The United States could alter its decades-old North American Aerospace Defense Command deal with Canada should its government backtrack on the purchase of 88 Lockheed Martin F-35 fighter jets, the U.S. ambassador to Canada has warned.
In the latest back-and-forth between the U.S. and Canada over the deal, Ambassador Pete Hoekstra cautioned that if Canada purchased fewer fighter jets, the U.S. would “fill those gaps” in security concerns. That could mean the U.S. would need to purchase more F-35 fighter jets for its own use and use them to intervene in Canadian airspace more frequently.
Under the current terms of NORAD, the U.S. and Canada can operate in one another’s airspace to track or intercept threats. However, Hoekstra indicated U.S. intervention would go even further, should the fighter jet deal change, thus requiring new terms to the Cold War-era agreement.
“NORAD would have to be altered,” Hoekstra told CBC News. Hoekstra’s comments come months after the Canadian government indicated it was “reviewing” the terms of the fighter jet deal after finding the program to be costlier than expected.
In 2022, Canada agreed to purchase 88 F-35A advanced fighter jets from Lockheed Martin, with the country initially committing to funding 16 deliverable jets. But quickly, the program ran into challenges. Not only has it taken longer than anticipated to manufacture the jets, but a 2025 initial audit of the deal found that the program had risen to $27.7 billion in cost – up from its initial $19 billion.
With tensions between the U.S. and Canada increasing due to President Donald Trump’s tariff threats, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney called for the review.
Now, Canadian officials are reportedly looking to other countries to supply it with fighter jets, including Saab, the Swedish aerospace and defense company that creates the JAS 39 Gripen E fighter. Saab has offered to manufacture the jets in Canada, creating 12,600 jobs.
“The government is interested in all major projects that can not only protect Canada's security and sovereignty, but also create jobs across the country,” Mélanie Joly, the Minister of Industry, told CBC News.
“We certainly can’t control President Trump, but … we can control our defense investments, who we award contracts to and how we are ultimately able to create jobs in Canada. So we’re going to focus on that.” But Hoekstra warned that if Canada chooses to purchase Saab’s Gripen E jets, the U.S. would still need to reconsider how it works with its northern neighbor on security.
“If they decide they’re going with an inferior product that is not as interchangeable, interoperable as what the F-35 is, that changes our defense capability,” Hoekstra said. “And as such, we have to figure out how we’re going to replace that,” the ambassador added.
Hoekstra’s warning is the latest attempt by a U.S. official to pressure another country to comply with the administration’s desires, specifically those related to national security. It comes on the heels of Trump threatening to impose tariffs on European allies for not supporting a U.S. deal to acquire Greenland.
Posted by John3262005
5 Comments
These comments by the US ambassador to Canada that the article was written about was made on Monday.
The State Department didn’t provide a “clarification” until Wednesday which, according to The [NYTIMES ](http://Why the Cold War Pact Known as NORAD Is Making Headlines),
*No, the United States is not scrapping NORAD, but the government still wants Canada to buy American jets for the common defense of both countries, the State Department said on Wednesday.*
*Mr. Hoekstra was talking about logistical hurdles and equipment, not the agreement itself, the State Department clarified in a statement to The New York Times on Wednesday.*
*“Ambassador Hoekstra’s comments were taken out of context to create headlines rather than to objectively portray his comments about the role that NORAD and the F-35 play in protecting the North America,” a State Department spokesperson said.*
Overall, just another thing making our allies angry, confused, and upset with the US.
They are not wrong. Canada needs a 5th gen fighter.
Is there anything with the Gripen that actually makes it a better choice besides its origin not being America (which isn’t that much imo since parts of it come from America anyway)?
Any post on social media I’ve seen saying it is way better than the F-35 sounds like pure copium when every assessment by a nation concludes the F-35 basically runs circles around an older gen plane. In capabilities and roles it can fill for many nations
If I was Canada, I wouldn’t buy anything that requires support from a country that is talking about annexing them and making threats. Buying weapons from the US carries far more risk than ever before.
On the surface, I don’t object to the idea that if Canada reduces their fighter capability that the U.S. would have to contribute more to cover their airspace. But the existing framework of NORAD should be sufficient to organize that. I’m really skeptical of the whole “altering NORAD” thing.