President Donald Trump’s threat to strip safety approvals from Canadian-built jets has jolted a normally technocratic corner of aviation policy into the center of a political fight. What began as a dispute over business jet approvals has now drawn in the Federal Aviation Administration, which is publicly echoing Trump’s complaints about how Canada handles certifications. The clash raises an uncomfortable question for both countries: how far can leaders weaponize safety regimes without undermining the trust that keeps people willing to board airplanes.
The spark: Trump’s threat to “decertify” Canadian aircraft
Trump’s broadside started with a declaration that he was “decertifying” all aircraft made in Canada, a move he tied to what he described as unfair treatment of a U.S. business jet program. In his telling, Canadian regulators have dragged their feet on approvals for the Gulfstream GVII family, while Canadian-made aircraft continue to enjoy access to the U.S. market. His language was sweeping, and it immediately raised alarms because decertification, if carried out literally, could affect thousands of Canadian-built jets that operate into U.S. cities every day.
According to detailed accounts of his remarks in Jan, Trump linked the threat directly to alleged delays in the Canadian certification of the U.S.-made GVII, a family that includes high-end Gulfstream models used by corporations, governments, and the ultrawealthy, and he framed his response as a way to force Ottawa’s hand on approvals for U.S. products that serve routes to cities across the country. Aviation specialists quickly pointed out that Trump has no direct legal authority to unilaterally revoke airworthiness approvals, a power that belongs to the Federal Aviation Administration, yet his statement alone created uncertainty for operators of Canadian-made aircraft that rely on U.S. recognition of their type certificates and on the broader web of reciprocal agreements that allow aircraft to move between the United States and Canada.
FAA alignment: backing the pressure campaign in Singapore
What turned a rhetorical threat into a more consequential development was the way the Federal Aviation Administration chose to respond. Speaking in Singapore on the sidelines of the Changi Aviation Summit, FAA administrator Bryan Bedford publicly aligned his agency with Trump’s critique of Ottawa’s handling of business jet approvals. Bedford said the U.S. concern is whether sufficient resources are being applied to U.S. products, equal to the resources that American regulators are applying to foreign aircraft, and he framed the dispute as a matter of fairness in how each side staffs and prioritizes certification work.
By voicing that position in Feb at an international gathering of aviation leaders, Bedford effectively signaled that the FAA supports Trump’s attacks on Canada over airplane certifications and is prepared to use its leverage in negotiations over how each side accepts the other’s approvals. The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration has long relied on bilateral safety agreements that allow agencies to accept the certification work of their counterparts, and Bedford’s comments suggested Washington is now questioning whether Canadian authorities are honoring the spirit of those arrangements when it comes to aircraft made in Canada. That shift matters because it hints at a willingness to revisit the reciprocal acceptance of approvals that underpins cross-border operations and the business plans of manufacturers on both sides of the border, a point underscored in the way Bedford described the need for a level playing field in the allocation of certification resources in Singapore.
Gulfstream versus Bombardier: how a niche dispute went nuclear
At the core of Trump’s anger is a specific business jet standoff that might otherwise have remained a technical quarrel between regulators. The dispute centers on Canada’s refusal so far to certify several Gulfstream models for the Canadian market, including the G500, G600, G700, and G800, even as those aircraft have been cleared elsewhere. Trump has argued that Canada has “wrongfully, illegally and steadfastly refused” to approve those Gulfstream jets, which are built by General Dynamics in Reston, Virginia, while Canadian manufacturers such as Bombardier continue to benefit from access to the U.S. market and its lucrative corporate and charter customers.
Industry reporting in Jan describes how Trump has threatened to pull U.S. certification for Bombardier aircraft in response, explicitly tying the fate of Canadian-made jets to the treatment of the Gulfstream 500, 600, 700, and 800 in Ottawa’s system. Canadian officials, for their part, have pushed back on the suggestion that they are stonewalling, saying the certification process for the Gulfstream models is well underway and that any additional demands on the manufacturer were recent and rooted in safety considerations rather than protectionism. In their account, the president indicated he had been told Canada was refusing to certify the jets, but regulators in Canada say they are following established procedures and timelines, a position they have reiterated while noting that the certification work for the G700 and G800 is moving through the normal channels described in Canada.
Canada’s response and the limits of presidential power
Ottawa has tried to lower the temperature by stressing that the approvals Trump is angry about are already in motion. Canadian officials have said it is their understanding that the certification process for the Gulfstream jets is well underway and that any additional requirements placed on the manufacturer were absolutely recent and tied to technical issues. They have also emphasized that Canada’s system is designed to be independent and safety driven, not a tool for trade retaliation, even when political leaders on either side of the border are trading accusations about unfair treatment.
On the U.S. side, the institutional response has been more cautious than Trump’s rhetoric suggests. When the president first floated the idea of decertifying Canadian-made aircraft in Jan, the FAA was reportedly caught off guard, with officials privately acknowledging that it was not clear what Trump meant by decertifying and warning that a literal interpretation could lead to the grounding of Canadian-made aircraft that operate in the United States. Industry officials later said federal regulators clarified that his statement was meant to apply only to new aircraft certifications, not current ones, which would be a relief to operators that depend on existing approvals. That distinction reflects the legal reality that any move to revoke approvals for aircraft already in service would require a formal safety basis and a structured process overseen by regulators, not a unilateral declaration from the White House, a point underscored in the way experts have described the FAA’s role in responding to Trump.
Safety, politics, and the risk to global certification norms
For aviation professionals, the most troubling part of the episode is not the commercial rivalry between Bombardier and Gulfstream but the way political pressure is seeping into what is supposed to be a rigorously apolitical process. Analysts such as Aboulafia have stressed that aircraft certification is intentionally non-political for a reason, because Regulators are meant to evaluate risk, not respond to trade grievances or social media posts. In their view, using the threat of decertification as leverage in a dispute over market access undermines the credibility of the system that keeps passengers safe, especially when the authority to issue and revoke approvals rests with technical agencies rather than elected leaders.
That concern is amplified by the scale of what Trump has floated. Any move to decertify thousands of Canadian-made aircraft would ripple through airlines, charter operators, and business aviation users that rely on cross-border approvals, and it would test the resilience of the bilateral arrangements that allow agencies to accept each other’s work. The FAA itself has referred questions about the political rhetoric back to its established processes, even as it supports Trump’s push for a level playing field in how Canada allocates resources to U.S. products. For now, the practical impact appears limited to new aircraft, with a White House official indicating that the move would apply only to new aircraft, not current ones, but the episode has already shown how quickly a targeted dispute over the Gulfstream GVII and Bombardier can escalate into a broader challenge to the norms that govern aviation safety between the United States and Canada.
More from Morning Overview