The first clue that something had changed in the U.S. approach to selling military equipment to Europe came as Denmark neared a decision on the purchase of a multibillion-dollar air-defense system. For weeks, American and French negotiators had aggressively pursued the deal. But as the deadline approached, the Pentagon suddenly lost interest.
“We couldn’t understand why,” a contractor who had been tracking the discussions told me. “It seemed like a no-brainer, but they just weren’t into it.”
Then, on a call earlier this month with the State Department, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Elbridge Colby said that he didn’t believe in the value of certain foreign military sales, according to two administration officials with knowledge of the discussion. He added that he didn’t like the idea of selling Patriots—which can intercept incoming missiles—to Denmark, because they are in short supply and should be reserved for the United States to use as needed. (The officials, like others I talked with, spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss this sensitive and evolving situation.)
The comments surprised some State officials, but they soon learned that it wasn’t just Denmark having its access cut off. Current and former administration officials told me the Pentagon has identified some weapons as being in short supply, and is moving to block new requests for those systems coming in from Europe. It wasn’t immediately clear to those I spoke with how long the hold will last, how many weapons are on the list, or if it could expand to include even more weapons. Few exemptions will be granted.
There have been concerns about Patriot shortages for months: The U.S. has only about 25 percent of the missile interceptors needed for the Pentagon’s military plans, according to Defense Department officials. But the Patriot doesn’t really have a European equivalent, which makes it a valuable and highly sought-after system across a continent newly concerned about aerial attacks, a risk driven home today after Reuters reported Russian military jets violated the airspace of Estonia, a NATO member.
If the hold is long-term, it risks creating new rifts with allies, weakening their defenses at a time when Russia poses an imminent threat, and diminishing U.S. military influence across the continent. The change would also mean the loss of billions of dollars of government and private revenue, reducing the number of jobs in the defense industry, limiting product expansion, and curtailing research and development.
Ultimately, Denmark signed a $9.1 billion deal last week to buy long-range air-defense systems made by a joint French-Italian venture, and medium-range systems from Norway, Germany, or France. It was Denmark’s largest-ever purchase of arms. (RTX, the company previously known as Raytheon, which manufactures the Patriot system, didn’t respond to a request for comment.)
Military sales have long been a key tool of U.S. foreign policy—a way to secure national-security interests abroad by bolstering friends’ defense capabilities. The United States first began to sell military equipment to nations it deemed friendly as a way to shore up alliances at the height of the Cold War and expand its influence overseas.
American anti-ship missiles, rocket launchers, and fighter jets are bolstering Taiwan’s ability to defend itself against the threat of a Chinese invasion. Foreign military sales to Israel, while controversial, have shielded the country from many attacks, including recent ones by Hamas and Iran. And it’s thanks to American air-defense and anti-tank systems, armored-personnel carriers, and other artillery—some of which were purchased by European nations and then given to Ukraine—that the government in Kyiv didn’t collapse in the face of Russia’s full-scale invasion.
Those are just a few examples of what, in the 2024 fiscal year, amounted to $117.9 billion worth of transfers.
But priorities have changed as more “America First” devotees populate the senior ranks of President Donald Trump’s second administration. The administration appears poised to prioritize replenishing American stockpiles over its relationships with longtime allies. But it would be unusual for such a crucial decision to be made without extensive input and review from agencies across the government, especially the State Department.
Pentagon Press Secretary Kingsley Wilson called any suggestions that Colby was secretly carrying out policy decisions “absurd,” adding that he “lives and breathes cooperation with his interagency and Department of War colleagues.” (Trump has given the DoD the “secondary title” of Department of War.) Wilson did not respond to questions about whether the U.S. has placed a hold on new orders by European nations for certain weapons.
The State Department’s counselor, Michael Needham, pushed back on suggestions that the department had been blindsided. “Anybody trying to create stories of a rift between State and the Department of War is doing so because they are opposed to President Trump’s America First Agenda,” he said in an emailed response to my questions.
Officials and observers of the Trump administration say the change is on brand with Colby’s belief that China is the only country that has the ambition, resources, and military might to knock the U.S. off its pedestal as the world’s leading superpower. The only way to stop its bid for global dominance, Colby has argued, is for the U.S. to pour everything it can into securing the Western Pacific—albeit, potentially, at the expense of European security.
Several European nations have sent some of their best weapons to Ukraine to help it defend itself against Russia’s invasion, and in turn they were buying U.S.-made weapons to backfill their stockpiles. Trump has pushed NATO member states to do more to carry the burden of European security. Officials said the latest discussions of a hold on weapons do not include those being sent directly to Ukraine, which are provided through a separate program. (Weapons to Ukraine were temporarily held up over the summer, surprising officials who are typically looped into discussions about such deals.)
“We tell Europeans we want them to send weapons to Ukraine and buy replacements, but then we say, ‘You can’t have them,’” Mark Cancian, a retired Marine colonel and senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, told me. “We also tell them to defend themselves, but then we tell them we won’t sell them the things they need to do that.”
The war in Ukraine has strained stockpiles not only in the U.S. but across Europe, leading to discussions about how better to revitalize the defense industrial base. One of Ukraine’s most requested weapons has been the Patriot, the system Denmark considered buying. Its heavy use in Ukraine’s war against Russia and by Israel in the Middle East has only fueled concerns about the stockpiles, leading to the current hold on exports. This “undermines the security of our European allies,” Cancian said, “but the current administration places a much lower priority on their security than previous administrations.”
Advocates argue that foreign military sales help fund the expansion of production lines and R&D of new weapons systems. They say that Boeing, for example, was able to produce the F-15EX, an updated version of the F-15 fighter jet, because Saudi Arabia ordered billions of dollars’ worth of the new planes. And the exports have strong support on Capitol Hill, where lawmakers appreciate the jobs they produce in their districts. That may ultimately prove enough to force a resumption of sales.
But Cara Abercrombie, the Biden administration’s assistant secretary of defense for acquisition, argued that even if the discussions to hold weapons result in only a slowdown, allies will inevitably start taking their business elsewhere.
“If you are a country in Europe that is very mindful of Russian missiles or drones flying into your airspace, you are anxious to make sure you’ve got interceptors in stock,” she said. “If you’re told the already-two-year wait is now going to be a five-year wait, you will be very incentivized to start looking for other alternatives.”
The post A Block on Some Arms Sales to Europe, Courtesy of ‘America First’ appeared first on The Atlantic.
