this post was submitted on 26 May 2025
26 points (96.4% liked)

politics

23928 readers
3486 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

U.S. President Donald Trump reportedly intends to lift CAATSA sanctions against Turkey and restore its participation in the F-35 fighter jet program. However, a major legal obstacle stands in the way - a provision included in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2020.

In 2019, Turkey faced U.S. sanctions after acquiring Russia's S-400 air defense system. While some sanctions under CAATSA can be lifted by presidential authority, Section 1245 of the NDAA explicitly prohibits the transfer of F-35 aircraft to Turkey as long as the country remains in possession of the S-400. Unlike CAATSA, this law does not provide the president with discretion to suspend the restriction unilaterally.

Legal experts within the Trump administration are reportedly exploring possible workarounds. For instance, if Turkey were to place the S-400 into long-term storage - either domestically or abroad - or transfer control of the system to a third party, such as the United States, the administration could argue that the condition of “possession” no longer applies.

Additionally, a separate bipartisan bill proposed by Senators James Lankford, Jeanne Shaheen, Tom Tillis, and Chris Van Hollen further restricts U.S. support for F-35-related activities involving Turkey. The bill bars the use of defense funds for transferring F-35 aircraft or technical support to Turkey, as well as building or assisting in the construction of storage facilities for the jets.

The only exception would be triggered if both the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State jointly certify to Congress that Turkey no longer possesses the S-400, has provided reliable assurances it will not reactivate or reacquire the system, and has not purchased additional Russian military equipment since July 2019.

Thus, despite President Trump’s stated intentions to improve relations with Turkey and resume arms deliveries, including F-35 fighters, his administration faces serious legal constraints. These restrictions were partly the result of earlier actions taken by the administration itself, and reversing them now requires either congressional approval or complex legal maneuvers. This casts doubt on how quickly such plans can be realized, highlighting how current policy must contend with the consequences of past decisions.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 week ago

Turkey is pretty deep into their KAAN program. Why are they still trying to get F35's?