A fact check request was submitted by one of our subscribers. You can submit your own fact check requests for free, and we will investigate and publish the results.
Breaking Down the Facts
A recent New York Times article by Edward Wong claims that Secretary of State Marco Rubio bypassed Congress to send $4 billion in arms to Israel under an emergency declaration. While the piece raises valid concerns about the process of arms sales, there are key omissions and misrepresentations that need to be addressed.
What’s Missing or Misrepresented?
The article states that “Marco Rubio has invoked ’emergency authorities’ to bypass Congress and send $4 billion in weapons to Israel” without explaining that this mechanism is legal under U.S. arms transfer laws. The Arms Export Control Act grants the president—and by extension, the Secretary of State—the ability to expedite arms transfers in the event of an emergency. Similar waivers were used by past administrations, including under Trump and Biden.
The piece also frames the move as an unusual departure from congressional oversight, yet emergency arms transfers are not unheard of in U.S. foreign policy. The absence of historical context may lead readers to believe this is an unprecedented or illegal act when it is not.
Is This an Illegal Act?
The claim implies wrongdoing by Rubio, but legally speaking, he acted within the authority granted by federal law. The president and Secretary of State have the power to authorize emergency arms sales without standard congressional review. While lawmakers can express concerns or attempt to block future transfers, Rubio does not face legal consequences for this action.
Can He Be Prosecuted?
Since the action falls within existing legal frameworks, there is no basis for prosecution. Critics may argue that circumventing Congress is politically questionable, but it is not criminal.
Final Verdict
While the article accurately reports that an emergency arms transfer was made to Israel, it lacks crucial context regarding the legality and precedent of such actions. The framing may lead readers to mistakenly believe the move was illegal or without precedent, when in reality, similar actions have been taken by multiple administrations.
Want more fact checks? Download DBUNK and stay informed.
