(C) Daily Kos
This story was originally published by Daily Kos and is unaltered.
. . . . . . . . . .
Did Trump Just Strong-Arm Canada into Buying F-35s? [1]
['This Content Is Not Subject To Review Daily Kos Staff Prior To Publication.']
Date: 2025-09-16
I read the Reddit thread “U.S. warns Canada of potential negative consequences if it dumps F‑35 fighter jet” and wanted to share my take. It’s kind of wild, but there seems to be a growing sense that the U.S. under Trump is really leaning on Canada to buy the F‑35. Here’s what’s going on, what people are saying, and what it could mean (from one friend to another).
It started with a warning from the U.S. that if Canada backs out of getting the F‑35s (Lockheed Martin’s stealth fighter jet), there might be “negative consequences.” People are interpreting that as pressure — maybe even threats — being used to push Canada into the purchase.
The F‑35 program has been controversial here for a long time: cost overruns, delays, software and parts supply issues, reliance on U.S.-based support, etc. Canadians are divided on whether it’s the right plane for NORAD and other missions.
Redditors had a lot of strong opinions. Some of the recurring themes:
“Kill switch” anxieties: People worry that because much of the software, maintenance, and supply chain is controlled by the U.S./Lockheed, Canada could be cut off or limited in what it can do with the jets. For example, if there are software updates or parts needed, Canadians might be tied to American decisions. There’s talk of not having “unfettered access” to critical systems.
Dependence and sovereignty concerns: Some feel that accepting the F‑35 means accepting a degree of dependence on the U.S. defense industry, which can erode autonomy. If the U.S. changes policies, or if administration changes (hello Trump), Canada might be left with less control.
Alternative jets: Several people point to Saab’s Gripen (Swedish jet) or other non‑U.S. or less‑U.S.-dependent options, arguing that choosing something else might allow Canada more control, perhaps more local jobs, and better sovereignty over their military hardware. Some are skeptical these options can fully match the F‑35 in capability or readiness, though.
Political bullying and diplomatic pressure: The language being used by the U.S. feels less like cooperation and more like coercion: “if you don’t buy ours, there may be consequences.” A lot of people see this as unfair pressure from a powerful ally.
It’s probably not coercion in the legal sense, but there is definitely strong prompting. The U.S. has leverage: NORAD cooperation, trade, supply chains, shared defense projects. The risk of strained relations, or being seen as “less reliable” by the U.S., seems to weigh heavily in how choices are presented. The idea that rejecting the F‑35 could threaten NORAD cooperation, or that the U.S. might withhold support or parts, is perceived by many as a kind of thinly veiled ultimatum.
Cost vs. capability: Even supporters admit the F‑35s are very expensive. Are they worth it, especially long‑term maintenance, software, upgrades, etc.?
Trust: Many Canadians are uneasy about putting so much trust in foreign tech and foreign companies (which can be influenced by U.S. political winds). What if future U.S. policies restrict exported parts or impose export controls?
National identity & independence: Defense isn’t just about hardware; it’s about what a country can decide on its own. A feeling persists that being tied to U.S. systems limits that independence.
Timeframe & practicality: The CF‑18s are aging, so Canada needs a replacement. Waiting or choosing something less capable has risks. But aligning with the F‑35 also locks you into certain dependencies for decades.
If I were advising or talking policy, I’d say Canada should try for a balanced approach:
Push hard for transparency and guarantees in any F‑35 deal: What rights will Canada have to software, updates, parts? What are the worst‑case scenarios? Can we negotiate for more sovereignty and less dependence?
Keep alternatives alive: Even if they are less sleek, having options keeps pressure on the U.S., gives Canada bargaining power, and maybe boosts domestic or allied (non‑U.S.) industries.
Think long term: What do we want our defense posture to look like in 20‑30 years? Arctic operations, NORAD, sovereignty, ability to upgrade or shift course — these should count, not just what’s available now.
Be ready for political fallout: If Canada turns away from the F‑35, there will be diplomatic and possibly economic reactions. But maybe it’s worth it if the long‑term trade‑off is more strategic freedom.
Anyway, that’s what I gathered. If you want, I could pull up some more official sources to see how serious these U.S. “warnings” really are — just to figure out whether this is mostly political posturing or something deeper. Let me know.
[END]
---
[1] Url:
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2025/9/16/2343917/-Did-Trump-Just-Strong-Arm-Canada-into-Buying-F-35s?pm_campaign=front_page&pm_source=more_community&pm_medium=web
Published and (C) by Daily Kos
Content appears here under this condition or license: Site content may be used for any purpose without permission unless otherwise specified.
via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds:
gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/dailykos/
