**💥 PENTAGON WARNS CANADA on Gripen Deal — Ottawa’s Stunning Pushback Shakes Washington Overnight!**

Ottawa / Washington D.C. – February 17, 2026

The Pentagon issued a rare and sharply worded public warning to Canada late yesterday, cautioning that Ottawa’s decision to accelerate negotiations for Saab’s JAS 39 Gripen fighter jets could “undermine NATO interoperability, compromise sensitive U.S. technology-sharing agreements, and create unacceptable long-term risks to North American air-defense integration.” The statement — released through the Office of the Secretary of Defense just after 10 p.m. ET — marks the most direct U.S. military intervention in an allied procurement decision since the F-35 saga more than a decade ago.

The warning came less than 48 hours after Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney confirmed that the Royal Canadian Air Force had entered “final-phase negotiations” with Saab for up to 88 Gripen E/F aircraft to replace the aging CF-18 fleet. The deal, valued at an estimated CAD $19–22 billion, includes full technology transfer, domestic final assembly in Mirabel, Québec, and a 30-year industrial-participation package that would create thousands of high-skill jobs across Canada.

Pentagon spokesperson Maj. Gen. Pat Ryder stated:

“The United States has long supported Canada’s efforts to modernize its fighter fleet. However, the Gripen platform relies on U.S.-origin components and software that are subject to strict export controls and ITAR restrictions. Any procurement that does not guarantee full, reciprocal access to source code, maintenance data, and future upgrade pathways would be incompatible with existing NORAD and Five Eyes commitments. We urge Canada to reconsider and return to the proven interoperability of the F-35.”

The statement was unusually blunt for a public release and was accompanied by a background briefing for select U.S. media outlets in which senior defense officials reportedly warned that choosing Gripen could lead to reduced U.S. intelligence-sharing, restricted access to joint exercises, and potential exclusion from future NORAD modernization programs.

Canada’s response was immediate, unapologetic, and delivered personally by Prime Minister Carney at 1:14 a.m. ET — just three hours after the Pentagon statement.

“Let me be very clear,” Carney said in a live address from the Centre Block. “Canada will make sovereign decisions about its defense procurement based on capability, cost, industrial benefits, and strategic autonomy — not on threats or ultimatums. The Gripen E/F offers superior operational flexibility, lower lifecycle costs, and unmatched technology transfer compared to the alternatives. We will not be coerced into choices that do not serve Canadian interests or NATO’s long-term strength.”

Carney then listed specific grievances:

– The F-35 program has delivered only 16 aircraft to Canada to date — seven years behind schedule and billions over budget.
– Lockheed Martin’s industrial offsets for Canada remain at roughly 65% of contract value, far below the 100%+ achieved by Saab in other export deals.
– Canada has repeatedly requested source-code access and independent maintenance rights for the F-35 — requests that have been denied or heavily restricted by the U.S. government.

He concluded: “If the United States truly values NORAD and NATO interoperability, it will respect Canada’s right to choose the best platform for our needs — not punish us for it. Any attempt to weaponize defense cooperation against an ally will be met with equivalent measures to protect Canadian sovereignty.”

Markets reacted sharply overnight. Saab AB shares jumped 11% in Stockholm pre-market trading; Lockheed Martin fell 4.2%. The Canadian dollar strengthened 1.9% against the U.S. dollar, while U.S. defense contractors with heavy F-35 exposure (RTX, Northrop Grumman) saw early declines of 2–5%.

The move has also drawn rare commentary from billionaire investor Warren Buffett. In a brief statement released through Berkshire Hathaway this morning, Buffett said:

“Trade wars and defense ultimatums between the closest allies on earth are bad for business — bad for Canada, bad for the United States, and bad for global stability. When you threaten your best customer and most reliable partner, you’re not protecting national security — you’re damaging it. Cool heads need to prevail before this spirals further.”

Buffett’s intervention — his second direct comment on U.S.-Canada trade tensions in less than 24 hours — is being interpreted by many as a not-so-subtle warning to both Trump and Acting President JD Vance that prolonged escalation could inflict serious collateral damage on American companies and consumers.

Inside Washington, the Pentagon warning has exposed deep divisions within the administration. Trump-aligned advisors are reportedly pushing for immediate ITAR restrictions on Gripen components and a formal review of NORAD data-sharing protocols. More pragmatic voices — including several at the National Security Council — are warning that alienating Canada risks fracturing the alliance at a time when Russia and China are actively probing Arctic and North Atlantic vulnerabilities.

Acting President Vance has not yet commented publicly, but White House sources say he is “reviewing all options” and facing intense internal debate. Several Republican senators from border and defense-contractor states have privately urged de-escalation, with one senior GOP aide telling reporters: “We can’t afford to lose Canada as a partner over a fighter-jet contract. The F-35 is great, but alienating Ottawa helps nobody.”

The episode has become a defining early test for Carney — the former central banker who became prime minister in late 2025 — and for Trump, who continues to wield enormous influence despite no longer holding executive authority. Many analysts now describe it as proof that Trump’s policy preferences can still move markets and headlines — but his ability to force compliance has been dramatically curtailed since losing executive power.

As Ottawa prepares to finalize the Gripen contract and Washington weighs its next move, the world is watching to see whether North America’s defense partnership can survive the current turbulence — or whether a single fighter-jet decision becomes the spark for a much larger transatlantic fracture.