Andrew Puzder is the United States ambassador to the European Union and Matthew Whitaker serves as the United States ambassador to NATO. We publish their opinions as part of the Global Reporters Network project, which includes Bild, Business Insider, Die Welt, Onet and Politico.
The transatlantic NATO alliance has been the foundation of European and American security for decades. Today, as the world faces complex and unprecedented security challenges, the United States and Europe must work together to maintain and strengthen this partnership. Restricting the participation of the U.S. defense industry in European public procurement programs threatens this partnership and undermines our common security.
It is commendable that NATO allies responded to President Donald Trump's call to increase defense investment by committing to increase defense spending to five percent. GDP. However, in most cases, these commitments have not yet been implemented, meaning the United States continues to bear a disproportionate share of Europe's security costs and provides defense technical and production capabilities that NATO allies lack.
United States Ambassador to NATO Matthew Whitaker (L) in 2026 and United States Ambassador to the EU Andrew Puzder in 2016.MARIJAN MURAT / DPA / dpa Picture-Alliance via AFP, Jason Kempin/Getty Images for Dream Foundation / AFP
Due to the ongoing war in Ukraine, U.S. production lines must operate at full capacity to deliver munitions that other countries cannot provide, such as U.S. air defense systems and their interceptors, and ammunition and spare parts for F-16 aircraft. This is especially important as the United States seeks to meet its own defense production needs as well as the needs of our allies around the world. For the United States to continue to supply the weapons needed by Ukraine and NATO member countries, there must be sufficient orders to justify their production and the means to pay for them.
With this in mind, the United States has expressed concern about how EU defense initiatives such as Security Action for Europe (SAFE) and the European Defense Industry Program (EDIP) limit market access for US companies. Such exclusionary measures weaken our collective defense by limiting competition, stifling innovation, and depriving these companies of the orders they need to maintain production at the levels required to meet the needs of our allies.
EDIP and SAFE mandate that the EU maintain control over the design, configuration and future modifications of defense systems. These requirements threaten intellectual property rights, restrict supply chains and hamper transatlantic interoperability. In addition, these programs impose a 35 percent cap on U.S. industrial participation, limiting the possibility of joint defense ventures between the U.S. and the EU.
Looking ahead, we are particularly concerned about the Commission's plan to include “European preference” in the Defense Procurement Directive in 2026. Changes to the Directive are crucial because they will have a direct impact on how EU countries spend their national funds on defense procurement. We believe that EU countries should have full sovereign autonomy in making decisions about defense procurement – including where purchases are made – without the EU imposing additional eligibility criteria similar to those present in SAFE and EDIP.
Likewise, if the purpose of the European Commission's proposed loan of EUR 90 billion (PLN 379 billion, PLN 107 million) for Ukraine is for Ukraine to defeat Russia, the EU should allow Ukraine to purchase what it needs as quickly as possible. Otherwise, the loan appears to serve more as an economic development initiative that favors the defense industries of certain EU countries.
Let us be clear: we welcome the efforts of Member States to increase their defense budgets and the EU's use of financial leverage to encourage more defense spending. However, this cannot be done at the expense of decades of cooperation by fragmenting the defense market and reducing the effectiveness of joint efforts.
The article continues below the video
The economic consequences are significant. American defense companies are not just suppliers; they are partners who have invested in European economies, created tens of thousands of well-paid jobs in Europe and provided advanced technology that strengthens NATO. Our transatlantic defense industry is most effective when countries are free from protectionist policies and can choose equipment and capabilities best suited to their needs. Joint ventures and transatlantic supply chains have enabled cooperation on next-generation technologies, including missile defense and cyber defense. By leveraging the expertise and resources of US industry, Europe can share the burden of defense investment and ensure access to the best possible equipment.
The United States has consistently welcomed European investment and competition in our own defense market, including through Reciprocal Defense Procurement Agreements (RDPAs) with 19 of the 27 EU countries. Mutual openness is essential to maintaining trust and ensuring that both sides benefit from joint investments. The restrictive measures are in direct conflict with Member States' obligations under these agreements and limit access to our long-shared transatlantic defense industrial base.
The stakes are high. Europe's prosperity and security are in the best interests of both the EU and the United States. Europe's defense potential strengthens NATO and enables both sides to meet global challenges more effectively. Terecting barriers to US industry will slow Europe's re-armament efforts and weaken both NATO's combat readiness and interoperability by cutting off access to integrated transatlantic supply chains.
EU policymakers considering the future of defense cooperation face a clear choice – pursue policies that restrict market access and fragment the defense sector, or support an environment of openness, competition and innovation. The latter approach supports our collective security, preparedness, resilience and cost-effective investments, benefiting taxpayers, workers and service members on both sides of the Atlantic.
I’m Ashley Davis as an editor, I’m committed to upholding the highest standards of integrity and accuracy in every piece we publish. My work is driven by curiosity, a passion for truth, and a belief that journalism plays a crucial role in shaping public discourse. I strive to tell stories that not only inform but also inspire action and conversation.
