US envoy flags defense risks from EU 'Made in Europe' push

A senior US diplomatic voice has signalled alarm about an EU policy package aimed at favouring goods produced within the bloc, warning it could have unintended security and diplomatic consequences. Andrew Puzder, the US ambassador to the EU, told Bloomberg Radio that provisions in the draft framework risk creating administrative and sourcing obstacles that would complicate allied defence logistics and support for Ukraine.

The debate goes beyond trade semantics: the rules under discussion touch procurement eligibility, origin certification and subsidy access. Tightened local‑content criteria can shrink the pool of eligible suppliers, introduce extra paperwork for cross‑border transfers of parts and munitions, and slow contracting processes for urgent deliveries.

Industry and governments in London have already warned that similar localisation moves would impose heavy compliance costs on multinational manufacturers, particularly in automotive and clean‑tech sectors whose supply chains straddle the Channel. UK officials are pushing for carve‑outs, grandfathering for projects already underway and clearer certification rules to avoid sudden disruptions to production and investment plans.

Those commercial objections intersect with security concerns: narrower supplier lists and slower procurement can translate into delayed shipments of spare parts, vehicles and other materiel Kyiv needs on the front line. US diplomats argue this would undermine interoperability and increase the risk that allies must resort to ad‑hoc bilateral workarounds to meet operational timelines.

Parallel political friction is also emerging over who gets a seat at the table on negotiations over Ukraine’s future. Senior European ministers, notably from Poland, have publicly demanded clearer roles for contributing states in diplomatic planning — a stance that underlines broader unease about how strategic decisions are coordinated among donors and could complicate consensus on technical exemptions to industrial rules.

Taken together, the commercial and diplomatic pressures make it likelier that Brussels will face calls to amend the draft to include explicit defence exemptions, fast‑track waivers for urgent supplies and mechanisms to consult key security partners before rules are applied to defence‑related procurement.

• Stricter origin rules risk creating non‑tariff barriers that slow allied materiel flows.
• Automotive and clean‑tech firms warn of investment shifts, higher compliance costs and production delays without grandfathering provisions.
• Allies may seek formal consultation procedures or carve‑outs for defence goods to preserve interoperability.

Brussels faces a choice between defending a hardline localisation agenda to bolster industrial resilience and adapting the architecture to avoid disrupting defence supply chains and allied cooperation. How that balance is struck will shape investment decisions, NATO readiness and the practical ability of partners to sustain Ukraine with timely, compatible equipment.

Diplomatically, the row could prompt an intensified transatlantic dialogue to reconcile industrial sovereignty aims with urgent security needs; if unresolved, nations may pursue bilateral fixes that add layers of complexity and cost to multilateral programmes.