ITAR related discussion

S

swerve

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
11 July 2006
Messages
61
Reaction score
77
Scott Kenny said:
And all are SOLD in the US, therefore subject to ITAR.
Click to expand...
Hang on . . . . so if someone in the USA buys one of anything from a foreign supplier, the USA claims it has the right to veto any sales of that product to anyone it chooses to, even if there is no US involvement. Really?
 
swerve said:
Hang on . . . . so if someone in the USA buys one of anything from a foreign supplier, the USA claims it has the right to veto any sales of that product to anyone it chooses to, even if there is no US involvement. Really?
Click to expand...
Yes.

ITAR and FCPA rely on flow of cash in the US to establish jurisdiction.

They're a little insane.
 
You're saying it's the USA, contrary to principles of international law, claiming jurisdiction over trade between other countries.

Could you please point me to where in the ITAR regulations that's specified?
 
swerve said:
You're saying it's the USA, contrary to principles of international law, claiming jurisdiction over trade between other countries.
Click to expand...
Yes.

If the money flows through the US, that is what Congress wrote as the condition for the law applying.


swerve said:
Could you please point me to where in the ITAR regulations that's specified?
Click to expand...
Falls under use of brokers. Searching for the exact paragraph.
 
Apophenia said:
Which, if evading ITAR effects is one's goal, makes for a handy tip on what not to do.
Click to expand...
The other half of that is US designed things. So IIRC even a basic AR receiver is arguably under ITAR, even when it never was forged or made in the US.
 
Scott Kenny said:
The other half of that is US designed things. So IIRC even a basic AR receiver is arguably under ITAR, even when it never was forged or made in the US.
Click to expand...

Yes, if that foreign-made receiver was designed for military applications, it is still covered by ITAR.

Likewise, foreign-designed and made components designed specifically to a US military requirement or any variant modified for US military application fall under ITAR (but only that specific variant, of course).
 
Scott Kenny said:
Yes.

If the money flows through the US, that is what Congress wrote as the condition for the law applying.



Falls under use of brokers. Searching for the exact paragraph.
Click to expand...
That's not quite what you seemed to say before, which was if something is sold in the USA. What you now seem to be saying is that if the payment for a particular sale passes through the USA, that sale is covered by ITAR. That's rather more reasonable.

That can be avoided by careful handling of payments.
 
swerve said:
That's not quite what you seemed to say before, which was if something is sold in the USA. What you now seem to be saying is that if the payment for a particular sale passes through the USA, that sale is covered by ITAR. That's rather more reasonable.

That can be avoided by careful handling of payments.
Click to expand...
ITAR also applies to anything made in the US or imported into the US.
 
And now the american companies are trying to find workarounds in order to remain competitive on the international and european markets.
https://breakingdefense.com/2026/08/europe-wants-itar-free-weapons-us-firms-are-trying-to-adjust/

"There have long been concerns about how American International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) restrict foreign governments’ ability to sell or transfer domestically built weapons that contain components originating in the US. And that concern is becoming harder to ignore as skepticism surrounding US and European relations has led to a serious push on the continent to move away from buying weapons with US-controlled parts, according to a half-dozen people who talked to Breaking Defense.

“I see that as a growing trend that needs to happen within the EU, as sort of, like, an edict that’s come out,” Honeywell Aerospace CEO Jim Currier told Breaking Defense during last month’s Farnborough Airshow.


European governments have “been very, very clear in terms of how they want to fund, where they want to fund, their desire to have a more sovereign exposure,” Currier added. “That’s going to be an ongoing trend going forward.”"

https://www.euinsider.eu/news/eu-defense-itar-free-europe-rearm

"Honeywell Aerospace CEO Jim Currier confirmed that ITAR-free technology has become "a prerequisite" for winning European defence contracts, as EU governments seek to insulate their military supply chains from US export control decisions.

The EU's €800 billion ReArm Europe plan and the 2026 European Defence Fund both incorporate ITAR-free status as an explicit criterion — marking a structural shift in how Europe buys military technology.

A new Kiel Institute analysis finds European military independence achievable for around €500 billion over a decade, but only if Europe builds an entirely new generation of long-range and hypersonic weapons free from US technology controls."
 
Wotan said:
And now the american companies are trying to find workarounds in order to remain competitive on the international and european markets.
Click to expand...
That is a very very fine line to walk. ITAR and FCPA have really really expensive cousequences.
 
Only for american firms... And on american soil.

In worst case what will happen is that contracts for the €800 billion ReArm Europe programs will go to european firms and american ones will be mostly excluded.
https://www.defencefinancemonitor.com/p/itar-free-compliance-a-strategic

" Binding EU law now explicitly prioritizes “non-dependency on non-Union sources,” effectively creating a de jure perimeter that favors ITAR-free solutions. This is not merely a policy preference but a hard eligibility criterion: under the European Defence Industry Programme (EDIP), at least 65% of the value of components in funded products must originate within the EU or associated countries, while the “design authority” must remain firmly under European jurisdiction to eliminate external veto points over third-market sales."

Win win situation.
 
Scott Kenny said:
ITAR also applies to anything made in the US or imported into the US.
Click to expand...
That's the tricky thing. I've not found anything saying that, & it doesn't seem to make sense.

Do you mean any specific object, or any object of the same type? E.g. if a British radar designed in the UK & using only entirely non-US components is bought by, say, the US navy, does that mean that the USA will consider a sale of that type of radar (still entirely British) to any third country to be a breach of ITAR? That makes no sense. It's insane overreach.

Or do you mean that if the British company sells some of those radars to the USA, those individual radars are subject to ITAR?

Same with "made in the US". Individual US-made radars are subject to ITAR, or all radars of that type, wherever they're made & even if they have no US content, IP, or financing? The latter, again, is crazy. If applied reciprocally it would require the USA to get permission from Sweden to sell any F-18s, for example. And what is the legal basis? US law is US law, not world law.
 
swerve said:
That's the tricky thing. I've not found anything saying that, & it doesn't seem to make sense.
Click to expand...
That falls under re-exporting. If you import, say, a fighter radar on your old warbird, you'd have to fill out ITAR paperwork to sell that airplane or the radar alone to a foreign buyer.

As I understand it, that re-export clause only applies to that specific serial number item, not "all AI-23 radar systems" or whatever the radar in question is.


swerve said:
Same with "made in the US". Individual US-made radars are subject to ITAR, or all radars of that type, wherever they're made & even if they have no US content, IP, or financing? The latter, again, is crazy. If applied reciprocally it would require the USA to get permission from Sweden to sell any F-18s, for example. And what is the legal basis? US law is US law, not world law.
Click to expand...
If the radar has US designs inside. US-made chips count, even if the radar as a whole was made in the UK. US content, IP, or financing is the key. Any item on the list that has US content, IP, or financing, the USGov can veto the sale.

And yes it is a screaming pain in the butt.

Let's step back to our friends making rifle receivers. They have to pay a tax of several thousand dollars a year for permission to produce, even if they do NOT export. If they want to export, that is an additional tax of tens of thousands of dollars.
 
Scott Kenny said:
That falls under re-exporting. If you import, say, a fighter radar on your old warbird, you'd have to fill out ITAR paperwork to sell that airplane or the radar alone to a foreign buyer.

As I understand it, that re-export clause only applies to that specific serial number item, not "all AI-23 radar systems" or whatever the radar in question is.
Click to expand...
Thanks. That makes sense.
 
It should be pointed out that the U.S. also has other ways to pressure countries to cancel potential arms sales to customers that they don't approve of. The most famous example is the opposition to the Israeli sale of an AWACS system to China based on the IL-76 airframe by threatening their foreign aid.

https://jcfa.org/article/the-phalcon-sale-to-china-the-lessons-for-israel/

https://www.mei.org.in/archives-occ...alcon-controversy-/issue-no-20/china-signed-a

So even if Turkey managed to offer a KAAN fighter that was ITAR free, the U.S. could cancel certain sales through external pressure.
 
Wotan said:
And now the american companies are trying to find workarounds in order to remain competitive on the international and european markets.
https://breakingdefense.com/2026/08/europe-wants-itar-free-weapons-us-firms-are-trying-to-adjust/

"There have long been concerns about how American International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) restrict foreign governments’ ability to sell or transfer domestically built weapons that contain components originating in the US. And that concern is becoming harder to ignore as skepticism surrounding US and European relations has led to a serious push on the continent to move away from buying weapons with US-controlled parts, according to a half-dozen people who talked to Breaking Defense.

“I see that as a growing trend that needs to happen within the EU, as sort of, like, an edict that’s come out,” Honeywell Aerospace CEO Jim Currier told Breaking Defense during last month’s Farnborough Airshow.


European governments have “been very, very clear in terms of how they want to fund, where they want to fund, their desire to have a more sovereign exposure,” Currier added. “That’s going to be an ongoing trend going forward.”"

https://www.euinsider.eu/news/eu-defense-itar-free-europe-rearm

"Honeywell Aerospace CEO Jim Currier confirmed that ITAR-free technology has become "a prerequisite" for winning European defence contracts, as EU governments seek to insulate their military supply chains from US export control decisions.

The EU's €800 billion ReArm Europe plan and the 2026 European Defence Fund both incorporate ITAR-free status as an explicit criterion — marking a structural shift in how Europe buys military technology.

A new Kiel Institute analysis finds European military independence achievable for around €500 billion over a decade, but only if Europe builds an entirely new generation of long-range and hypersonic weapons free from US technology controls."
Click to expand...
An entire half-dozen? Wow.
 
Sferrin said:
We used to be ITT. I think they still hold the record.

https://www.justice.gov/archive/opa/pr/2007/March/07_nsd_192.html
Click to expand...
I've seen bigger numbers for FCPA, but that may be the record for ITAR.

FCPA records:
  • 519mil from Teva Pharmaceutical in 2008
  • 800mil from Siemens, also in 2008
  • 850mil from Mobile TeleSystems in 2019 (Yes, that's a Russian company)
  • 700mil from Glencore in 2022
  • And our "winner", Goldman-Sachs, paying 1.2bn to the USDOJ, 400mil to the SEC, and another 1.3bn to authorities in other countries in 2020. Total of 2.9 billion!
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom