Summary
Exciting Prospects Ahead: Europe Plans to Increase Purchase of American Weapons Boosting Trade Deal Opportunities, EU Council President Reveals
Europe has long relied heavily on the United States for military equipment, with American-made arms comprising a substantial share of European defense procurements. Despite ongoing European efforts to strengthen its domestic defense industries and reduce reliance on foreign suppliers, many EU member states continue to depend on U.S. weapons to meet critical capability needs, especially amid heightened security concerns following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Recent announcements by EU leaders signal an intention to increase purchases of American weaponry, reflecting both the continued importance of transatlantic defense ties and the complex balancing act between European strategic autonomy and alliance commitments.
This planned increase in U.S. arms acquisitions by Europe comes amid evolving geopolitical and economic dynamics. While European defense manufacturers are expanding rapidly and aiming to boost intra-EU procurement through initiatives like the REARM Europe plan, the United States remains a key supplier of advanced platforms such as the F-35 fighter jet and missile defense systems. The move also opens opportunities for enhanced trade agreements and industrial cooperation, as the U.S. government underscores the strategic and economic importance of maintaining open defense markets with European partners. At the same time, debates continue over procurement policies that may favor European manufacturers, raising concerns in Washington about potential exclusion of American firms and the impact on transatlantic defense industrial collaboration.
Several controversies underscore the complex nature of this relationship. European reliance on U.S.-made weaponry entails operational constraints, as Washington retains control over the use of sensitive technologies and ammunition, a situation highlighted by restrictions on the deployment of U.S. arms in Ukraine. Moreover, critics point to the risks of perpetuating dependency on foreign suppliers, which may limit Europe’s defense innovation and economic spillovers from domestic production. Political and diplomatic tensions occasionally flare over these issues, as seen in divergent approaches between EU defense integration efforts and U.S. foreign policy priorities.
Looking forward, Europe’s strategy aims to reconcile the dual goals of enhancing its defense industrial base while preserving strong transatlantic partnerships. Initiatives to increase defense spending, expand joint procurement, and foster cooperation with allies beyond the EU seek to boost military readiness and economic resilience in an uncertain global security environment. This evolving dynamic underscores the critical role of transatlantic defense trade in shaping Europe’s security architecture and the broader geopolitical balance.
Background
Europe has traditionally relied heavily on the United States for military procurement, with American arms constituting a significant portion of European defense acquisitions. Despite ongoing efforts within the European Union (EU) to bolster domestic defense industries, many member states continue to depend on U.S. weapons to fill critical capability gaps. Over the past five years, EU countries along with the UK, Norway, and Switzerland have collectively purchased more than 15,000 missiles, 2,400 armored vehicles, and 340 aircraft from the United States, exceeding the volume of weapons procured from European suppliers or other international partners such as Israel and South Korea.
The geopolitical environment, including the ongoing war in Ukraine, has intensified defense spending in Europe, with some countries substantially increasing their budgets. For example, Lithuania plans to raise its defense expenditure from around 3% to 5.5% of GDP between 2026 and 2030. However, even with such increases, these countries acknowledge that not all procurement can be sourced within the EU. Lithuania’s Defense Minister Dovilė Šakalienė emphasized the importance of supporting national and European defense industries while maintaining strong transatlantic ties by continuing to purchase American weaponry.
At the same time, political tensions have emerged concerning the future of transatlantic defense cooperation. The suspension of U.S. military aid and intelligence sharing with Ukraine in March, as well as controversial remarks about potentially selling downgraded American fighter jets to Europe, have raised concerns among EU member states. Additionally, U.S. officials have signaled that excluding American companies from European defense procurement tenders would be viewed unfavorably in Washington, underscoring the sensitivity of EU attempts to introduce stricter procurement rules favoring European manufacturers.
The European Commission has proposed increased defense cooperation not only within Europe but also with countries like Australia, New Zealand, and India, aiming to expand strategic partnerships while prioritizing European industry interests. This approach partly seeks to appease major European arms producers such as France, which advocates for preferential treatment of domestic companies. Nevertheless, the overarching dynamic remains one of significant U.S. influence, as the Biden administration continues to support the transatlantic alliance and opposes European efforts to substantially reduce reliance on foreign arms supplies.
Concerns have also been raised regarding the operational restrictions that Washington may impose on the use of American weapons by European militaries, similar to the constraints placed on Ukraine’s use of certain U.S.-provided systems. Despite these issues, U.S. defense products, particularly advanced platforms like the F-35 fighter jet, remain central to NATO members’ modernization plans. This complex background sets the stage for ongoing negotiations and evolving policies surrounding European defense procurement and transatlantic trade relations.
Recent Developments
In recent months, tensions have intensified between the United States and the European Union regarding the future of weapons procurement and defense cooperation. The EU has moved decisively toward decoupling its weapons purchases from the U.S., emphasizing a strategic shift to strengthen its own defense industry and reduce reliance on American military hardware. This shift is encapsulated in the EU’s REARM Europe plan, which urges member countries to prioritize European suppliers when acquiring military equipment, resorting to foreign purchases only when cost, performance, or supply constraints necessitate it.
Despite these efforts, European militaries continue to depend heavily on U.S.-made weapons and systems. Nearly half of the fighter jets in service across Europe are of American origin, and U.S. missile defense systems remain the most widely deployed on the continent. American-made tanks, armored vehicles, and artillery also form a significant portion of European stockpiles. This reliance has become a source of concern in Brussels, particularly in light of Washington’s recent constraints on the use of U.S. weapons, such as limitations placed on Ukraine’s deployment of certain Western-supplied systems. European nations, many of which are acquiring American F-35 stealth fighters, face uncertainty over potential restrictions on these advanced platforms.
To address these challenges, the United States is adopting a holistic approach toward arms transfers, carefully considering political, economic, and security factors when licensing defense sales to allies. Additionally, cooperation between U.S. and European defense industries remains strong in certain areas. For example, the F-35 program integrates numerous European-made components, with Germany set to host a production line for the aircraft’s center fuselage and the continent’s first line for PAC-2 GEM-T missile production. Components for the Patriot air defense system are also manufactured across Spain and Poland, illustrating ongoing industrial integration.
Meanwhile, European defense manufacturers have been expanding rapidly, outpacing U.S. growth in arms production according to market analyses. This expansion creates opportunities for harmonizing equipment across the continent, scaling research and development, and improving efficiency in defense spending. The increased defense budgets are being channeled toward European production capabilities to ensure rapid deployment readiness and long-term security benefits, while also supporting economic growth across EU member states.
The U.S. has expressed concerns about being excluded from new European defense initiatives, notably the REARM proposal, which could reshape transatlantic defense trade relations. Industry experts highlight that the current defense environment prioritizes capability, resilience, and alignment with mission-critical priorities over sheer scale, emphasizing precision investments in strategic partnerships and advanced technologies.
Strategic and Geopolitical Considerations
The strategic and geopolitical landscape surrounding Europe’s defense procurement is marked by a complex interplay between aspirations for military autonomy and the enduring reliance on American arms. While European countries seek to strengthen their local defense industries to ensure technological advancement and economic benefits within the EU, significant challenges and tensions persist in balancing this goal with transatlantic relations.
Europe’s ambition to achieve greater military independence is driven by concerns over the reliability of the United States as a security partner and the desire to keep defense spending within the EU to bolster its own industrial base. This has led to calls for increased domestic investment in defense technology, which could generate substantial economic spillovers and productivity gains across European industries. Developing next-generation defense capabilities domestically is seen as a pathway to long-term growth beyond the immediate fiscal multipliers of defense expenditure. However, the reality remains that Europe will continue to procure a large portion of its arms from the United States, given that approximately 63% of its defense procurement portfolio currently relies on American products. Despite rising defense budgets, efforts are focused on reducing—but not eliminating—this dependency by enhancing European defense manufacturing capacity.
The United States, for its part, views arms transfers as a critical foreign policy tool with broad implications for regional and global security. U.S. authorities adopt a holistic approach to arms sales, carefully considering political, economic, human rights, nonproliferation, and technology security factors in their licensing decisions. While the U.S. supports European allies in strengthening their defense capabilities, it simultaneously opposes measures that would limit American participation in European defense procurements, warning against new trade barriers that could undermine transatlantic cooperation.
This tension was evident during the Trump administration, which strongly urged European countries to maintain purchases of American-made arms while expressing concern over EU initiatives aimed at bolstering local defense industries and limiting U.S. involvement. The Biden administration has maintained support for the transatlantic relationship, reinforcing NATO commitments and backing Ukraine, but generally remains cautious about European moves to reduce reliance on U.S. arms supplies. Nonetheless, mechanisms for enhanced collaboration exist, such as the US-EU Security and Defense Dialogue established in 2022, which fosters ongoing cooperation and dialogue on defense matters.
European leaders are also engaging in discussions about increasing defense spending collectively, with proposals including raising the defense spending target to 2.5% of GDP for the euro area, potentially through new debt instruments or lending facilities at the EU level. This coordinated approach aims to enhance procurement of major new equipment and bolster defense capabilities, partly in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and NATO’s broader strategic imperatives. NATO forecasts that a growing number of member states will meet or exceed the 2% GDP defense spending benchmark, underscoring the renewed emphasis on military readiness and modernization across Europe.
Economic Implications
The planned increase in European defense spending, particularly with a significant portion directed toward American weapons, carries complex economic implications for both the European Union and its transatlantic partner, the United States. Empirical evidence on the economic effects of defense expenditures is mixed, reflecting varying impacts across regions and time horizons. In the United States, higher military spending has been associated with positive economic growth effects, whereas in Europe, the impact is often negligible or even negative, partly due to structural differences in defense industrial bases and procurement patterns.
A key factor influencing the economic outcomes is the domestic production capacity of defense goods. The EU’s fragmented defense industry, characterized by mainly national companies serving relatively small domestic markets, leads to high import dependence, especially on US-made weaponry. This reliance limits the potential technological spillovers and productivity gains that typically arise from home-grown defense innovations, which can stimulate broader economic growth and industrial competitiveness. Indeed, if Europe were able to develop and produce next-generation defense technologies domestically rather than importing from the US, the multiplier effects on GDP could be substantially higher—estimated increases of up to 1.5% annually—by fostering innovation, boosting regional industrial capacity, and generating spillover benefits across sectors.
However, achieving such domestic capabilities requires significant investment and coordination. Initiatives like the Strategic Autonomous Fund for Europe (SAFE) aim to encourage EU Member States to pool resources, spend collaboratively, and support the European defense industry to scale production rapidly and efficiently. By leveraging instruments such as the European Investment Bank’s expanded lending for defense projects and mobilizing private capital through the Savings and Investment Union, these efforts seek to reduce dependence on imports and enhance the economic resilience of the EU defense sector.
Nonetheless, the European defense market is unlikely to divest fully from American weaponry in the near term. Current projections indicate that around 63% of European arms procurement originates from the US, a figure that may decrease but not disappear even with greater domestic investment. Countries like Lithuania, which plans to raise defense spending substantially, acknowledge the necessity of maintaining transatlantic defense ties alongside nurturing their national and European industries. This continued procurement relationship is further underscored by the extensive trade volume between the US and the EU, with goods trade nearing $976 billion in 2024, reinforcing the economic interdependence between the two blocs.
Financing the increased defense budgets presents additional economic considerations. Evidence suggests that raising defense expenditures through borrowing may be more economically beneficial than immediate tax hikes, as the latter could dampen GDP growth. European policymakers are exploring various strategies, including issuing additional debt at the national or EU level and establishing new lending facilities, to support defense spending growth without adverse fiscal impacts. Stylized macroeconomic simulations indicate that a linear increase in defense spending by 1.5% of GDP could raise EU real GDP by about 0.5% above baseline levels by 2028, although the debt-to-GDP ratio would increase by approximately 2 percentage points.
Furthermore, collaborative defense projects, such as the jointly developed A-330 Multi-Role Tanker Transport, exemplify how pooled resources can reduce costs and enhance operational efficiency across participating European countries, potentially amplifying economic benefits through shared investment and maintenance burdens. Integrating Ukraine’s and the United Kingdom’s industrial capacities into the broader European defense ecosystem may also contribute to economies of scale, innovation, and competitive advantages, further influencing the economic landscape.
Political and Diplomatic Factors
The evolving political and diplomatic landscape plays a critical role in shaping the dynamics of arms purchases and defense cooperation between the European Union (EU) and the United States. Under the Trump administration, shifts in U.S. foreign policy—such as the temporary reduction of military aid to Ukraine and a more lenient stance toward Russia—have caused unease among European allies, raising questions about the reliability of the United States as a strategic partner. This climate has prompted the EU to seek greater self-reliance in defense by proposing increased military spending and pooled resources for joint defense projects, aiming to prepare for potentially reduced U.S. military engagement in Europe.
At the same time, the Trump administration has pushed European countries to increase their defense expenditures and assume more responsibility for their own security. However, tensions have emerged regarding the EU’s efforts to boost its local arms industry, which could limit the participation of American defense manufacturers due to practical and administrative barriers within the bloc’s proposed defense procurement framework. U.S. officials have expressed concerns about these limitations, emphasizing that transatlantic defense industrial cooperation strengthens the alliance and warning against the creation of exclusionary policies that could hinder U.S. companies from competing in European defense markets.
Despite these tensions, some analysts argue that the United States should embrace the EU’s defense initiatives, such as the European Defense Industrial Strategy and the Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO) framework, to foster deeper defense collaboration rather than reflexively opposing these moves. Past U.S. reactions to European defense integration efforts, like those surrounding PESCO in 2017, demonstrate the potential for overreaction, whereas a cooperative approach could yield mutual benefits. Utilizing mechanisms like Washington’s Foreign Military Sales (FMS) program can also facilitate American arms sales, particularly to smaller European nations with less developed procurement systems, thereby reinforcing political ties and supporting U.S. defense trade objectives.
Moreover, arms transfers and defense trade remain essential tools of U.S. foreign policy, involving comprehensive assessments that balance political, social, human rights, economic, military, and technology security considerations. Recognizing the broader geopolitical environment, the EU has expanded its defense cooperation framework by including partners such as South Korea, Japan, and the European Free Trade Association (EFTA), signaling an understanding that threats extend beyond Russia and reflecting shifts in global strategic priorities that may influence U.S. attention. Overall, the interplay of these political and diplomatic factors underscores the complexity of transatlantic defense relations amid evolving security challenges and industrial ambitions.
Trade Deal Opportunities and Defense Cooperation Frameworks
The evolving landscape of transatlantic defense trade presents significant opportunities for deepening cooperation between the European Union (EU) and the United States, particularly in light of increasing European interest in purchasing American weapons. The United States regards arms transfers and defense trade as crucial foreign policy tools with broad implications for regional and global security. Consequently, U.S. policy employs a comprehensive review process that assesses political,
Concerns, Criticisms, and Controversies
Despite plans to increase the purchase of American weapons by Europe, several concerns and criticisms have emerged from various stakeholders. A significant point of contention is the perceived exclusion of the United States from certain European defense initiatives, such as the ReArm proposal, which has caused frustration among some U.S. officials and raised questions about transatlantic defense cooperation.
One major criticism revolves around the longstanding dependency of the European defense sector on U.S. military equipment and the implications for European strategic autonomy. While Europe aims to build its own defense capabilities, it continues to purchase thousands of weapons from the U.S. annually, leading to accusations that European defense industries lag behind in modern technology due to historical reliance on American arms. This dependence is further complicated by concerns about the control Washington exercises over American-made military equipment. The extensive software embedded in advanced systems like the F-35 fighter jet and the reliance on U.S.-supplied ammunition for platforms such as HIMARS and Patriot missiles mean that European militaries could face operational restrictions based on U.S. political decisions.
Additionally, there is apprehension about the potential economic consequences of this dependence. Critics argue that relying on U.S. military industrial capacity could result in overpaying for delayed or second-rate equipment, which might entrench Europe’s reliance on the U.S. rather than fostering a competitive and innovative European defense industrial base. This concern is compounded by the fact that the United Kingdom’s industrial base and Ukraine’s emerging military-industrial capabilities are often overlooked in discussions of the European defense ecosystem.
Political concerns also stem from the broader use of arms transfers as tools of U.S. foreign policy. The U.S. employs a comprehensive review process when approving arms sales, considering political, human rights, economic, and security factors. This approach has, in the past, led to abrupt reversals or restrictions on arms agreements based on shifting U.S. foreign policy priorities, as seen with countries like Iran, Pakistan, and Turkey. European allies worry that similar constraints could affect their operational freedom and procurement planning.
Lastly, there is unease about the future trajectory of U.S.-EU defense cooperation. While the creation of mechanisms like the US-EU Security and Defense Dialogue indicates willingness for collaboration, there remains skepticism regarding whether the U.S. will fully endorse European defense autonomy or continue to prioritize its own strategic and economic interests, which might limit the scope and effectiveness of joint initiatives.
Future Outlook
The future outlook for European defense procurement and transatlantic trade relations is marked by significant opportunities and challenges as the EU plans to increase its purchase of American weapons, thereby boosting trade deal prospects. This development comes amid a global surge in arms production, with EU manufacturers poised to expand faster than their US counterparts, creating a favorable environment for harmonizing equipment, scaling research and development (R&D), and improving efficiency across the continent.
One of the central themes is the EU’s emphasis on strengthening its defense technological and industrial base to ensure rapid production capabilities and deployment speed, under programs such as Readiness 2030. This initiative involves close cooperation not only within Europe but also with allies including South Korea, Japan, and the European Free Trade Association (EFTA), potentially mobilizing up to €800 billion in defense spending. The program is designed to address evolving geopolitical threats beyond Russia, recognizing shifting US strategic priorities, and underscores the need for resilience and alignment with mission-critical capabilities.
Despite the push for European autonomy in defense procurement, the United States remains a key partner, with ongoing tensions related to arms procurement policies and industrial cooperation. The US government advocates for maintaining open transatlantic defense industrial ties, warning against barriers that exclude American companies from European projects, as such cooperation is considered essential for alliance strength. Recent diplomatic efforts, such as the establishment of the US-EU Security and Defense Dialogue, highlight a mutual interest in fostering collaboration and aligning strategic objectives.
Economically, increasing European defense spending—particularly when focused on domestic production—holds promise for generating technological spillovers and productivity gains that extend beyond immediate fiscal multipliers. Developing next-generation defense technologies in Europe, rather than relying on imports, could stimulate medium-term economic growth and bolster the European defense industrial and technological base (EDTIB). Stylized macroeconomic models project that a sustained increase in defense spending of up to 1.5% of GDP could raise real GDP by 0.5% above baseline levels by 2028, albeit with an accompanying increase in government debt ratios. The positive impact on GDP could be further enhanced if a larger share of spending is directed toward R&D and infrastructure investments, whereas a higher import content would dampen the economic stimulus effect.
Looking ahead, European defense procurement is expected to increasingly favor intra-EU trade, with targets aiming for at least 35% of defense market value to be covered by intra-EU trade by 2030, and 50-60% of member states’ defense procurement to originate from the EDTIB by 2035. Moreover, collaborative procurement of at least 40% of defense equipment is envisioned, supporting industrial consolidation and strategic autonomy while maintaining strong transatlantic ties. This balanced approach seeks to leverage economic benefits, improve military readiness, and foster innovation while navigating the complexities of international defense trade and diplomacy.
The content is provided by Harper Eastwood, 11 Minute Read
