HB3813 amends Section 38 of the Arms Export Control Act to allow the United Kingdom to receive an exemption from the statute’s licensing requirements without first concluding a bilateral agreement. The bill also updates statutory language related to defense-cooperation treaties, expressly preserving a U.S. carve‑out of particularly sensitive weapons and technologies from the Australia Defense Trade Cooperation framework.
This change reduces a procedural barrier that currently ties licensing exemptions to a formal bilateral agreement, potentially accelerating transfers of defense articles and services to the U.K. while leaving unresolved how the executive branch will implement, condition, and supervise those exemptions in practice.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill inserts the United Kingdom into the AECA’s relevant country list and creates an explicit exception allowing the U.S. to grant an export-license exemption for the U.K. without completing the bilateral-agreement requirement. It also restates and narrows the scope of the Australia defense-cooperation treaty by listing categories of items the U.S. will not fold into that treaty’s exemption framework.
Who It Affects
Directly affected parties include U.S. defense exporters, the U.K. defense procurement and industry base, and the departments that administer export controls (State, Commerce, and Defense). Congress and nonproliferation agencies will see an operational shift in how exemptions are implemented and reviewed.
Why It Matters
By removing the statutory requirement to negotiate a bilateral agreement for a U.K. exemption, the bill can speed cross‑border defense trade and deeper interoperability with the U.K., but it also shifts the balance from a negotiated, treaty‑like framework to executive action — raising oversight, implementation, and nonproliferation questions that matter to compliance officers and security reviewers.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
HB3813 makes two interlocking changes to the export-control statute. First, it adds the United Kingdom into a provision (amendment to subsection (f)(3)) that treats that country similarly to Canada in the statute’s existing scheme.
Second, and more consequentially, it creates a new exception to the statutory requirement that an exemption from AECA licensing be tied to a concluded bilateral agreement: the Secretary (and implementing agencies) will be able to grant an exemption for exports to the U.K. without that formal agreement. The bill does not itself spell out the implementing procedures, conditions, or notification practices that will govern such executive exemptions; it changes only the statutory prerequisite.
Separately, the bill replaces an existing subparagraph to preserve an exemption mechanism for defense-cooperation treaties — specifically referencing the 2007 Defense Trade Cooperation Treaty with Australia — but then enumerates categories of weapons, materials, and technologies that the United States will keep outside the treaty’s scope. Those enumerated exclusions are narrowly described (large rocket and unmanned systems meeting defined range/payload thresholds, missile-related stages and guidance components, MTCR Category II items used in rockets, certain biological and toxic agents listed on the U.S. Munitions List, and defense items tied to nuclear-weapon design/testing), plus a catch‑all for items Australia could not enforce under its domestic rules.Put simply: the statute will allow the U.S. executive branch to waive the bilateral-agreement prerequisite and grant export-license exemptions to the U.K. more directly, while simultaneously reaffirming that certain high‑risk categories will not be swept into the Australia treaty exemption.
The bill leaves implementation details — how exemptions will be limited, how end‑use/end‑user controls will be preserved, and what congressional notifications or reporting will accompany exemptions — to regulatory practice and agency guidance.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill inserts "the United Kingdom" into subsection (f)(3) of 22 U.S.C. 2778, giving the U.K. parity with Canada in that provision’s treatment.
It creates a new subparagraph (C) in subsection (j)(1) that removes the statutory requirement to conclude a bilateral agreement before granting an exemption from AECA licensing for the United Kingdom.
It adds subparagraph (D) clarifying that the bilateral‑agreement requirement also does not apply when granting exemptions necessary to implement the U.S.‑Australia Defense Trade Cooperation Treaty.
The statute explicitly directs that specified sensitive categories — MTCR Category I systems (complete rockets and UAVs meeting a 500 kg/300 km threshold), MTCR Category I components and stages, MTCR Category II rocket-related items, certain biological/toxic agents listed on the U.S. Munitions List Category XIV, and defense articles/services tied to nuclear‑weapon design/testing (Category XVI) — be excluded from the scope of the Australia treaty.
The bill includes a carve‑out for any defense articles that Australian law, regulation, or commitments would prevent Australia from enforcing, meaning U.S. exemptions under the treaty cannot rely on Australian enforcement where domestic law precludes it.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Provides the Act’s name: the "Special Relationship Military Improvement Act of 2025." This is purely nominal but signals the legislation’s policy intent to prioritize the U.K. in defense trade policy.
Add United Kingdom into existing country-treatment clause
This amendment inserts the United Kingdom into the statutory clause that previously referenced Canada. Practically, that change ensures the U.K. is explicitly recognized in whatever permissions, exceptions, or procedures flow from subsection (f)(3). For compliance teams, the key practical effect is removing ambiguity about whether the U.K. receives the same statutory footing as Canada under that paragraph; agencies will treat the U.K. accordingly when applying the statute and drafting implementing guidance.
Remove bilateral-agreement prerequisite for U.K. exemptions
Subparagraph (C) says the statutory requirement to negotiate and conclude a bilateral agreement before granting an exemption from licensing does not apply to exemptions for the U.K. That statutory change shifts the legal trigger: agencies no longer must demonstrate a completed bilateral agreement to put an exemption in place for the United Kingdom. The provision is mechanically narrow — it modifies only the subparagraph’s requirement — but it materially changes how quickly and by what instrument an exemption can be issued (agency rulemaking, policy guidance, or case‑by‑case administrative action rather than treaty or formal agreement).
Affirm exemption for defense-cooperation treaties and list narrow exclusions
Subparagraph (D) restates that the bilateral‑agreement requirement likewise does not apply for exemptions that implement defense‑cooperation treaties, specifically naming the U.S.‑Australia Defense Trade Cooperation Treaty. Crucially, it then lists categories of weapons and technologies that the United States must keep outside that treaty’s scope — including high‑performance rockets/UAVs (MTCR Category I), missile components and propulsion systems, MTCR Category II items used in rockets, certain biological/toxic agents on the U.S. Munitions List Category XIV, and defense articles/services used in nuclear weapon design/testing (Category XVI). For implementers, this is the statute telling agencies where not to rely on treaty exemptions because of nonproliferation and national‑security sensitivity.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Defense across all five countries.
Explore Defense in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- United Kingdom Ministry of Defence and UK defense firms — The statutory change removes a formal prerequisite for exemptions and can speed procurement and co-production arrangements by allowing executive-branch exemptions rather than waiting for negotiated agreements.
- U.S. defense exporters and prime contractors working with UK partners — They gain potential faster access to exportable defense articles and services when exemptions are granted, reducing licensing delays on collaborative programs.
- U.S. and UK military planners and interoperability programs — Faster, lower-friction transfers support urgent operational needs, joint development, and lifecycle sustainment of shared systems.
Who Bears the Cost
- U.S. export-control agencies (State, Commerce, and Defense) — Agencies must design and administer exemption processes, decide conditions, and maintain safeguards without the discipline of a negotiated bilateral agreement, increasing regulatory and compliance workload.
- Congress and oversight entities — The shift to executive exemptions can compress congressional visibility and formal treaty review mechanisms, making oversight hearings, reporting, or ad hoc reviews more likely to shoulder the burden of scrutiny.
- Nonproliferation and export-control compliance teams at firms — They must adapt internal controls and due‑diligence to new, potentially faster exemption pathways and may face higher legal risk if agency guidance is ambiguous or enforcement standards change.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill tradeoffs speed and administrative simplicity for a formal, negotiated framework: it empowers the executive to move quickly to exempt the U.K. from licensing requirements — improving interoperability and timeliness — while reducing the statutory checks that a negotiated bilateral agreement provides for oversight, conditions, and multilateral control of especially sensitive items.
The bill streamlines the statutory path to an exemption for the United Kingdom but leaves critical implementation questions unanswered. It neither prescribes what conditions an exemption must include (end‑use restrictions, re‑transfer limits, audit rights) nor specifies the form of agency action or congressional notification that must accompany an exemption.
That creates a gap between statutory authority and operational practice: agencies will have discretion to define the exemption process, timing, and transparency, but that discretion invites inconsistent practices and potential compliance gaps across different export categories.
The statute explicitly protects certain sensitive categories from being folded into the Australia treaty exemption, signaling nonproliferation priorities. However, the bill does not impose analogous statutory carve‑outs for the U.K. exemption.
Because the text removes the bilateral‑agreement requirement for the U.K. but does not list prohibited categories for U.K. exemptions, there is legal ambiguity over whether agencies could, by regulation or policy, include or exclude similarly sensitive items. That ambiguity matters: MTCR controls, the U.S. Munitions List, and nuclear‑related restrictions remain in force, but the practical boundary between regulated licensing and a granted exemption will depend on agency implementation and inter‑agency coordination.
Finally, the interaction with international export-control regimes (MTCR, Wassenaar, Australia Group) is unresolved in the statute. The bill’s carve‑outs for Australia reflect a choice to keep high‑risk items out of treaty exemptions; the absence of corresponding text for the U.K. raises questions about how the U.S. will reconcile faster bilateral exemptions with its multilateral nonproliferation commitments and allied export-control expectations.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.