Kremlin to reduce nuclear arms.

Wright (D-Tex.), who headed a delegation of 20 members of the House of Representatives, made the statement at a news conference.

Later, in a rare address on Soviet television, he declared that the United States and the Soviet Union are each spending nearly $300 billion a year for military purposes.

“What waste that is for both of us when human wants go unmet in both our countries,” he said. “We do have a common enemy–and the enemy is war itself.”

Wright gave highly favorable appraisals of Soviet leader Mikhail S. Gorbachev and Yegor K. Ligachev, considered the second most powerful member of the ruling Politburo, both of whom met with the congressional delegation last week.

“We believe they have been frank and honest and open with us,” he told reporters. “We think this moment in history presents the best opportunity we have had in the past 50 years to produce an agreement, mutual and verifiable, on reduction of arms . . . .”

‘An Acceptable Number’

Wright said later that he got “a feeling” after talks with Gorbachev that an agreement could be reached to remove medium-range nuclear missiles from Europe and reduce shorter-range missiles (those with a range of 350 to 1,000 miles) to “an acceptable number” deployed in Europe by the Soviets and the United States.

Rep. Dick Cheney of Wyoming, chairman of the Republican Policy Committee in the House and ranking GOP member of the delegation, also said prospects are bright for agreement on removing medium-range missiles from Europe.

“We’re close to agreement . . . and should be able to resolve the differences in the next few months,” Cheney said.

Wright and Cheney both said that they pressed hard on human rights issues during their private discussions with Soviet leaders.

“We suggested, for example, that the Soviet Union conduct a re-examination of people refused (an exit visa) for having knowledge of secrets,” Wright said.

Many refuseniks have been barred from emigrating on grounds that they were exposed to state secrets as long as 30 years ago. Wright said that Gorbachev has, in the past, suggested that the visa barrier should not apply for more than five or 10 years after exposure to secret information.

Rep. Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) said Soviet refusal to give exit visas to Soviet spouses of Americans is undermining efforts to achieve accords in other areas.

Annual military spending is rising globally at its steepest level since the Cold War.

And after a break of more than 30 years, the United States says it might restart testing nuclear weapons.

So if the global arms race is back on, who’s winning, how is war changing, and what’s the true cost of escalation?

Presenter: Neave Barker

Guests:

Michael Boyle – Professor of political science at Rutgers University–Camden

Elijah Magnier – Senior political risk analyst and a regional military expert

Fabrice Pothier – Former head of policy planning at NATO and a senior defence and strategy analyst

Welcome back to the Times of Troy newsletter, where we’ve spent the last 48 hours thinking far too much about a fake punt from the second quarter of Friday’s 38-17 win over Northwestern. The play was diabolical. The fallout since has made it all the more fascinating, transforming a random trick play into a sort of college football Rorschach test.

So let me take you back to Friday night, with USC facing fourth and six near midfield. Lincoln Riley sent out his punt team. Nothing seemed out of the ordinary.

Every soul in that stadium not on USC’s sideline assumed the player lined up to punt, wearing the USC punter’s usual No. 80 uniform, was Sam Johnson … the punter. In part because USC is one of the few schools still without names on the back of their jerseys. But then the purported punter cocked back to throw. Right away, as he completed the pass in the face of pressure, I clocked that this No. 80 was left-handed. And I could’ve sworn Johnson punts with his right foot.

So I consulted the game-day roster. And wouldn’t you know it — listed next to Johnson with the same No. 80 was Sam Huard, the Trojans’ third-string quarterback. Later, Riley confirmed Huard had been listed as No. 80 on the official roster for three weeks.

“You guys gotta pay attention,” he said. “I’m glad none of y’all put it on Twitter.”

He’s right. None of us in the press box noticed that one number on the roster amid the 100-plus printed in tiny type on our game-day card had changed. But changing a third-string quarterback’s number weeks ahead of time to pull off a first-half fake punt against a middling Northwestern team hadn’t been on my bingo card.

USC also didn’t put the change on its online roster. Nor did USC’s sports information department update the weekly game notes with Huard’s new number. Both of which probably would’ve made the stunt feel a little less bush league.

“It hadn’t shown up anywhere else,” Northwestern coach David Braun said of the number change after, “but they did legally submit that. It was on the game-day roster that was here present at the Coliseum. The lesson I’ve learned from that for the rest of my career is that we will go over that with a fine-tooth comb, and look for any of those potential issues.”

But while his fake punt probably didn’t make Riley any new friends in the conference, I don’t believe it broke any rules either.

The Big Ten and I don’t have the same interpretation. Though, the statement the conference issued Sunday morning was especially vague.

The Big Ten pointed to NCAA Football Playing Rule 9, Section 2, Article 2, labeled “Unfair Tactics,” which states that “two players playing the same position may not wear the same number during the game.”

It then notes that “if a foul was identified when [Johnson] entered the game as a punter, a Team Unsportsmanlike Conduct penalty would have been assessed resulting in a 15-yard penalty from the previous spot.”

So if the penalty had been called, it would have been on the ensuing drive, when Johnson would’ve punted from USC’s 41-yard line, as opposed to Northwestern’s 44. But that’s all the statement really says.

You can feel how badly the Big Ten wants to chastise USC for what it probably feels is a play unbecoming of the conference. Most people, I assume, feel that way. But what the conference very notably doesn’t say here is that a foul was committed. Or that a penalty should have been called.

That’s because, in this case, I’m sure Riley could argue about semantics until he turns blue in the face.

The number change was technically within the rules. And technically, there’s no rule that a quarterback can’t line up 13 yards behind the center. We’re only assuming, in this case, that the player is a punter. Players line up in different positions all the time.

College football coaches have been manipulating rules like this for the better part of a century. Remember last season when Oregon coach Dan Lanning purposefully put 12 men on the field to drain the clock on Ohio State’s comeback attempt?

That felt a little bush league at the time too. But you can’t tell me that Lanning’s and Riley’s ploys weren’t also kind of brilliant.

And really, if you think about it, that kind of captures Riley in a nutshell. Intermittently brilliant. Consistently brash. And definitely not here to make friends.

What’s happening with Notre Dame?

Since USC made an amended offer to Notre Dame in August to maintain the series for another two seasons, there hasn’t been much obvious movement in negotiations. It’s not hard to figure out why. USC has no interest in budging on its current offer, and Notre Dame has no incentive to cave to its rival’s demands … yet.

However, the Irish did recently make a notable change to their schedule that creates some flexibility in 2026. Notre Dame confirmed last week that its road game against Florida State was struck from next season’s schedule, which leaves a pretty gaping vacancy that USC would fit into quite nicely.

I still believe the rivals will come to an agreement. Right now there’s no official deadline for scheduling the game. But it’s safe to assume that USC would like to know its nonconference slate before rolling out its season-ticket plans for next season. That’s in January, less than two months away.

—Could the Big Ten really force through its $2-billion private equity deal without USC and Michigan’s support? Yahoo’s Ross Dellenger reported Sunday that the other 16 Big Ten schools are discussing a plan to move forward without USC and Michigan, both of whom made clear they’d vote against the proposed plan to sell a 10% stake of the conference to UC Investments. This, to put it nicely, is a pretty bold gambit from commissioner Tony Petitti. To put it less nicely, I find it patently insane. When the conversation started around a potential private equity deal, the Big Ten told its members it wanted consensus. And now, after that didn’t work out his way, Petitti is just going to move the goalposts? Big Ten sources who spoke to Dellenger had the gall to suggest that USC and Michigan could “risk their future within the conference beyond 2036.” L-O-L. As if the Big Ten’s media or corporate partners — or the private equity fund investing — would be cool with dropping two of the conference’s three biggest brands. USC’s stance hasn’t changed. And it shouldn’t, no matter what sort of toothless plan the conference concocts from here.

—USC’s defense is starting to make the right adjustments. Which was D’Anton Lynn’s strength last season. In one of my first newsletters last season, I wrote about how Lynn’s superpower as an inexperienced defensive coordinator was his ability to make adjustments. That wasn’t happening early this season, as USC’s defense looked lost in the second half in losses to Notre Dame and Illinois. But Lynn seems to have found his stride again. In each of the last two weeks, USC’s defense has given up just a field goal in the second half. Northwestern managed only 103 second-half yards, while Nebraska had 106. The ability to clamp down after halftime could come in handy over the next few weeks. We’ll see if it sticks.

—Riley shut down rumblings of him considering other jobs. The report in question was less an actual report than a juicy bit dropped in with no explanation at the end of a podcast. But when asked about it Friday, Riley suggested it had no merit. “You guys know what I sacrificed to come here,” he said. “I’m where I need to be.” Reassurances from coaches are historically unreliable. But let’s think about this logically: Riley hasn’t really done much at USC to warrant Louisiana State or Florida making him an even larger offer with a friendlier deal than the one he has. This feels more to me like the work of an agent seeking to get his client more money. Riley just happens to have recently gotten new representation with Wasserman.

—The Southeastern Conference is dominating the Big Ten when it comes to TV ratings. According to new data from Nielsen, eight of the 10 most-watched teams in college football this season are from the SEC, while Ohio State is the only Big Ten school on the list. That might seem surprising on its face. But the conference hasn’t had many big- games, and its piecemeal media setup, with games on different networks, doesn’t help. But ultimately, TV ratings don’t matter much. The Big Ten media rights deal pays out more money to its member schools, and that’s all that really matters.

—JuJu Watkins is now part-owner of a women’s soccer franchise. Watkins announced last week that she would join former USC quarterback Caleb Williams as an investor in the Boston Legacy Football Club. She’s the first college athlete to invest in a women’s pro franchise, another accomplishment you can add to her already stellar portfolio.

Olympic sports spotlight

USC announced late last week that Galen Center will be sold out for Sunday’s much-anticipated match against No. 1 Nebraska, which means more than 10,000 packing USC’s arena for a women’s volleyball game.

That says a lot about how far women’s college volleyball has come in recent years, and USC is on a hot streak, having won eight matches in a row. The Cornhuskers are the best team in the sport and haven’t lost all season. Women’s college volleyball is exploding in popularity, and Sunday should be one of the most anticipated matches of the Big Ten calendar.

In case you missed it

Jazzy Davidson powers No. 18 USC to thrilling upset of No. 9 North Carolina State

With one big hit, Jayden Maiava gets on track and delivers No. 19 USC past Northwestern

Old soul Makai Lemon never takes his eye off the prize — helping USC reach the CFP

Keith Browner, former USC linebacker and member of a large NFL family, dies at 63

USC walk-on Kaylon Miller gets his moment at right guard: ‘You just have to be ready’

Without JuJu Watkins, USC basketball holds on to hopes of NCAA title contention

What I’m watching this week

“I Love LA” might seem like standard HBO comedy fare on the surface. Because it mostly is. Rachel Sennott, who also wrote the show, plays Maia, a twentysomething reconnecting with friends in Los Angeles and finding her way after moving from New York.

A good group-hang comedy is great feel-good TV, and this show has some potential in that department. Plus, it’s willing to poke fun at L.A. and its Gen Z influencer culture, which I can appreciate. I’m not totally sold just yet. But I’m willing to keep watching.

Until next time …

That concludes today’s newsletter. If you have any feedback, ideas for improvement or things you’d like to see, email me at [email protected], and follow me on X at @Ryan_Kartje. To get this newsletter in your inbox, click here.

With Malaysia’s Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim (left) by his side, U.S. President Donald Trump oversees the signing of a ceasefire agreement between Thailand’s Prime Minister Anutin Charnvirakul (second from right) and Cambodia’s Prime Minister Hun Manet (right) on the sidelines of the 47th Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) summit in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, on Sunday, October 26, 2025. File Photo via The White House/UPI | License Photo

Nov. 6 (UPI) — The United States on Thursday lifted a Biden-era arms embargo on Cambodia following several high-profile meetings between officials of both countries.

The notice filed by the State Department with the Federal Register that explains the Trump administration was removing Cambodia from the International Traffic in Arms Regulations list due to Phnom Penh’s “diligent pursuit of peace and security, including through renewed engagement with the United States on defense cooperation and combating transnational crime.”

The embargo was placed on Cambodia in late 2021 by the Biden administration to address human rights abuses, corruption by Cambodian government actors, including in the military, and the growing influence of China in the country.

It was unclear if any of those issues had been addressed.

“The Trump administration has completely upended U.S. policy toward Cambodia with no regard for U.S. national security or our values,” Rep. Gregory Meeks, D-N.Y., said in a statement criticizing the move to lift the embargo.

“There has been broad bipartisan concern about the Cambodian government’s human rights abuses and its deepening ties to Beijing.”

The embargo was lifted on the heels of Deputy Prime Minister Prak Sokhonn meeting with Michael George DeSombre, U.S. assistant secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, in Cambodia on Tuesday.

On Friday, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth met with Tea Seiha, another Cambodian deputy prime minister, in Malaysia, where the two agreed to restart “our premier bilateral military exercise,” the Pentagon chief said in a statement.

President Donald Trump has received much praise from Cambodia for his involvement in securing late July’s cease-fire and then last month’s peace declaration between Thailand and Cambodia, which had been involved in renewed armed conflict in their long-running border dispute.

During Tuesday’s meeting between Prak and DeSombre, the Cambodian official reiterated Phnom Penh’s “deep gratitude” to Trump “for his crucial role in facilitating” the agreements, according to a Cambodian Foreign Ministry statement on the talks.

Meeks framed the lifting of the embargo on Thursday as the Trump administration turning a blind eye to Cambodia’s “rampant corruption and repression … because the Cambodian government placated Trump in his campaign for a Nobel Peace Prize.”

“That’s not how American foreign policy or our arms sales process is meant to work,” Meeks said.

Cambodia in August nominated Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize “in recognition of his historic contributions in advancing world peace,” the letter to the Norwegian Nobel Committee stated.