‘Excess Defense Articles’ is a powerful presidential authority.
Jan 17, 2024
U.S. ARMY PHOTO
Pro-Russia Republicans in the U.S. Congress for months have been withholding $61 billion in vital military aid to Ukraine.
They’ve been betting that, by linking a fresh round of aid to unprecedented restrictions on immigration and asylum, they can either: get U.S. president Joe Biden and Democratic lawmakers to agree to a raft of new xenophobic policies; or at least sow political chaos that they believe will benefit them in upcoming elections.
But Republicans aren’t “negotiating”—or, more accurately, “extorting”—from a position of strength. Because Biden has a de facto veto over their veto of aid to Ukraine. One he either doesn’t yet fully appreciate or, more likely, is saving for an emergency.
It’s a classification for older weaponry the U.S. government calls “Excess Defense Articles,” or EDA. The government has the legal authority to sell extremely cheaply—or even give away—any U.S. military hardware that U.S. forces no longer need.
Biden only rarely has used his EDA authority to send weapons to Ukraine. Instead, he has leaned more heavily on his separate Presidential Drawdown Authority to send to Ukraine newer weapons that U.S. forces otherwise still might use.
But the way Biden has used PDA requires the Pentagon immediately to pay for replacement weapons for its own forces. It’s money for those replacements—as well as financing for other arms production for Ukraine—that Biden largely is asking for in his supplemental funding proposal.
All that is to say, Biden needs Republicans if he’s going to continue supporting Ukraine via his drawdown authority. He doesn’t need Republicans if he instead falls back on his EDA authority.
EDA might be the, ahem, trump card that Biden is saving in this escalating political game. A game where, tragically, the stakes are Ukrainian lives.
U.S. president Joe Biden perhaps was optimistic when, last fall, he proposed to federal lawmakers a $106-billion supplemental spending bill that would fund military aid to Taiwan, Israel and—to the tune of $61 billion—Ukraine.
When Democrats from Biden’s own political party fully controlled Congress, approval might’ve been swift. But Republicans gained narrow control of the U.S. House of Representatives in the mid-term election in November 2022.
Increasingly under the sway of authoritarians including disgraced former U.S. president Donald Trump and Russian leader Vladimir Putin, House Republicans refused to approve the funding. And holding hands with fellow Republicans in the U.S. Senate, they tied further aid to Ukraine to immigration and border “reforms.”
In short, the Republicans demanded more arrests and less immigration across the border. Biden swiftly signaled he would accept new restrictions along the border if that freed up aid to Ukraine. A trio of U.S. senators—one Republican, one Democrat and an independent—began negotiating a border and immigration bill.
The gang of three senators could release the text of the bill as soon as this week. But the speaker of the House, Louisiana Republic Mike Johnson—a political novice who backed Trump’s failed effort to overturn the 2020 presidential election, which Trump lost—denounced the new bill even before he read it.
“I don’t think now is the time for comprehensive immigration reform because we know how complicated that is,” Johnson said, even though he was one of the Republican leaders who demanded comprehensive immigration reform as a condition of further aiding Ukraine.
Barring some unlikely cross-party alliances, Johnson alone can bring a bill to a vote in the House.
Apparently growing impatient, Biden called Johnson and other Congressional leaders to a closed-door meeting on Wednesday, the main subject of which was Ukraine. Johnson emerged less strident than when he entered. “We understand the necessity about Ukraine funding,” he said.
We don’t know what Biden said to Johnson, but it’s possible he explained that there still are legal tools at Biden’s disposal for sending military aid to Ukraine—tools that don’t require Johnson and his party to do anything.
It’s possible, in other words, that Biden played the EDA card—and emphasized to Johnson that there are two potential outcomes as Russia’s wider war on Ukraine grinds toward its third year and Ukrainian troops run low on weaponry.
One, Johnson and his fellow Republicans can trade new border policies for $61 billion in Ukraine aid and “win” this political game. Or they can withhold aid, compel Biden to lean on his EDA authority and get nothing in return as fresh aid begins to flow.
The list of military hardware Biden could donate or sell cheaply to Ukraine is a long one. It grows longer if Ukraine can tap financing from its European allies in order to pay a higher premium for older American weapons.
The list includes tanks, fighting vehicles, trucks, naval patrol boats and even retired F-16 fighters. Enough weaponry to keep Ukrainian forces in the fight for years.
There are laws and regulations that apply to the EDA-transfer process, but they’re … fungible. The president can give away old weapons that have no commercial value, but the recipient has to pay for shipping. The law also limits the total annual value of EDA transfers to just $500 million.
But the same law doesn’t strictly dictate how government officials value a particular excess weapon. If the Biden administration decides, say, a 1980s-vintage M-1A1 tank—thousands of which are in storage in U.S Army arsenals—is worth just a few thousand dollars, there’s not much that lawmakers can do to stop Biden from sending hundreds of M-1s to Ukraine on trains and ships that Ukraine charters.
If Republicans have healthy political instincts, they’ll vote for the forthcoming Senate immigration compromise and unlock aid to Ukraine. If they don’t have healthy political instincts, and Biden does, the next big batches of American weapons for Ukraine could come from the vast stocks of Excess Defense Articles.
Follow me on Twitter. Check out my website or some of my other work here. Send me a secure tip.
“If Republicans have healthy political instincts, they’ll vote for the forthcoming Senate immigration compromise and unlock aid to Ukraine. If they don’t have healthy political instincts, and Biden does, the next big batches of American weapons for Ukraine could come from the vast stocks of Excess Defense Articles.”
A question emerged as I’m digesting all of this political sandbox games in this article and others, too. Why doesn’t Biden just tell the maga morons go fuck off, or better yet, go blow the orange monkey’d flaccid noodle, and then uses his EDA card … or trump card, if you will?
Because Biden, his defense dept and the entire NSA define “assholes”.
I think the author of this article is forgetting about one important part. His EDA card is not as strong as the author thinks.
Yes, there are plenty of tanks and other machinery in some storage locations that the U.S. can give.
But the problem is that 155mm shells, Patriot missiles and other types of ammo aren’t considered excess
So there is no use sending more Abram tanks when the U.S. can’t even supply the current (31) tanks they sent.
People, including myself, have often been complaining about the lack of M270 and HIMARS provided to Ukraine.
But I don’t think this was really a limiting factor: the issue is buying and shipping the shells they eat.
31 HIMARS don’t seem like a lot, but they are eating an awful lot of shells every day. That is what the money goes to.
Of course, Biden can use the EDA card to get more out of the budget he is asking for, so buying the platforms doesn’t use up too much of this aid package, leaving more money for consumables such as ammo.
^bert
Bert, that’s simply not true. Even munitions have a shelf life and are disposed of regularly. The military tries to use the old stuff first in shooting ranges and what have you, but that’s not always possible. A recent article even mentioned ATACMS that have reached or will soon reach their shelf life and are to be disposed of. Of course, they still work and some demand them to be sent to Ukraine instead.
That is true, but I don’t think expired ammo falls under this EDA scheme.
Yes, technically the U.S. can ship it to Ukraine as it is worth nothing, but I don’t think this is covered by this law.
I actually don’t know how it is accounted for. I could be it is written off, but sometimes speciality ammo is sent back to the manufacturer and receives a new expiry date.
So maybe it isn’t worthless in the U.S. accounting books.
For example, B61 nuclear bombs have been expired many times but always got refurbished.
^bert
I think you’re misguided on this, Bert. The Pentagon can contract private companies to destroy outdated ammo. So, there would be no problem in contracting Ukraine to do this, even with payments for the job. The AFU would propably beat all competitors.
That is not what I meant.
I just was wondering how they account for expired munition and whether the POTUS can send them as part of the EDA scheme. My guess is not, and that the EDA scheme only covers military hardware such as tanks.
^bert
There are certain procedures to dismantle munitions, and it depends on what it is, with some being more difficult than others. To make it short, it’s a cost intensive measure.
“no use sending more Abram tanks”
I don’t think that could happen under EDA.
American Abrams feature depleted uranium armor so top secret that the U.S. does not (by law) allow its export to anyone, not even our closest allies. Export variants have tungsten armor, so any surplus tanks would need to be retrofitted and rearmored. Which would cost money. Which would have to be approved by the same “magaputler shitheads” currently blocking aid to Ukraine.
He (Biden) doesn’t need Republicans if he instead falls back on his EDA authority.
This is what I’ve been saying all along, and getting attacked for it.
I don’t recall seeing any mention of EDA on this site prior to this article. Was this years ago?
An article was published on here before that covered this topic.
I never read that and I am very sure you were attacked for very different (to my pov valid) reasons.
^bert
One reason that came to my mind: Because Rethuglicans may spin this into claiming that their votes for the bill aren’t needed, that Ukraine apparently will get those arms anyway. Behind all this is Trump. He hates Ukraine since Zelensky refused to play along in his scheme to smear Biden.
Maybe this is so. But, if it is, then Biden is playing with Ukrainian lives by dithering. AGAIN!
“They (Iran) have enough nuclear material for several nuclear warheads.” Raphael Grossi
Restore the words given in 1994 by returning the nuclear weapons that kept Ukraine safe.
No reason to let atomic weapons proliferate in NK and Iran and to deprive Ukraine of its right to have the tools allowing a strategy of deterrence.
The best security against the aggression of the Kremlin Nazis.
In a world where our spineless Western leaders refuse to give Ukraine long-range CONVENTIONAL missiles, we will never see Ukraine being handed nukes, even if every household in NK and iran has a nuke at home.