Pentagon reviews weapons exports to allies amid reported drop in munition stockpiles
The announcement came after the White House confirmed that it was limiting deliveries of weapons to Ukraine to 'put America's interests first following a Department of Defense review of our nation's military support and assistance to other countries around the globe'.
Those weapons were believed to include both offensive precision munitions such as Himars long-range missiles, 155mm artillery shells, and defensive Patriot anti-air missiles that are crucial for defending Ukrainian cities and energy infrastructure from Russian missile attacks.
The Kremlin strikes have been condemned by most western leaders, including Donald Trump, who last week told a Ukrainian journalist that he would look for ways to deliver more Patriot missiles to Ukraine.
Instead on Tuesday, deliveries of Patriot missiles and other munitions were reported to be halted because of a Department of Defense review inspired in part by the expenditure of hundreds of US interceptor air defense missiles, which were used to help protect Israeli cities as well as Qatar from Iranian bombardments during last month's war.
On Wednesday, the Pentagon confirmed that its review of exports of US weapons could affect countries other than Ukraine, according to Sean Parnell, a defence department spokesperson, who said the review was ongoing. It was not clear if this could include Israel, which buys 68% of its foreign-sourced weapons from the US.
Parnell's remarks came during a briefing in which he defended the review and pause in delivery of munitions to Ukraine but declined to discuss which specific munitions were being held back.
'A capability review is being conducted to ensure US military aid aligns with our defense priorities, and we will not be providing any updates to specific quantities or types of munitions being provided to Ukraine, or the timelines associated with these transfers,' he said. 'We see this as a common sense pragmatic step … to evaluate what munitions are sent and where. But we want to be very clear about this last point. Let it be known that our military has everything that it needs to conduct any mission anywhere, anytime, all around the world.'
On Wednesday, Kyiv warned that a halt in shipments from the US would weaken its ability to defend against intensifying airstrikes and battlefield advances.
Sign up to Headlines US
Get the most important US headlines and highlights emailed direct to you every morning
after newsletter promotion
Ukraine said it had called in the acting US envoy to Kyiv to underline the importance of military aid from Washington continuing, and cautioned that any cut-off would embolden Russia in its war in Ukraine.
'The Ukrainian side emphasised that any delay or procrastination in supporting Ukraine's defence capabilities will only encourage the aggressor to continue the war and terror, rather than seek peace,' Ukraine's foreign ministry said.
The review was said to be carried out under secretary of defense for policy Elbridge Colby, who leads a group of foreign policy thinkers who believe that the US should redirect resources from Europe and the Middle East toward combating the threat posed by China. The so-called prioritisers have powerful allies in the Republican party, including vice-president JD Vance, who has been a prominent critic of US aid to Ukraine.
'For a long time, four years under the Biden administration, we were giving away weapons and munitions without really thinking about how many we have,' said Parnell. 'I think that this president was elected on putting this country first and defending the homeland and then you couple that with … a shift to the Indo-Pacific. Part of our job is to give the President a framework that he can use to evaluate how many munitions we have and where we're sending them.'
Reuters contributed reporting
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Herald Scotland
27 minutes ago
- The Herald Scotland
Trump's record defense budget hits $1 trillion despite DOGE
Although Congress must legislate and approve the full budget, an initial tranche of the fiscal 2026 funding -- $119.3 billion of the $1.01 trillion -- for DoD and the National Nuclear Security Administration will likely arrive via Trump's tax and spending package, which he's dubbed "one, big beautiful bill." The administration staked key portions of the defense budget on Trump's megabill, which includes controversial conservative policy priorities. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth argued before the Senate Armed Services Committee that the budget is needed to "end four years of chronic underinvestment in our military." Former President Joe Biden requested increased levels of defense spending, but congressional Republicans asked for even more. A DoD spokesperson told USA TODAY that Hegseth continues to review programs for cuts or further reallocations. The Pentagon and NNSA spending boost contrasts with major cuts to other programs sought by the administration and the Republican majority in Congress. The reconciliation megabill, which passed the Senate on July 1, must again win House approval before it goes to Trump for his signature. (The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.) Over the next decade, the reconciliation bill would cut $1 trillion from Medicaid, according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office; $300 billion from food stamps; and hundreds of billions more from clean energy programs. Foreign aid and education programs are on the chopping block in the main budget, which Congress has not yet started deliberating. House Armed Services Committee Chair Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Alabama, said the defense spending boost in the reconciliation bill is "needed to restore American deterrence, revitalize the defense industrial base, and modernize our military." Figures on both sides of the political spectrum, including Trump's former chief strategist Steve Bannon, have expressed frustration over the defense budget's continued growth. "You can't talk about fraud and waste and abuse in this town unless you're gonna go to the Pentagon," Bannon said in an April 24 podcast. "And you know what's happened since [DOGE] went over there? Crickets ... The system we have is not sustainable." William Hartung, a defense spending expert at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, told USA TODAY that the Pentagon's rushed budget rollout omitted key documents detailing "the nuts and bolts" of its funding requests. "It makes it very hard to analyze ... their priorities," Hartung said. "(There's) a lot missing if you're a member of Congress trying to evaluate this." That could leave lawmakers and analysts flying blind during the hurried reconciliation bill push, which Trump ordered congressional GOP leaders to have on his desk by July 4. Hartung argued that spending more on defense doesn't necessarily equate to getting better results because Congress often spends money based on what congressional district or state will receive the work rather than how the proposal aligns with U.S. strategy. Former Democratic Rep. John Tierney, who now heads the Council for a Livable World and Center for Arms Control and Nonproliferation nonprofits, said he believes the political climate discourages lawmakers of both parties from questioning defense spending. "There's not a lot of thought about what the strategy is," Tierney added. Nuclear modernization, missile defense garner billions According to the Pentagon, around $85 billion of the proposed defense budget would go toward U.S. nuclear capabilities and Trump's Golden Dome missile defense initiative. Much of the funding will go toward America's triad of nuclear-armed bombers, intercontinental ballistic missiles, and nuclear submarines whose replacements are centerpieces of a broader $1.7 trillion nuclear modernization effort. More: Trump pushes $175 billion 'Golden Dome' missile defense plan Hartung emphasized the Pentagon and NNSA's poor track record of keeping such protects on-time and on-budget. The Government Accountability Office estimated in June that the full cost of developing and deploying the Sentinel ICBM, slated to replace the Minuteman III missiles that have remained on watch since 1970, will balloon to "approximately $170 billion" after the Air Force realized the new missiles could not use legacy Minuteman III silos. "This project is totally out of control," argued Tierney. The administration wants the restructured Sentinel program to receive $4.5 billion in fiscal 2026, according to budget documents. New silos are not included in that figure. The NNSA, which designs, builds and maintains the country's nuclear warheads, is in line to receive a $5.56 billion (or nearly 30%) boost in funding for its Weapons Activities division compared to the previous year. The agency is struggling to hit its timeline and cost goals for reestablishing mass production of nuclear warheads' explosive cores, known as plutonium pits. A May USA TODAY investigation detailed the NNSA's decades-long battle to secure enough federal employees with adequate technical backgrounds to oversee the agency's complex and sprawling projects. Government watchdogs have consistently highlighted staffing problems as an Achilles heel for the agency. More: Nuclear weapons woes: Understaffed nuke agency hit by DOGE and safety worries NNSA's fiscal 2026 budget request does not include significant funding for additional federal employees, despite agency leaders testifying to Congress on May 20 about their scramble to address DOGE-created vacancies amid a near-total hiring freeze. "It's a recipe for wasting money," said Hartung of the NNSA funding boost. Davis Winkie's role covering nuclear threats and national security at USA TODAY is supported by a partnership with Outrider Foundation and Journalism Funding Partners. Funders do not provide editorial input. Contributing: Cybele Mayes-Osterman, USA TODAY
Telegraph
41 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Pound falls despite Starmer's reassurances over Reeves's future
The value of the pound slipped further despite Sir Keir Starmer's assurances that Rachel Reeves will remain as Chancellor 'into the next election'. Sterling dropped nearly 1pc on Wednesday and government borrowing costs surged after the Chancellor shed tears in the Commons and the Prime Minister failed to back her when questioned at the depatch box. He later backed her but the pound and gilt yields – the return the government promises to buyers of its debt – failed to recover from one of the sharpest moves since the Liz Truss mini-Budget crisis. Mohamed El-Erian, chief economic adviser at Allianz, said: 'The concern in markets is that a new chancellor may not be as committed to the fiscal rules.' In early trading, the pound was last down around 0.1pc against the dollar at $1.364 and was 0.2pc lower versus the euro, which was worth 86.5p. Asked about Ms Reeves's emotional state on Wednesday, Sir Keir Starmer told the BBC: 'It was a personal matter for the Chancellor and I've been absolutely clear with you it has got nothing to do with politics, nothing to do with any discussion between me and Rachel, nothing to do with the matters of this week. 'She will be the Chancellor for a very long time to come. She is going to be the chancellor into the next election and for many years afterwards.'
Reuters
an hour ago
- Reuters
Gold and its miners may enjoy a 'critical mineral' upgrade
LAUNCESTON, Australia, July 3 (Reuters) - Is gold the next metal to be added to the list of "critical minerals"? Gold is not a vital component of advanced manufacturing like other critical minerals such as rare earths, lithium and copper. But the precious metal appears to be undergoing a subtle shift in how it is viewed by governments and investors. Since countries moved away from the gold standard by the early 1970s, gold has largely been viewed as a relatively niche part of investment portfolios and government reserves. Gold was something that was added to portfolios as an inflation hedge or during times of heightened geopolitical tensions. In some ways, the role of gold in both central bank and investment portfolios was overtaken by bonds, with U.S. Treasuries becoming the most important of these assets. But the return of Donald Trump to the U.S. presidency is leading to a global reassessment of the relative safety of U.S. assets, the independence of the Federal Reserve and the likely worsening of the U.S. fiscal position. Add in Trump's attacks on the rule of law in the United States and the likely hit to both the U.S. and global economies from his trade policies, and the stage is set for a reevaluation of the role of gold. The precious metal has gained 32.3% from a low of $2,536.71 an ounce hit on November 14 in the days after Trump's victory over his Democratic Party rival, former Vice President Kamala Harris. It reached a record high of $3,500.05 an ounce on April 22, and has since retreated slightly to close at $3,357.08 on Wednesday. While gold's day-to-day moves are still largely driven by the news cycle, the overall backdrop looks supportive. The World Gold Council released a report last month in which it surveyed 73 central banks, and 95% of them expected the official sector to increase holdings in the coming 12 months. "This is a record high since it was first tracked in the 2019 survey and represents a 17% increase from the 2024 findings," the council said. Central banks are also moving to repatriate more of their holdings back to their home countries and away from the United States, a further sign that there is a loss of confidence in U.S. assets and the policies of the Trump administration. Gold is also well-placed as one of the few viable alternatives if more governments, fund managers and private investors outside the United States form the view that the era of U.S. exceptionalism is over and that U.S. Treasuries are now a riskier asset as the country's fiscal position deteriorates. Another factor that is showing the positive story for gold is the performance of gold mining equities. Major gold producers have seen their share prices rise at a far faster pace than the actual metal. There are several reasons why this could be the case, including the expectation that shareholders will receive higher dividend payouts in the future and that companies are being rewarded for showing capital discipline in prior years. But it also may be that investors are starting to re-rate gold mining companies in the expectation that gold becomes a more vital and larger part of portfolios, both public and private. For example, shares in Newmont (NEM.N), opens new tab, the world's largest listed gold miner, have risen 63% from their most recent low on December 30 to close at $60.06 on Wednesday. Canada's Barrick Mining ( opens new tab has seen its shares gain 40.6% in U.S. dollar terms from its recent low on December 19 to the close on Wednesday. Anglogold Ashanti (AU.N), opens new tab shares in New York have surged 108% from the low on December 30 to the close of $46.66 on Wednesday, while Gold Fields (GFIJ.J), opens new tab has seen a gain of 88% in U.S. dollar terms from its November 14 low to the close on Wednesday. If gold does become a more central part of investment strategies, the listed miners are likely to become more attractive, given the difficulty of finding and developing new projects and the long time between exploration and production. Enjoying this column? Check out Reuters Open Interest (ROI), your essential new source for global financial commentary. ROI delivers thought-provoking, data-driven analysis of everything from swap rates to soybeans. Markets are moving faster than ever. ROI can help you keep up. Follow ROI on LinkedIn, opens new tab and X, opens new tab. The views expressed here are those of the author, a columnist for Reuters.
