Sources in Washington confirm the Trump administration has quietly dismantled the $1.8 billion Global Anti-Weaponisation and Proliferation Fund. The decision, buried in a late-night executive order, cuts off critical financing for programmes designed to prevent the flow of advanced weapons to rogue states and non-state actors. British defence experts are sounding the alarm, warning that the withdrawal leaves a dangerous vacuum that rivals will exploit.
The fund, established in 2016 after the Iran nuclear deal, supported intelligence-sharing, border security, and dismantling networks trafficking missile technology and components. It was a cornerstone of efforts to curb weapons proliferation in volatile regions from the Middle East to Eastern Europe. But under the new directive, all outstanding commitments are frozen. No more money. No more monitors.
I have seen the internal White House memo. It calls the fund a "waste of taxpayer dollars" and criticises it as a "leftover Obama-era globalist gesture." The real story is simpler: this administration has no appetite for any programme that limits the sale of American arms. The fund’s termination conveniently opens markets for US defence contractors, who have been lobbying for relaxed export controls.
British officials are furious. One senior Ministry of Defence source, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said: "This is a gift to every rogue regime with access to cash. The Americans are walking away from a global security architecture they helped build. We cannot fill the gap alone."
The timing is catastrophic. Intelligence agencies have tracked a surge in illicit weapons transfers from North Korea to Syria and from Iran to Yemen. The fund provided the forensic accounting and border enforcement that slowed those pipelines. Without it, the networks will rebuild.
Critics also point to the human cost. The fund financed disarmament programmes in conflict zones, buying back small arms and light weapons from militias. Those programmes are now suspended. Weapons will stay in circulation. More civilians will die.
This is not a policy shift. It is a calculated retreat. The administration is gambling that short-term commercial gains outweigh long-term stability. History suggests that is a losing bet. Every power vacuum is filled by someone with fewer scruples. The question is who will step in first. The answer may come sooner than London or Washington expect.
