Biggest Arms Deal in History a Win for Trump on Middle East Tour
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
As President Donald Trump tours the Middle East, the United States and Saudi Arabia signed a historic $142 billion arms deal that according to the White House was the largest defense sales agreement in history.
The U.S. has recently finalized a series of arms deals with Gulf allies worth multiple billions of dollars, signaling Washington's continued strategic tilt toward regional partners amid escalating tensions with Iran and rivalry with Russia and China.
Why It Matters
The U.S. is deepening defense ties with Gulf allies through multi-billion-dollar arms deals as Trump returns to the region, reaffirming America's military foothold in a region increasingly eyed by China and Russia.
Advanced Weapons to Saudi Arabia
"The sales that we intend to complete fall into five broad categories: air force advancement and space capabilities, air and missile defense, maritime and coastal security, border security and land forces modernization, and information and communication systems upgrades," the White House said in a statement.
Earlier this month, the State Department approved a $3.5 billion sale of AIM-120C-8 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missiles to Saudi Arabia, according to the Defense Security Cooperation Agency.
In March, the U.S. approved the sale of Advanced Precision Kill Weapon Systems (APKWS) to the kingdom costing nearly $100 million upon the kingdom's request to buy 2,000 high precision weapons, the agency said.
A U.S. Army Soldier assigned to the 12th Combat Aviation Brigade load an Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System (APKWS) training round for a live-fire exercise, Sept. 23, 2021, Grafenwoehr Training Area, Germany. The APKWS is...
A U.S. Army Soldier assigned to the 12th Combat Aviation Brigade load an Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System (APKWS) training round for a live-fire exercise, Sept. 23, 2021, Grafenwoehr Training Area, Germany. The APKWS is the newest laser-guided rocket system utilized by the 12th CAB stationed throughout Europe. More
Pfc. Jesus Menchaca/U.S. Army/DVIDS
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said both countries had worked "to take on terrorism and all its manifestations today, with groups like the Houthis," as he met with Prince Khalid bin Salman Al Saud, the Saudi Defense Minister, in February.
Unprecedented Drone Sales to Qatar
The U.S. recently approved the sale of advanced MQ-9B drones to Qatar for nearly $2 billion, the first sale of its kind to the region, aimed at enhancing the defense capabilities of the country that hosts the largest U.S. military base in the Middle East.
Trump's ties with Qatar haver been boosted by its supporting role in brokering the ceasefire in Gaza between Israel. White House envoy Steve Witkoff is expected to travel to Doha on Tuesday evening in an effort to broker a new hostage-release and ceasefire deal, according to Axios.
The relationship has recently come under scrutiny after Trump said he would accept a $400 million luxury plane as a gift from Qatar's royal family—though not yet confirmed by Qatar—to be used as Air Force One and transferred to the Trump presidential library foundation after he leaves office.
Billion in Sales to UAE
As Trump headed to Riyadh, the State Department approved the sale of CH-47F Chinook Helicopters and related equipment for an estimated cost of $1.32 billion to the United Arab Emirates — another key regional ally.
"The UAE will use these assets in search and rescue, disaster relief, humanitarian support, and counterterrorism operations," the U.S. Defense Security Cooperation Agency stated.
What People Are Saying
White House in Tuesday statement: "Underscoring our commitment to strengthening our defense and security partnership, the United States and Saudi Arabia signed the largest defense sales agreement in history—nearly $142 billion, providing Saudi Arabia with state-of-the-art warfighting equipment and services from over a dozen U.S. defense firms."
Brian Katulis, Senior Fellow at the Middle East Institute, wrote on May 8: "The Middle East remains a key arena for geopolitical competition, and the fact that President Trump is making his first scheduled overseas trip in his second term to the Middle East sends a message that he is prioritizing the region."
What Happens Next
With Trump eyeing other big deals from Middle East partners, the U.S. is committed to enhance security and defense cooperation with key allies that also reinforce the strategic role of the United States.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
30 minutes ago
- Yahoo
President Donald Trump Broke His Social Security Vow -- and It May Be the Best Thing That's Happened to Retirees
President Donald Trump pledged to end the tax on Social Security benefits prior to and following his election. However, Trump's flagship tax and spending law excluded this popular proposal for two very good reasons. Even though the tax on benefits isn't going anywhere, retirees who needed the biggest boost were helped out by the One Big Beautiful Bill. The $23,760 Social Security bonus most retirees completely overlook › In May, Social Security retired-worker benefits made history. For the first time in the nine-decade history of the program, the average monthly check for retired workers topped $2,000. While this is a relatively modest monthly sum, Social Security income is indispensable for most retirees. National pollster Gallup has surveyed retirees annually for 24 years to gauge how important their monthly payout is from America's leading social program. In April 2025, a combined 86% responded that it represented a "major" or "minor" income source, which is in line with the 80% to 90% of respondents in prior surveys who have needed Social Security income, in some capacity, to make ends meet. Nothing bears more importance to retirees than knowing how much they'll receive each month from Social Security -- and arguably nothing excited these beneficiaries more than President Donald Trump's vow to remove the hated tax on the program's benefits. But with his "One Big Beautiful Bill" now signed into law, retirees have come to the realization that the president broke his promise. Ironically, however, this might be the best thing that has happened to retired beneficiaries. In 1983, with the asset reserves of Social Security's trust funds nearly exhausted, a bipartisan Congress passed the Social Security Amendments of 1983, which President Ronald Reagan signed into law. They gradually increased the payroll tax and full retirement age for working Americans and introduced the now-hated tax on the program's benefits. Beginning in 1984, up to half of benefits could be exposed to federal taxation if provisional income (defined as adjusted gross income + tax-free interest + one-half of benefits) topped $25,000 for single filers and $32,000 for couples filing jointly. A decade later, a second tax tier was added that exposed up to 85% of benefits in instances where provisional income surpassed $34,000 and $44,000 for single and married filers, respectively. What's made taxing Social Security benefits such a sensitive subject is that these income thresholds, which were introduced decades ago, haven't once been adjusted for inflation. Taxing benefits was expected to affect around 10% of all senior households in the mid-1980s. Today, it's applicable to approximately half of all senior households. During Donald Trump's presidential campaign, he proclaimed in all caps on Truth Social, "Seniors should not pay tax on Social Security." This was a sentiment that he reiterated at a town hall event months after his inauguration. Based on the overwhelming popularity among existing beneficiaries of eliminating the tax on benefits, the expectation was for Trump's budget bill to follow through on his campaign and post-election vow. But this didn't happen for two very good reasons. The prominent issue with Trump's popular proposal is that it would have financially crippled Social Security. The Old-Age and Survivors Insurance trust fund (OASI), which is responsible for paying retired workers and survivor beneficiaries each month, is an estimated eight years away from exhausting its asset reserves. Though the OASI fund doesn't require a cent in asset reserves to continue doling out payments, the existing payout schedule is at risk of being slashed by 23% for retired workers and survivors come 2033. If the president's proposal was somehow signed into law and the tax on Social Security benefits was eliminated, it would have removed one of the program's three sources of funding and expedited the timeline to the depletion of OASI asset reserves. More than likely, it would have also widened how much benefits would need to be cut to sustain payouts through 2099. The other reason eliminating the tax on benefits was shelved has to do with politics. Whereas most tax and spending provisions in what is now Trump's flagship law could be dealt with through a process known as reconciliation (where a simple majority of votes in the House and Senate determines passage), amending the Social Security Act can't be done through reconciliation. It requires 60 votes in the Senate, which would necessitate bipartisan cooperation given that Republicans hold only 53 seats in the upper house of Congress. Instead of holding up the budget bill or risking defeat, the "no tax on Social Security" provision was left out. On the surface, the prospect of still having to pay tax on some portion of Social Security benefits probably isn't sitting well with retirees -- especially with President Trump pledging to remove this disliked tax on a number of occasions. But when push comes to shove, Trump bailing on his Social Security vow may actually be the best possible news for retirees on two fronts. To begin with, abandoning the "no tax on Social Security" provision ensures the OASI asset reserves won't be exhausted demonstrably faster than they're currently projected to. While doing nothing isn't the right answer for Social Security, eliminating the tax on benefits was unequivocally the wrong answer with regard to the financial health of the program. However, the real victory for retirees is the provision that replaced this vow to eliminate the tax on benefits. Trump's flagship tax and spending law offers a number of tax breaks, including no tax on overtime or tips for select workers from 2025 through 2028, as well as a quadrupling in the deduction for state and local tax (SALT) from $10,000 to $40,000 through 2029. But the highlight of Trump's newly signed law is the beefed-up standard deduction for seniors age 65 and above from 2025 through 2028. Retirees will receive an added $6,000 standard deduction -- or $12,000 (combined) when filing jointly -- if their adjusted gross income (AGI) is less than $75,000 for single filers and $150,000 if filing jointly. A 6% phase-out begins above these income thresholds, with single filers and married couples with AGIs above $175,000 and $250,000, respectively, not eligible for this added deduction. Removing the tax on benefits would have specifically aided middle- and high-earning recipients who are currently paying tax on some portion of their benefits. Meanwhile, the temporary deduction boost from the One Big Beautiful Bill is aimed at reducing tax liability for low- and middle-income beneficiaries. In other words, this provision helps the retirees more likely to need a financial boost. Ultimately, this is the best possible outcome for a majority of Social Security retirees. If you're like most Americans, you're a few years (or more) behind on your retirement savings. But a handful of little-known could help ensure a boost in your retirement income. One easy trick could pay you as much as $23,760 more... each year! Once you learn how to maximize your Social Security benefits, we think you could retire confidently with the peace of mind we're all after. Join Stock Advisor to learn more about these Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. President Donald Trump Broke His Social Security Vow -- and It May Be the Best Thing That's Happened to Retirees was originally published by The Motley Fool Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
CNET
35 minutes ago
- CNET
A US-Only TikTok Replacement App Could Be Coming. What We Know So Far
A new US-only version of TikTok is being developed by the vertical video app's owner ByteDance, and will replace the current version of TikTok ahead of a September deadline for the Chinese company to divest ownership in the US, according to a report this week by The Information. The new app, codenamed "M2," would launch on Sept. 5 and would require users in the US to switch from the existing app to the new one, the report said, citing anonymous sources. US President Donald Trump recently extended a deadline for the owner to sell its US-based TikTok assets by Sept. 17. Earlier this month, Trump said he found a buyer for the company, which he called a group of "very, very wealthy people." The administration has continued to extend deadlines for TikTok to remain operational since January when it was shut down for less than 24 hours. The company reportedly has 170 million users in the US. A representative for TikTok did not respond to a request for comment. According to The Information, the reason for the new app version is also due to an Apple App Store restriction that does not allow multiple versions of an app for different regions to appear in the same listing. What this means for you If the report is accurate, it would mean that at the very least, anybody who uses the TikTok mobile app would eventually be required to migrate to a new US-centric version. But there's likely to be a lengthy grace period, according to The Information's sources: the old app may not disappear completely until March 2026, giving TikTok users six months to make the transition. Still, it could be disruptive for those whose business or brand relies on the platform. "Anytime there is a migration or a major feature revamp on any network, it certainly creates work and worry," said Jennie Smythe, an author and founder and CEO of Girlilla Marketing, which has worked with clients including Willie Nelson, Terry Crews and Iliza Shlesinger. "There are concerns that audiences will also make the move and if the migration will be worth the effort," Smythe told CNET in an email. "The bigger concern besides the migration are the features and data that will be available to us in the creator economy as well as the audience restrictions (i.e. is our content/audience also restricted to US only?)." It's unclear if the new app would include any other major changes or improvements over the existing app or if it would restrict or filter viewing content from other regions in ways that differ from the current version.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
How latest block of Trump's birthright citizenship order tests legal landscape after Supreme Court ruling
A federal judge's decision to temporarily prevent the Trump administration from stripping birthright citizenship for some babies born in the U.S. is an early test of the legal landscape, after the Supreme Court greatly restricted the ability of judges to issue nationwide blocks of presidential policies. On Thursday morning, in New Hampshire, U.S. District Judge Joseph Laplante granted class action status to a lawsuit that seeks to protect babies who would be denied birthright citizenship, and granted a temporary block of President Donald Trump's order from going into effect throughout the country. The decision brought hope to pregnant women and groups who were dealt a blow two weeks ago when the Supreme Court largely restricted the ability of federal judges to use one of the strongest tools at their disposal — the use of nationwide injunctions to prevent federal policies from going into effect. The Supreme Court decision would have allowed Trump's executive order to go into effect on July 27 in parts of the U.S. In the aftermath, immigrants and their attorneys pivoted to seeking class action status for immigrant babies and parents in hopes of finding another way to stop the president. 'It was clear that the Supreme Court decision had closed one very important door for challenging policies, but it also in the process opened other doors,' Muzaffar Chishti, a senior fellow with the Migration Policy Institute, told NBC News. The Supreme Court has not yet ruled on whether Trump's executive order is unconstitutional and multiple lawsuits challenging it remain ongoing. But its decision on June 27 left open an important avenue for plaintiffs to try to stop federal government policies nationwide through the use of class action lawsuits. 'This case is an early test for how litigants will adapt to the legal landscape after the Supreme Court's death blow to national injunctions,' Chishti said. 'It normally takes months, if not years, for an altered landscape to be observed. But since this is such an important constitutional issue, we are getting a chance to revisit the landscape within two weeks.' Under Trump's plan, birthright citizenship would be limited to those who have at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen or permanent resident. The order also denies citizenship to children whose mothers are temporarily in the United States, including those visiting under the Visa Waiver Program or as tourists, or who are students and whose fathers are not citizens or lawful permanent residents. In the written order issued Thursday, Laplante wrote that the court certified class action status to the following group in issuing the nationwide block of Trump's order: 'All current and future persons who are born on or after February 20, 2025, where (1) that person's mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the person's father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person's birth, or (2) that person's mother's presence in the United States was lawful but temporary, and the person's father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person's birth.' Laplante, who was appointed by President George W. Bush, had previously denied issuing a nationwide injunction in a similar case earlier this year. Instead, he had issued a narrower order where he only blocked the policy from being enforced on members of groups that would be affected by Trump's order. But his order on Thursday effectively blocked Trump's executive order from being enforced nationwide, at least temporarily. 'This was a ruling that certified a preliminary class of folks across the nation from a judge who was skeptical of nationwide injunctions, and so I think it shows that the class action mechanism is a viable one, that courts are willing to entertain,' said Haiyun Damon-Feng, an immigration and constitutional law professor at Cardozo School of Law. Cody Wofsy, the American Civil Liberties Union's lead attorney in the case, said after Thursday's court hearing that Laplante's order was 'going to protect every single child around the country from this lawless, unconstitutional and cruel executive order.' White House spokesperson Harrison Fields said in a statement to NBC News that the decision was 'an obvious and unlawful attempt to circumvent the Supreme Court's clear order against universal relief.' 'This judge's decision disregards the rule of law by abusing class action certification procedures. The Trump Administration will be fighting vigorously against the attempts of these rogue district court judges to impede the policies President Trump was elected to implement,' Fields said in the statement. The Trump administration has seven days to appeal Laplante's temporary block to a higher court, and the issue could find itself back at the Supreme Court to determine if the judge's order complies with last month's ruling. 'It's not the end right of the birthright question. We are probably going to see more fights take place over procedure, over the question of class certification, as well as the question of birthright citizenship on the merits,' Damon-Feng said. This article was originally published on
