The Trump administration has officially cautioned the European Union against favoring local arms manufacturers in its upcoming revision of defense procurement rules. The US Department of Defense submitted its concerns to an EU consultation, emphasizing that any changes that restrict American companies’ entry into the European defense market might provoke a retaliatory response from Washington.
Reported first by Politico, the comments are part of the EU’s broader effort to revamp its 2009 defense procurement directive. The Pentagon expressed that it “strongly opposes any changes” that would limit the ability of U.S. firms to participate in defense procurement processes of EU member states.
The administration’s warning stressed that implementing protectionist policies aimed at excluding American companies would be misguided, especially as many significant European defense firms continue to access the U.S. market. The U.S. State Department backed this stance, with Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau previously voicing concerns about European NATO allies’ preference for domestic defense industries over American suppliers.
This conflict arises during a pivotal moment, as the European Commission is pushing to bolster the share of European-made weapons amid rising tensions stemming from Russia’s aggression in Ukraine and uncertainties regarding long-term U.S. defense commitments. Historically, European militaries have heavily depended on U.S. military equipment, with nearly two-thirds of the EU’s weapon imports originating from the United States.
The updated procurement directive is expected to be unveiled in the third quarter of this year and is part of an initiative to fortify the EU’s defense industrial base. Current proposals include imposing local-content requirements under agreements such as the €150 billion SAFE loans-for-weapons program, which mandates a minimum percentage of military equipment be sourced from within Europe.
Should EU member states adopt stringent European-preference rules in their national procurement laws, the Pentagon warned that the U.S. could reassess existing waivers and exceptions under current Reciprocal Defense Procurement Agreements—thereby potentially limiting European firms’ competitive access to American defense contracts.
The Trump administration argued that such European-preference measures could reduce procurement flexibility among member states, lessen NATO cohesion, and jeopardize operational goals mutually agreed upon by allies. Additionally, it might contradict commitments made under a recent U.S.-EU trade agreement that expected Brussels to increase its procurement of American defense equipment.
This exchange reflects the ongoing tension between the U.S. and EU regarding defense responsibilities—while the U.S. encourages Europe to take on more defense obligations, it also insists that American defense firms should not suffer as a result. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has also voiced opposition to strict “Buy European” provisions, although its comments were articulated in a more moderated tone compared to governmental statements.
This situation presents a critical juncture for U.S.-EU relations, highlighting the challenge of balancing domestic industrial support with transatlantic defense partnerships, an essential component for NATO’s strength and unity. The outcome of this debate will likely influence the future of defense procurement in the EU and its reliance on U.S. military assets.