On the 7 September 2026, President Donald Trump stated in a post on Truth Social:
“NO MORE SELLING BOMBARDIER IN THE UNITED STATES!”
The statement followed President Trump’s threat to prevent Bombardier Inc., a Canadian aircraft manufacturer, from selling its aircraft in the United States and if the company wanted to access the United States market, “they must build here”. These remarks coincided with the more general decline in trade relations between the United States and Canada, following the recent collapse of trade negotiations between the two nations on the 21st of August 2026, where Canada imposed retaliatory tariffs on about $20 billion worth of US goods.[1]
According to Reuters, the US market is especially crucial for Bombardier Inc., as it accounts for approximately half of its manufacturer’s sales[2] and subsequent to President Trump’s remarks, Bombardier’s share price dropped by 6.4 per cent[3]. Bombardier has responded by stressing on the extent to which its existing supply chain and activities are already embedded in the United States. This Canadian company has stated that it employs around 3,500 people directly in the United States and works with approximately 2,800 United States suppliers across 47 states and therefore spending more than US$2.5 billion per year with American suppliers.[4] Additionally, Bombardier Inc. has expressed that its American presence extends further than just sales and servicing: flight-control components are manufactured in California, whilst business jets’ wings in Texas[5]. Bombardier Inc.’s response therefore highlights an important aspect of modern cross-border manufacturing; determining the location where a product is fabricated is not always straightforward. This applies even more for aircraft as the amount of work that has to be done is immense: final assembly may be done in one country while engineering, labour and other services may be originally conducted in another country.
On top of this, on the 9 September 2026, Bombardier Inc. had also indicated that it is continuing to expand its United States workforce and shall recruit around 500 positions, scheduled to open in November.[6] The political implications of this footprint quickly became apparent. Republican senators from Kansas, where Bombardier has a substantial presence, raised concerns about protecting US jobs following Trump’s announcement.[7]
So the question, my aviation clients and friends, which arises is whether President Trump can simply prohibit Bombardier Inc.’s sales?
A presidential statement does not, by itself, naturally create an enforceable prohibition on the sale or importation of Bombardier Inc. aircraft. As at now, 18 September, Bombardier Inc. aircraft can still be delivered to American customers, according to Reuters. A White House official has, however, said that the administration is preparing options and actions concerning the company.[8] Any formal restriction would therefore require an identifiable legal mechanism.
US presidents possess significant authority over international trade, but that authority generally derives from powers delegated by Congress. The precise statutory basis selected by the administration would consequently be central to determining the scope and the legality of any type of restriction regarding Bombardier Inc. business in the United States. Several existing trade statutes potentially provide mechanisms for restricting imports, although each comes with substantive and procedural requirements. For instance, Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (US Law)[9] empowers Office of the United States Trade Representative to investigate and retaliate against unfair foreign trade practices. However, whether this mechanism could adequately support measures aimed at Bombardier Inc. would depend upon the administration’s stated justification, the findings made and the procedures followed.
Accordingly, should the administration officially prevent Bombardier Inc. imports, attention will surely turn to what action is taken, as well as the legislative authority and whether its statutory conditions have been satisfied. If ever, there is a loophole in the decision, it might cause more harm than good to the United States as this dispute will discourage other high net worth international companies and organisations to invest in America. For instance, Bombardier Inc. is Canadian, but its aircraft are supported by a substantial American industrial ecosystem. Restricting the company’s access to the United States market could therefore affect not only Bombardier and Canadian manufacturing, but also American suppliers, employees, maintenance facilities and customers, which may, in turn be consequential for American purchasers. Analysts have warned that the business-jet market remains tight and that restricting Bombardier aircraft could disrupt American customers already facing lengthy waiting periods for new aircraft[10].
In my view as a result, the Bombardier debate may become more about the future of global manufacturing than it is about a single Canadian aircraft manufacturer.
On one hand, more and more governments want the strategic capabilities, investment and employment related to industry to stay inside their borders, on the other hand, companies rely on global supply networks and access to outside markets. Bombardier is situated right where the opposing forces converge. Whether the next stage of the United States trade policy will favour global integration or increasingly require businesses to select where they belong could be determined by how this disputed will be handled.
© Lawrence Power 2026
Whitestone Aviation Law
[1] Associated Press (2026), “Trump threatens Canada jetmaker Bombardier, which has an extensive US footprint”, 8 September 2026. Available at https://apnews.com/article/trump-canada-carney-trade-bombardier-aircraft-e65b6eeaaa7ffbd06a67a57fb474b2e9.
[2] Reuters (2026), “Bombardier says it wants to fill 500 open US jobs despite Trump’s threats”, 9 September 2026. Available at https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/bombardier-still-recruiting-fill-500-open-us-positions-despite-trump-threats-2026-09-09/.
[3] MarketScreener (2026), “Bombardier shares fall after Trump threatens US market access”, 08 September 2026. Available at https://www.marketscreener.com/news/bombardier-shares-fall-after-trump-threatens-us-market-access-ce785bd8df8af320.
[4] Sophia Compton, Fox Business (2026), “Trump targets Bombardier, says Canadian jetmaker ‘must build’ in the US, 7 September 2026. Available at https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/trump-targets-bombardier-says-canadian-jetmaker-must-build-us.
[5] Andy Hirschfeld, Al Jazeera (2026), “Bombardier defends US manufacturing amid Trump’s aviation sales threat”, 8 September 2026. Available at https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2026/9/8/bombardier-defends-us-manufacturing-amid-trumps-aviation-sales-threat.
[6] Reuters (2026), “Bombardier says it wants to fill 500 open US jobs despite Trump’s threats”, 9 September 2026. Available at https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/bombardier-still-recruiting-fill-500-open-us-positions-despite-trump-threats-2026-09-09/.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Trade Act 1974.
[10] The Canadian Press (2026), “A U.S. ban on Bombardier sales could ‘massively’ disrupt American aerospace” 8 September 2026. Available at https://www.ctvnews.ca/business/article/a-us-ban-on-bombardier-sales-could-massively-disrupt-american-aerospace-analyst/.