US weapons production threatened by Trump's tariffs
The initiative may complicate weapon production in the U.S. and impact relationships with allies.
TroibNews 
President Donald Trump’s tariffs pose not only an economic challenge but also a security threat.
If fully enacted, his tariff strategy could disrupt the global supply chains painstakingly established by the Pentagon over decades, potentially inflating the cost of American weaponry and complicating international strategies to counter China, including collaborative submarine projects with the United Kingdom and Australia.
According to a dozen diplomats, lawmakers, officials, and defense industry analysts, America’s self-reliant stance, coupled with these broader threats, could drive wary partners to seek other avenues for collaboration. Additionally, this approach may undermine an industry that provides military equipment to much of the world, eroding trust and predictability in a global defense framework that has historically benefited the U.S. and its allies.
"We have requirements and we're going to do what makes sense for us," stated a diplomat from a NATO country, who, like others, requested anonymity due to the sensitive nature of the issue. “We’re really looking at what we need to develop at home.”
Trump promotes his tariff initiative as a significant step toward rebalancing trade and reclaiming lost revenues for the country. However, it carries the risk of undermining his other pledges to transform the U.S. into an industrial titan and diminish China's influence.
The White House, in its executive order announcing the tariffs, underscored the necessity for U.S. manufacturing to rely less on imports for critical components.
However, implementing this vision is significantly more challenging than merely outlining it in a document. The Pentagon has invested decades in cultivating a global network of suppliers and contractors who now face tariffs. Without exemptions for the defense sector, the administration risks undoing much of this work, potentially delaying the production of American-made weapons for both domestic and international clients.
“There's going to be shortages of supplies, tit-for-tats, and our allies and other partners are going to retaliate,” warned Bill Greenwalt, a former Pentagon acquisition official. “Some potentially vital supplies are either going to cost a whole heck of a lot more than what they did or they're just not going to be available.”
The global tariffs—set at 20 percent for imports from the European Union and 10 percent for goods from the U.K. and Australia—are poised to disrupt long-successful defense collaborations.
These include significant projects like the F-35 fighter aircraft, which serves 20 nations in a partnership aimed at providing its participating countries with manufacturing opportunities, alongside vital rocket and air defense initiatives with Norway and Israel.
Such collaborations are critical for defense in Europe and the Indo-Pacific, where allies strive to maintain an edge over an unpredictable Russia and a modernizing China.
Longstanding partnerships, built over years of discussions and agreements with Washington, are now facing new uncertainties.
“We count on the U. S. for the best equipment,” remarked a European official. “European industrial capacity has greatly improved, and we want to be security providers, not just consumers.” This, the official noted, entails increased investment in European manufacturing to reduce dependency on American components for weaponry.
A particularly promising initiative from the Biden administration, which unites Australia, the U.K., and the U.S. in constructing nuclear-powered submarines and sharing technologies, could be jeopardized if production costs for parts become prohibitively high.
“There are all these ripple effects,” Greenwalt explained. “Contractors can be told to eat the costs, and they can try to develop lower-cost domestic suppliers, but that would take years. You don't snap your fingers and the supply network readjusts itself. It takes a lot of time, effort, and a lot of money.”
Requests for comments went unanswered from the Australian and British embassies, as well as from the White House and Pentagon.
The administration is aiming to bolster domestic job creation by manufacturing foreign components for weapons within the U.S. However, there is a significant concern that firms may lack the workforce necessary to execute this shift. For years, the defense sector has struggled to attract talent due to competition from other manufacturing sectors and a booming service industry that often offers more attractive pay and stability.
“There are simply not enough people in the aerospace and defense sector to meet the current need,” stated Dak Hardwick, vice president of international affairs at the Aerospace Industries Association, during a meeting of American and European defense executives.
Moreover, the intricacies of defense production could lead to the accumulation of multiple tariffs.
Sen. Mark Kelly, a senior member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, highlighted the complexity of the global supply chain, noting that some defense products cross international borders multiple times during assembly, each time incurring additional tariffs.
“The prices are going to go up, and the prices that DOD has to pay are going to go up,” Kelly explained. “Our defense budget, if we want to maintain the same type of force, will get more expensive.”
Business organizations are advocating for a strategic exemption for the defense industry to mitigate the impact of rising costs on the Pentagon, crucial supply chain disruptions, and failures in meeting national security commitments.
“Our defense industrial base over decades was built on a global supply chain,” remarked Keith Webster, president of the Chamber of Commerce’s Defense and Aerospace Council. “In this case, the federal government’s the consumer, so its prices will increase.”
Some Republican lawmakers are also advocating for such an exemption. “I know that their ultimate goal is to onshore everything,” stated Sen. Kevin Cramer, co-chair of the Defense Modernization Caucus, who supports a carve-out. “But even at that, the onshoring will be more expensive than non-tariff imports.”
The implications of these new realities are becoming increasingly apparent to longtime U.S. allies, who are now more focused on strategies to enhance their own defense production capabilities.
“We have to learn from this,” concluded one NATO official. “Now is the time.”
Sanya Singh for TROIB News
If fully enacted, his tariff strategy could disrupt the global supply chains painstakingly established by the Pentagon over decades, potentially inflating the cost of American weaponry and complicating international strategies to counter China, including collaborative submarine projects with the United Kingdom and Australia.
According to a dozen diplomats, lawmakers, officials, and defense industry analysts, America’s self-reliant stance, coupled with these broader threats, could drive wary partners to seek other avenues for collaboration. Additionally, this approach may undermine an industry that provides military equipment to much of the world, eroding trust and predictability in a global defense framework that has historically benefited the U.S. and its allies.
"We have requirements and we're going to do what makes sense for us," stated a diplomat from a NATO country, who, like others, requested anonymity due to the sensitive nature of the issue. “We’re really looking at what we need to develop at home.”
Trump promotes his tariff initiative as a significant step toward rebalancing trade and reclaiming lost revenues for the country. However, it carries the risk of undermining his other pledges to transform the U.S. into an industrial titan and diminish China's influence.
The White House, in its executive order announcing the tariffs, underscored the necessity for U.S. manufacturing to rely less on imports for critical components.
However, implementing this vision is significantly more challenging than merely outlining it in a document. The Pentagon has invested decades in cultivating a global network of suppliers and contractors who now face tariffs. Without exemptions for the defense sector, the administration risks undoing much of this work, potentially delaying the production of American-made weapons for both domestic and international clients.
“There's going to be shortages of supplies, tit-for-tats, and our allies and other partners are going to retaliate,” warned Bill Greenwalt, a former Pentagon acquisition official. “Some potentially vital supplies are either going to cost a whole heck of a lot more than what they did or they're just not going to be available.”
The global tariffs—set at 20 percent for imports from the European Union and 10 percent for goods from the U.K. and Australia—are poised to disrupt long-successful defense collaborations.
These include significant projects like the F-35 fighter aircraft, which serves 20 nations in a partnership aimed at providing its participating countries with manufacturing opportunities, alongside vital rocket and air defense initiatives with Norway and Israel.
Such collaborations are critical for defense in Europe and the Indo-Pacific, where allies strive to maintain an edge over an unpredictable Russia and a modernizing China.
Longstanding partnerships, built over years of discussions and agreements with Washington, are now facing new uncertainties.
“We count on the U. S. for the best equipment,” remarked a European official. “European industrial capacity has greatly improved, and we want to be security providers, not just consumers.” This, the official noted, entails increased investment in European manufacturing to reduce dependency on American components for weaponry.
A particularly promising initiative from the Biden administration, which unites Australia, the U.K., and the U.S. in constructing nuclear-powered submarines and sharing technologies, could be jeopardized if production costs for parts become prohibitively high.
“There are all these ripple effects,” Greenwalt explained. “Contractors can be told to eat the costs, and they can try to develop lower-cost domestic suppliers, but that would take years. You don't snap your fingers and the supply network readjusts itself. It takes a lot of time, effort, and a lot of money.”
Requests for comments went unanswered from the Australian and British embassies, as well as from the White House and Pentagon.
The administration is aiming to bolster domestic job creation by manufacturing foreign components for weapons within the U.S. However, there is a significant concern that firms may lack the workforce necessary to execute this shift. For years, the defense sector has struggled to attract talent due to competition from other manufacturing sectors and a booming service industry that often offers more attractive pay and stability.
“There are simply not enough people in the aerospace and defense sector to meet the current need,” stated Dak Hardwick, vice president of international affairs at the Aerospace Industries Association, during a meeting of American and European defense executives.
Moreover, the intricacies of defense production could lead to the accumulation of multiple tariffs.
Sen. Mark Kelly, a senior member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, highlighted the complexity of the global supply chain, noting that some defense products cross international borders multiple times during assembly, each time incurring additional tariffs.
“The prices are going to go up, and the prices that DOD has to pay are going to go up,” Kelly explained. “Our defense budget, if we want to maintain the same type of force, will get more expensive.”
Business organizations are advocating for a strategic exemption for the defense industry to mitigate the impact of rising costs on the Pentagon, crucial supply chain disruptions, and failures in meeting national security commitments.
“Our defense industrial base over decades was built on a global supply chain,” remarked Keith Webster, president of the Chamber of Commerce’s Defense and Aerospace Council. “In this case, the federal government’s the consumer, so its prices will increase.”
Some Republican lawmakers are also advocating for such an exemption. “I know that their ultimate goal is to onshore everything,” stated Sen. Kevin Cramer, co-chair of the Defense Modernization Caucus, who supports a carve-out. “But even at that, the onshoring will be more expensive than non-tariff imports.”
The implications of these new realities are becoming increasingly apparent to longtime U.S. allies, who are now more focused on strategies to enhance their own defense production capabilities.
“We have to learn from this,” concluded one NATO official. “Now is the time.”
Sanya Singh for TROIB News
Discover more Science and Technology news updates in TROIB Sci-Tech
