The F-35 vs. Trump debate: A false contradiction

Recent concerns about the reliability of the F-35 fighter jet’s servicing arrangements, particularly in the context of U.S.-European relations, are based on a false contradiction. The argument that European buyers may run into trouble if the U.S. ceases servicing these jets due to political tensions ignores the fundamental nature of contractual agreements. The ability to maintain and service the F-35—or any military asset—depends entirely on the contractual arrangements made at the time of purchase, not on shifting geopolitical relations.

Contractual agreements dictate support

When nations purchase military equipment like the F-35, they enter into detailed contracts that define the terms of procurement, servicing, and maintenance. These agreements specify the obligations of both the buyer and the seller, ensuring long-term operational viability. If a country adheres to the contract, the supplier—whether American or otherwise—is legally bound to fulfill its obligations. Failure to do so would have consequences, including financial penalties or legal disputes.

This principle is not unique to U.S. defense agreements. The same applies to contracts for military hardware procured from European manufacturers such as Dassault (France), Airbus (Europe), or Saab (Sweden). Even when purchasing domestically produced military equipment, a government must adhere to its agreements or face similar repercussions.

The F-35 is not a geopolitical bargaining chip

The notion that the U.S. might unilaterally cease servicing F-35s as a form of political leverage is speculative at best. The U.S. defense industry operates within a framework of contractual and diplomatic stability. If Washington were to arbitrarily cut off maintenance support without cause, it would not only violate agreements but also severely damage its credibility as a defense supplier. Such a move would discourage future sales and weaken strategic alliances rather than strengthen them.

Can we still trust the F35 fighter jet?

Modern weapons are like telephones: without updates, they quickly lose their value.

Moreover, European nations have taken steps to ensure service continuity. Some countries have established domestic maintenance facilities for the F-35, reducing dependency on U.S.-based servicing hubs. For example, the Netherlands has become a regional maintenance center for the F-35, ensuring that European operators have independent capabilities to sustain their fleets.

Different levels of sovereignty in F-35 operations

The level of independence in operating the F-35 varies significantly by country, based on the negotiations at the time of purchase:

Israel's F-35I "Adir": Israel negotiated extensive modifications, installing its own electronic warfare (EW) suite, gaining partial access to mission system software, and running independent maintenance and simulation systems outside of Lockheed Martin’s global logistics network. This ensures greater operational sovereignty and adaptability.
UK’s F-35B: The UK secured more operational flexibility than most EU buyers, with partial software access and integration of homegrown weaponry, though it still relies on the broader NATO framework.
EU F-35 Variants: Most EU countries operate a standardized, NATO-friendly configuration, relying on U.S. software updates and Lockheed Martin's global logistics support (ODIN). They prioritize interoperability with NATO and U.S. forces, limiting opportunities for national customization.

This disparity highlights the importance of contract negotiations. Countries that secured more independence—like Israel and the UK—did so through strategic foresight, ensuring they could modify and maintain their fleets on their own terms.

Not a U.S.-specific issue

The issue of military servicing and dependency is not exclusive to the U.S. If a European country purchased advanced fighter jets from a non-American supplier—such as the Eurofighter Typhoon or the Saab Gripen—it would face the same concerns. Any failure to comply with the service agreement terms could result in similar consequences, whether the provider is from Europe, Asia, or anywhere else.

The key takeaway is that military procurement is governed by enforceable contracts, not by political whims. If the terms of the agreement are met, then servicing obligations remain intact, regardless of broader diplomatic tensions.

Trump has free rein over Dutch government data

The Netherlands relies heavily on American IT service providers such as Microsoft, Google and Amazon for the storage of government data.

Portugal and Canada

In the meantime, in one of the first examples of the U.S. president killing a potential lucrative arms deal, Portugal ruled out replacing its U.S.-made F-16 fighter jets with more modern F-35s because of Donald Trump, Politico reports.

The country's air force has recommended buying Lockheed Martin F-35s, but when outgoing Defense Minister Nuno Melo was asked by Portuguese media Público whether the government would follow that recommendation, he replied: “We cannot ignore the geopolitical environment in our choices. The recent position of the United States, in the context of NATO ... must make us think about the best options, because the predictability of our allies is a greater asset to take into account."

Canada is also reconsidering the purchase of American F-35 fighter jets due to the escalating tensions with the Trump administration. The new cabinet of recently installed Prime Minister Carney wants to start talks with competing aircraft manufacturers. Defense Minister Blair told the Canadian broadcaster CBC that alternatives to the F-35 are being considered.

Although Portugal and Canada may not be the last countries to question American reliability, the claim that European buyers of the F-35 may face maintenance problems as a result of deteriorating American-European relations is misleading. The reliability of support for the F-35 is dictated by contracts, not by shifting political landscapes. As long as agreements are honored, the aircraft’s servicing remains assured—just as it would for any other military purchase, whether from the U.S. or elsewhere. The debate should therefore focus on contractual clarity and operational self-sufficiency rather than speculative geopolitical concerns.