In the era of Trump 2.0, the first question British defence companies are facing when trying to export their weapons abroad is whether they are independent of the US arms industry. Or simply, are they “Itar-free”?
Itar, which stands for the International Traffic in Arms Regulations, refers to a set of longstanding US rules that govern the items on the United States Munitions List, which is aimed at safeguarding national security.
The list contains US-produced software, components and other technology that can be used for either military purposes or serve a dual use. If a weapon is subject to Itar, it cannot be built, sold or supplied to someone else without US consent and support.
One defence industry source said: “Even if you have US engineers, you become Itar-tainted.”
To employ ex-US military employees, UK companies would become subject to Itar restrictions if they have not been granted an exemption.
Although the restrictions are nothing new, a combination of Trump’s tariffs, vague threats to Canada and Denmark and pause on providing military aid and intelligence to Ukraine has left defence companies and governments thinking twice before investing in American components or equipment.
...
Helsing, a European defence tech company, and Auterion, a supplier of drone operating systems with a European headquarters in Munich, also pride themselves on having Itar-free equipment.
Helsing has pursued the policy because it “was founded on the principle of providing sovereign capabilities for a strong Europe”, according to Amelia Gould, the company’s global maritime director.
“Europe has this technology, we don’t need to import everything from the US,” she added.
Brinley Salzmann, the director of overseas and exports for ADS, a defence trade association, said that what was once a preference for Itar-free weapons was quickly becoming a requirement.
He said: “As international collaboration increases and governments seek greater control over their supply chains, the ability to operate without US extraterritorial export restrictions is becoming a strategic consideration.”
...
The MIC is the military and the industry. If the M needs the increased capacity in Europe, the I has to accept.
the MIC is not a single entity. The I part in the US is very big, but they are locked out of the deals in Europe. Thus the MIC in the US objects to this because it hurts them. Things they used to make a ton of money on in the US are things they are not making any money on at all.
As far as I know, the I is only locked out of the additional money that the EU is going to spend. All the regular 2% military spending is free to go to the I.
There is legal lock out, and there is practical lock out. EU countries are going to be looking for other options for the 2% as well. Much of that 2% already doesn't go to the US - there is paying soldiers. There are several different EU tank manufactures and other equipment. The EU is looking how they can bring some what is going to the US away even if it means worse equipment (that is buying 4th generation EU fighters instead of the 5th generation F35)