Decertification of Canadian aircraft in USA

1. What the threat actually said — and how it was framed

The statement originated as a Truth Social post in which the president tied threatened U.S. action — decertification of Bombardier Global Expresses and “all Aircraft made in Canada” — to Canada’s handling of Gulfstream model certifications, and warned of a 50% tariff on Canadian aircraft sold into the U.S. unless the situation was “immediately corrected” ^{[2] [4]}.

2. Immediate pushback and the ‘new certifications’ carve‑out

Within hours a White House official told Reuters the president was not proposing to decertify Canadian-built planes currently operating in the United States, and U.S. airline officials said FAA sources similarly framed the move as applying to new certifications rather than an across‑the‑fleet grounding ^{[1] [2]}.

3. Who actually controls certification and decertification in the United States

Certification and revocation of airworthiness approval for aircraft registered in the U.S. is the remit of the Federal Aviation Administration, not the president personally; aviation experts and commentators noted that the FAA — which handles certifying or decertifying aircraft in the U.S. — would have to carry out any formal action, and that a presidential pronouncement alone does not equate to an immediate regulatory change ^{[3] [5]}.

4. Scale and practical consequences if a full decertification occurred

Data firm Cirium estimates roughly 5,425 Canadian-made aircraft of various types are registered in the U.S., including some 150 Bombardier Global Express jets operated by about 115 U.S. operators, meaning an across‑the‑board decertification would affect thousands of aircraft and could disrupt commercial, business and medical flights ^{[1] [6]}. Analysts and industry professors called such a move unprecedented and warned of cascading operational and national‑security implications, noting U.S. military and critical services also use variants of Canadian-built jets ^{[3] [4]}.

5. Legal, technical and political limits on the threat

A string of reports emphasized legal and technical limits: regulators normally decertify for safety reasons after investigations, not as a trade sanction; Bombardier and aviation experts described the president’s phrasing as at odds with regulatory process; and Transport Canada typically coordinates with the FAA on mutual acceptance of approvals, meaning decertification would raise complex bilateral regulatory questions ^{[7] [4] [6]}. Media outlets further noted the White House and FAA messaging that the move appeared targeted at future approvals, and skeptics stressed the practical hurdles of revoking approvals for widely used airframes ^{[1] [2] [3]}.

6. Stakes, motives and the broader trade context

The threat came amid heightened Canada‑U.S. tensions after Canadian political comments at Davos and follow‑on trade frictions; observers framed the aircraft threat as leverage in a larger dispute over Gulfstream certifications and broader trade posture, with critics accusing the administration of weaponizing regulatory terms for political gain while proponents argue tough enforcement protects U.S. manufacturing ^{[2] [8] [9]}.

7. Bottom line for operators and regulators

For now, regulators and industry are treating the announcement as a political threat rather than a finalized regulatory action: the FAA has the authority to certify or revoke airworthiness, the White House signaled the statement targeted new approvals, and experts say an across‑the‑board decertification would be legally and operationally fraught — but the threat has already injected uncertainty into a supply chain that places thousands of Canadian‑made aircraft into U.S. service ^{[1] [3] [2]}.