If Prime Minister Mark
Carney meant what he said in his Davos speech rejecting the F-35 deal is
the logical decision. The financial stakes are immense, and the cost of
inaction endangers Canada.
By Fareed Khan
A version of this article can be found on Substack.
This call comes amid a barrage of American provocations, from tariff threats on Canadian aircraft to repeated musings by President Donald Trump about annexing Canada as the “51st state.” As Canada grapples with these realities, it is imperative to recognize that procuring advanced defence hardware from a nation increasingly hostile to its allies poses an existential risk to its territorial integrity and independence. In such a scenario the NDP says that Canada must abandon the F-35 program completely to avoid entrusting its air defences to a partner that could disable them at will through software controls or a de facto kill switch.
The post-World War Two era of stable US-Canada relations, built on mutual trust and shared democratic values, is unequivocally over. For decades, Canada benefited from this alliance, contributing to NATO missions, protecting North American skies under NORAD, and enjoying the security umbrella provided by American military might. But under Trump’s second administration, that partnership has devolved into coercion and intimidation. Just days before the NDP’s announcement, Trump threatened to decertify the approximately 2,600 Bombardier jets operating in the US, and impose a 50% tariff on Canadian-made aircraft, ostensibly because Canada did not certify certain American made Gulfstream models swiftly enough. This threat against Canada’s aviation industry was no isolated incident. It followed punitive tariffs on Canadian steel, aluminum, and softwood lumber that often bypass the protections of the Canada-US-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA), which Trump negotiated in his first administration.
But Trump’s rhetoric has escalated further. Since returning to the White House he has repeatedly floated the idea of annexing Canada as the 51st state, a notion he has invoked in speeches and on social media posts, framing it as a “joke” that thinly veils aggressive intent. Such statements are not harmless. They signal a fundamental shift where the US views its northern neighbour not as an equal ally but as a subordinate entity ripe for economic domination or outright absorption.
This erosion of trust extends to the heart of defence procurement. The F-35 is not merely a fighter jet, it is a sophisticated network-dependent platform with its operational effectiveness dependent on US-controlled software and data systems. Central to this are the Mission Data Files which serve as the aircraft’s “brains,” providing critical information on threat identification, route planning, and combat communication. These files are managed by a US team at Eglin Air Force Base in Florida and require frequent updates, especially in conflict scenarios. American policy explicitly prohibits international operators from performing independent updates outside the continental United States, with Israel being the sole exception. For Canada (and other nations that buy the aircraft) this means total dependency, and without friendly relations with the US our F-35s could fly but would be rendered ineffective against threats, much like a smartphone starved of updates the aircraft would be vulnerable and obsolete.
Defence analysts have long warned of this “all the eggs in one basket” scenario, which is a set up for failure. The F-35’s Autonomic Logistics Information System funnels all data through US servers in Fort Worth, Texas, managed by Lockheed Martin. In a belligerent situation—such as escalated disputes over tariffs or border issues—the US could withhold updates, restrict access, or even implement a metaphorical “kill switch” to degrade the aircraft’s capabilities. This is not speculative fiction, it echoes restrictions placed on Ukraine’s use of F-16s against Russia, where the US limited operational freedoms to avoid escalation of the war. For Canada to invest $19 billion upfront—and a staggering $74 billion over the F-35’s life cycle—in a system that the US could neuter, is not strategic, it is suicidal.
Canada is not alone in having these concerns. Across NATO, allies are re-evaluating their reliance on American systems amid Trump’s erratic policies. Denmark, for instance, has expressed profound regret over its F-35 purchase. Rasmus Jarlov, chairman of Denmark’s parliamentary defence committee, publicly lamented the decision, fearing the US could disable the jets by halting spare parts supplies to coerce concessions over Greenland—a territory Trump has obsessively targeted for annexation, even threatening the use of force. Trump has also threatened tariffs on NATO allies opposing US control of Greenland, further straining the alliance. European officials have echoed these worries, suggesting contract cancellations if the US mirrors its restrictions on Ukraine’s fighters. Germany’s $10 billion deal for 35 F-35s is currently under scrutiny, and projections of over 550 European F-35s by decade’s end now seem precarious as trust evaporates.
Trump has also disparaged NATO troops’ contributions in Afghanistan and questioned the alliance’s mutual defence commitments. This has prompted a cascade of doubt. If the US can abandon commitments to Ukraine or threaten Denmark over Greenland, what prevents it from leveraging F-35 dependencies against Canada or other NATO allies over trade disputes? The stable alliance that defined the post-war order—where the US was the reliable guarantor—has been weaponized into a tool of coercion. As Prime Minister Carney articulated at the World Economic Forum in Davos, we are amid a “rupture, not a transition,” where middle powers like Canada must unite against great power rivalry and weaponized economic integration. Carney’s call for “strategic autonomy” resonates and shows that middle powers are not powerless. They can build alternatives that embody values like sovereignty and solidarity.
Enter the Saab Gripen as a viable path forward. Unlike the F-35, the Gripen offers operational sovereignty, with no requirement for permission on updates or mission planning. Saab’s proposal includes intellectual property transfer and assembly in Canada, enabling independent maintenance and upgrades. This deal promises up to 12,600 high value added jobs bolstering the Canadian aerospace sector while reducing dependency. By switching to the Gripen, Canada would signal to allies like Australia, Japan, and South Korea that alternatives exist, potentially unravelling US military hardware export dominance worth hundreds of billions.
Critics may argue that the F-35’s stealth capabilities are superior, but technical edge means little if political whims can result in the fleet being inoperable. Canada’s situation is symbolic, and the NDP’s demand followed Carney’s Davos speech, echoing his language on middle powers collaborating. If Carney meant what he said, rejecting the F-35 deal is the logical step. The financial stakes are immense—$74 billion committed to a multi-generational dependency—but the cost of inaction is higher. A compromised air defence network in an era where the US could sabotage the air force fleets of Canada if needed leaving this country vulnerable to American aggression.
Ultimately, Canada can no longer afford to trust the US as a steadfast ally. The threats of tariffs, annexation rhetoric, and potential control over our air defence hardware demands a decisive break from business as usual. Cancelling the F-35 contract, beyond the initial 16 jets at the least, and embracing Sweden’s Gripen is not anti-American, it is pro-Canadian, ensuring our sovereignty and territorial integrity. As Carney warned, if middle powers do not act together, they risk being on the menu.
Ottawa must heed the NDP’s urgent call to decisively change course on Canada’s fighter jet procurement, scrapping the F-35 program beyond the initial 16 jets and committing instead to the Saab Gripen to secure genuine operational independence. This is not merely a policy adjustment—it is an essential act of national self-preservation. The time for complacency is emphatically over. The defence of Canada now demands the immediate establishment of true independence in military procurement from the United States, an ally whose trust has been irreparably fractured by relentless threats, economic coercion, and annexation rhetoric that has been unseen in Canada-US relations since the 19th century.
In this new era of great-power belligerence, where Canada risks becoming a vassal state rather than a sovereign partner, strategic autonomy is no longer optional. It is the only path to safeguarding this nation’s territorial integrity, air sovereignty, and future as a free and independent nation. It’s time to fly on our own wings or Canada is sure to be grounded by a leash held by a belligerent neighbour.
© 2026 The View From Here. © 2026 Fareed Khan. All Rights Reserved.
A version of this article can be found on Substack.
In the shadow of escalating US threats to Canadian sovereignty,
the New Democratic Party’s recent demand for Prime Minister Mark Carney
to scrap the $19 billion F-35 fighter jet
contract with Lockheed Martin has ignited a crucial national debate.
The NDP is not merely suggesting a pivot. They are insisting on
cancelling all 88 jets, including the 16 to which Canada is already
committed, in favour of Sweden’s Saab Gripen.
This call comes amid a barrage of American provocations, from tariff threats on Canadian aircraft to repeated musings by President Donald Trump about annexing Canada as the “51st state.” As Canada grapples with these realities, it is imperative to recognize that procuring advanced defence hardware from a nation increasingly hostile to its allies poses an existential risk to its territorial integrity and independence. In such a scenario the NDP says that Canada must abandon the F-35 program completely to avoid entrusting its air defences to a partner that could disable them at will through software controls or a de facto kill switch.
The post-World War Two era of stable US-Canada relations, built on mutual trust and shared democratic values, is unequivocally over. For decades, Canada benefited from this alliance, contributing to NATO missions, protecting North American skies under NORAD, and enjoying the security umbrella provided by American military might. But under Trump’s second administration, that partnership has devolved into coercion and intimidation. Just days before the NDP’s announcement, Trump threatened to decertify the approximately 2,600 Bombardier jets operating in the US, and impose a 50% tariff on Canadian-made aircraft, ostensibly because Canada did not certify certain American made Gulfstream models swiftly enough. This threat against Canada’s aviation industry was no isolated incident. It followed punitive tariffs on Canadian steel, aluminum, and softwood lumber that often bypass the protections of the Canada-US-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA), which Trump negotiated in his first administration.
But Trump’s rhetoric has escalated further. Since returning to the White House he has repeatedly floated the idea of annexing Canada as the 51st state, a notion he has invoked in speeches and on social media posts, framing it as a “joke” that thinly veils aggressive intent. Such statements are not harmless. They signal a fundamental shift where the US views its northern neighbour not as an equal ally but as a subordinate entity ripe for economic domination or outright absorption.
This erosion of trust extends to the heart of defence procurement. The F-35 is not merely a fighter jet, it is a sophisticated network-dependent platform with its operational effectiveness dependent on US-controlled software and data systems. Central to this are the Mission Data Files which serve as the aircraft’s “brains,” providing critical information on threat identification, route planning, and combat communication. These files are managed by a US team at Eglin Air Force Base in Florida and require frequent updates, especially in conflict scenarios. American policy explicitly prohibits international operators from performing independent updates outside the continental United States, with Israel being the sole exception. For Canada (and other nations that buy the aircraft) this means total dependency, and without friendly relations with the US our F-35s could fly but would be rendered ineffective against threats, much like a smartphone starved of updates the aircraft would be vulnerable and obsolete.
Defence analysts have long warned of this “all the eggs in one basket” scenario, which is a set up for failure. The F-35’s Autonomic Logistics Information System funnels all data through US servers in Fort Worth, Texas, managed by Lockheed Martin. In a belligerent situation—such as escalated disputes over tariffs or border issues—the US could withhold updates, restrict access, or even implement a metaphorical “kill switch” to degrade the aircraft’s capabilities. This is not speculative fiction, it echoes restrictions placed on Ukraine’s use of F-16s against Russia, where the US limited operational freedoms to avoid escalation of the war. For Canada to invest $19 billion upfront—and a staggering $74 billion over the F-35’s life cycle—in a system that the US could neuter, is not strategic, it is suicidal.
Canada is not alone in having these concerns. Across NATO, allies are re-evaluating their reliance on American systems amid Trump’s erratic policies. Denmark, for instance, has expressed profound regret over its F-35 purchase. Rasmus Jarlov, chairman of Denmark’s parliamentary defence committee, publicly lamented the decision, fearing the US could disable the jets by halting spare parts supplies to coerce concessions over Greenland—a territory Trump has obsessively targeted for annexation, even threatening the use of force. Trump has also threatened tariffs on NATO allies opposing US control of Greenland, further straining the alliance. European officials have echoed these worries, suggesting contract cancellations if the US mirrors its restrictions on Ukraine’s fighters. Germany’s $10 billion deal for 35 F-35s is currently under scrutiny, and projections of over 550 European F-35s by decade’s end now seem precarious as trust evaporates.
Trump has also disparaged NATO troops’ contributions in Afghanistan and questioned the alliance’s mutual defence commitments. This has prompted a cascade of doubt. If the US can abandon commitments to Ukraine or threaten Denmark over Greenland, what prevents it from leveraging F-35 dependencies against Canada or other NATO allies over trade disputes? The stable alliance that defined the post-war order—where the US was the reliable guarantor—has been weaponized into a tool of coercion. As Prime Minister Carney articulated at the World Economic Forum in Davos, we are amid a “rupture, not a transition,” where middle powers like Canada must unite against great power rivalry and weaponized economic integration. Carney’s call for “strategic autonomy” resonates and shows that middle powers are not powerless. They can build alternatives that embody values like sovereignty and solidarity.
Enter the Saab Gripen as a viable path forward. Unlike the F-35, the Gripen offers operational sovereignty, with no requirement for permission on updates or mission planning. Saab’s proposal includes intellectual property transfer and assembly in Canada, enabling independent maintenance and upgrades. This deal promises up to 12,600 high value added jobs bolstering the Canadian aerospace sector while reducing dependency. By switching to the Gripen, Canada would signal to allies like Australia, Japan, and South Korea that alternatives exist, potentially unravelling US military hardware export dominance worth hundreds of billions.
Critics may argue that the F-35’s stealth capabilities are superior, but technical edge means little if political whims can result in the fleet being inoperable. Canada’s situation is symbolic, and the NDP’s demand followed Carney’s Davos speech, echoing his language on middle powers collaborating. If Carney meant what he said, rejecting the F-35 deal is the logical step. The financial stakes are immense—$74 billion committed to a multi-generational dependency—but the cost of inaction is higher. A compromised air defence network in an era where the US could sabotage the air force fleets of Canada if needed leaving this country vulnerable to American aggression.
Ultimately, Canada can no longer afford to trust the US as a steadfast ally. The threats of tariffs, annexation rhetoric, and potential control over our air defence hardware demands a decisive break from business as usual. Cancelling the F-35 contract, beyond the initial 16 jets at the least, and embracing Sweden’s Gripen is not anti-American, it is pro-Canadian, ensuring our sovereignty and territorial integrity. As Carney warned, if middle powers do not act together, they risk being on the menu.
Ottawa must heed the NDP’s urgent call to decisively change course on Canada’s fighter jet procurement, scrapping the F-35 program beyond the initial 16 jets and committing instead to the Saab Gripen to secure genuine operational independence. This is not merely a policy adjustment—it is an essential act of national self-preservation. The time for complacency is emphatically over. The defence of Canada now demands the immediate establishment of true independence in military procurement from the United States, an ally whose trust has been irreparably fractured by relentless threats, economic coercion, and annexation rhetoric that has been unseen in Canada-US relations since the 19th century.
In this new era of great-power belligerence, where Canada risks becoming a vassal state rather than a sovereign partner, strategic autonomy is no longer optional. It is the only path to safeguarding this nation’s territorial integrity, air sovereignty, and future as a free and independent nation. It’s time to fly on our own wings or Canada is sure to be grounded by a leash held by a belligerent neighbour.
© 2026 The View From Here. © 2026 Fareed Khan. All Rights Reserved.
