Two major U.S. allies are reconsidering their purchase of the F-35 fighter jet, raising the specter of lost American defense contracts worth billions of dollars.
Canada and Portugal, both longstanding buyers of U.S. weaponry, have hinted they might back away from deals that once seemed firm. This hesitation, sparked by President Donald Trump’s stance toward international partners, could leave Lockheed Martin and its suppliers vulnerable.
The potential cancellations come at a time when the administration’s combative foreign policy has unsettled diplomatic ties across NATO. Both nations question whether the current atmosphere of political friction could derail their fleets. Analysts warn these decisions might be the first of many similar moves by allied countries that rely on American arms but are alarmed by what they see as growing unpredictability.
WHY THIS MATTERS NOW
Trump’s reelection in 2024 solidified his position, but it also magnified concerns about the direction of U.S. foreign policy. Allies once viewed the United States as a stable partner. Today, leaders in Ottawa and Lisbon say they must ensure their military investments can withstand sudden shifts in Washington. A loss of trust in the F-35 program could carry ripple effects for other high-profile defense exports, hurting both the American economy and broader strategic interests.
Economic stakes are high for Lockheed Martin, which recorded $71 billion in revenue in 2024, about 30 percent of which came from the F-35. That jet alone is responsible for roughly $21.3 billion in annual income for the company. The program’s wider economic benefit, including its sprawling network of suppliers, totals about $72 billion. If Canada and Portugal opt out, experts say up to $19 billion in orders might vanish, along with sustainment deals that run for decades.
FINANCIAL IMPACT ON U.S. DEFENSE FIRMS
The F-35 project hinges on large contracts from allied nations. Canada initially planned to buy 88 of the jets, translating to about 19 billion Canadian dollars, or $13 billion in American terms. Portugal’s proposed contract stood at $6 billion. Both deals were touted as key testaments to the global appeal of U.S. fighter technology. Now, defense industry insiders fear these contracts may collapse amid diplomatic strains.
Without Canadian and Portuguese participation, Lockheed Martin’s revenue could drop, squeezing its capacity for research and development. The F-35’s advanced avionics, engines, and stealth components are integrated into a pipeline that depends on bulk orders to drive down costs and fund next-generation projects. When external buyers hesitate, the per-unit price for the U.S. Air Force might climb, forcing the Pentagon to rethink its own modernization schedules.
Competitors are also waiting in the wings. European manufacturers such as Dassault and Saab, along with newer players in Asia like South Korea, sense an opportunity to win contracts from disenchanted U.S. allies. Russia and China have ramped up promotional campaigns for their own weapon systems, positioning themselves as predictable suppliers for nations that seek more diplomatic stability.
COMMUNITIES AT RISK OF JOB LOSSES
The F-35 program supports around 254,000 American jobs. These positions are spread across multiple production sites, including Fort Worth, Texas; Palmdale, California; Marietta, Georgia; Orlando, Florida; East Hartford, Connecticut; and St. Louis, Missouri. Each location handles a specialized part of the jet’s construction. Palmdale oversees mission systems, while Marietta focuses on final assembly components and sustainment. Orlando engineers advanced avionics, East Hartford makes engines, and St. Louis provides stealth materials.
If Canada and Portugal walk away, that 10 percent slide in F-35 orders could wipe out 25,000 to 30,000 direct positions. More than 50,000 indirect jobs might also disappear as suppliers lose contracts, shutting down specialized assembly lines. Entire neighborhoods near Fort Worth, Palmdale, and Marietta could suffer, as the restaurant, housing, and retail sectors often revolve around a stable defense workforce.
Local politicians have taken note. In Fort Worth, elected officials point to Lockheed Martin’s plant as an economic pillar, generating reliable income for thousands of families. A slump in orders could trigger layoffs that seep into other industries. Elected leaders in California, Georgia, and Florida echo these worries, fearing a wider downturn if their local facilities cannot maintain productivity.
GLOBAL ARMS MARKET AT A CROSSROADS
Losing Canadian and Portuguese orders might undermine other flagship U.S. systems. The Patriot missile battery, High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS), and Javelin anti-tank missiles depend on foreign sales to sustain competitive pricing. Similarly, older fighter lines such as the F-15 and F-16 rely on export deals to justify upgrades. If allies doubt U.S. reliability, they may seek arms from European firms like MBDA or from Asian manufacturers keen to expand their market share.
Some officials in Ottawa and Lisbon say they worry about abrupt export restrictions or shifting maintenance agreements under the Trump administration. They do not want to invest billions in an aircraft only to face logistical hurdles if relations sour. By broadening their sources of weaponry, these nations hope to avoid dependence on a single supplier that might leverage spare parts or technology transfers as a bargaining chip.
Defense analysts warn this could be the start of a larger pivot away from American arms, hurting long-held alliances. When one or two countries walk away, others often follow. Trust is foundational in military partnerships, and a perception of growing diplomatic friction might drive multiple buyers toward European or Asian alternatives, weakening U.S. leadership in global defense.
STRATEGIC RISKS FOR THE U.S. AND NATO
A decline in American weapons exports also raises security concerns. NATO forces are built on the principle of interoperability. When allies share technology and tactics, collective readiness improves. But if Canada or Portugal opt for non-U.S. jets, future NATO operations could face compatibility issues. Joint exercises are more complex when members fly mismatched aircraft that cannot easily share data links or coordinate in real-time.
Beyond interoperability, the U.S. wields influence when it is seen as a dependable arsenal. That sway has kept Russia and China from forging deeper bonds with Western-leaning states. If an ally pivots to alternative suppliers, it may open diplomatic pathways for Beijing or Moscow to expand their reach. Over time, this erosion of American influence can alter the balance of power in both Europe and Asia, reducing the United States’ ability to shape security environments.
Critics of Trump’s policy argue that isolating allies drives them to seek new partnerships and undermines decades of stable defense relationships. They say that high-profile spats over trade, tariffs, and alliance commitments feed doubts about continued cooperation. This, in turn, chokes off the revenue streams and goodwill that keep the U.S. defense sector healthy.
PRESSURE ON LAWMAKERS TO INTERVENE
In Congress, representatives from defense-heavy districts are sounding alarms. With so many jobs on the line, the economic impact of lost F-35 contracts could be significant. Even states not directly involved in jet assembly might suffer if local suppliers produce avionics or stealth composites for the program. Indirectly, the entire supply chain could tighten, driving up costs for future defense efforts.
Political leaders in Fort Worth have pleaded for diplomatic engagement to keep Canada and Portugal committed. They say carefully maintained relationships can preserve orders vital to their districts. Meanwhile, in places like Orlando and East Hartford, local chambers of commerce depend on stable production schedules for advanced avionics and engines.
A PIVOTAL MOMENT FOR U.S. DEFENSE EXPORTS
If Canada and Portugal do drop their orders, the financial hit of up to $19 billion might be only the headline figure. The real damage could manifest in sustainment deals and future contracts that never materialize. Once an ally chooses a non-American platform, returning to U.S. weapons becomes more complicated. Shared training protocols and maintenance infrastructure would need a major overhaul.
In that sense, these F-35 deliberations present a crossroads. For decades, the United States has been the arsenal of choice for allied militaries. That status, in turn, has bolstered U.S. strategic primacy. But if Trump’s isolationist policy continues to push partners away, the nation risks losing more than just money. It might lose its place as the go-to defense supplier, which would undercut its ability to shape global security architecture.
The path forward depends on whether American leadership can balance domestic political rhetoric with the practicalities of alliance-building. Diplomatic outreach that reassures longstanding partners may be the only way to prevent the collapse of these deals. If the F-35’s supporters fail to make that case, the ensuing losses could go beyond immediate job cuts, casting doubt on U.S. defense leadership well into the future.
© Photo
Brian G. Rhodes and Kumanomi (via Shutterstock)
