Politico headline captures a split view in Washington over ‘Buy European’ weapons push
The debate over whether EU procurement should favor domestic arms-makers has exposed a growing rift inside the U. S. government, a politico clash played out this month as Washington both threatened retaliation and signaled a shift toward pragmatism.
Politico highlights a direct U. S. warning to Brussels
In a written contribution to a European Commission consultation earlier this month, the U. S. administration warned Brussels that it would retaliate if the EU adopted rules that limit American defense companies’ access to member-state procurements. The submission said the United States “strongly opposes any changes to the Directive that would limit U. S. industry’s ability to support or otherwise participate in EU member state national defense procurements, ” and it warned that “protectionist and exclusionary policies” that push American firms out of the market would be the wrong course.
Pentagon voice in Munich offers a contrasting line
At the Munich Security Conference on Feb. 13, Elbridge Colby, the under secretary of defense for policy, described a different tack: he said the United States would be “pragmatic” about governments that choose to buy domestically if they are increasing defense spending. Colby told a side event that if countries hit higher defense spending targets, for example 3. 5% or 5% of GDP, they will need to indigenize production. He framed that stance as part of a U. S. interest in partners that “do more for their own security. ”
The contrasting positions — a hard warning from an administration contribution to an EU consultation and a willingness to tolerate home-market preference from a senior Pentagon official speaking at a NATO meeting in Brussels and then in Munich — illustrate a tension in U. S. strategy as Europeans step up procurement tied to the conflict in Ukraine.
Rules, loans and numbers shaping the debate
European Commission officials are preparing an update to the 2009 procurement directive, expected to be presented in the third quarter, and the question of whether to include binding Buy European language is central. The EU already ties support programs to local sourcing: a €150 billion loans-for-weapons SAFE program and rules for a recently agreed €90 billion loan to Kyiv require that at least 65 percent of the value of purchases come from Europe.
Trade and defense figures are part of the discussion. Newer data cited at NATO and Munich show Europe accounted for 35% of U. S. arms exports in the 2020–2024 period, and that the U. S. supplied 64% of Europe’s arms imports in that span, underscoring why access to European markets remains a strategic priority for American firms.
Earlier this month, Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau also criticized European NATO allies for prioritizing their own defense industries over American suppliers in a closed-door meeting in December, and the State Department co-signed the administration’s submission to the Commission’s consultation.
The split amounts to a policy push-and-pull: the administration’s consultation warned of reciprocal measures if a strong Buy European clause were adopted, while senior Pentagon policy officials signaled they will work pragmatically with European efforts to grow local production and to channel funds through EU mechanisms.
That mix of messages puts pressure on EU capitals weighing how far to tilt procurement toward homegrown firms while preserving transatlantic industrial ties.
European officials are still finalizing the procurement text, and the EU’s executive branch is expected to present its update of the 2009 directive in the third quarter. That scheduled presentation is likely to be the next formal milestone in this dispute between competing U. S. positions and Brussels’ push to deepen European defense industry capacity.
