Donald Trump is pushing to sell F-35 stealth jets to Turkey — and that's a bigger deal than it might sound. Why is Trump selling F-35 jets to Turkey? The short answer, according to analysts, is simple: he needs Erdogan now more than he did during his first term. But here's the catch — Turkey still hasn't given up the Russian S-400 missile systems that got them kicked out of the F-35 program in the first place. That means Washington may be handing one of its most sophisticated military secrets to a NATO ally that is still hosting Russian radar technology capable of probing those very secrets.

This is the central contradiction playing out at the NATO leaders summit, and it raises serious questions about strategy, alliance loyalty, and what the U.S. is actually getting in return.

Why Is Trump Reversing His Own F-35 Ban for Turkey?

In his first term, it was Trump himself who cut off F-35 sales to Turkey after Ankara purchased Russia's S-400 anti-aircraft missile system. The concern was direct and serious: those Russian systems could be trained on F-35s, giving Moscow deep insight into how to defeat the jet's stealth capabilities. That's not a hypothetical risk — it's an intelligence nightmare.

Now, in his second term, Trump has instructed his staff to do everything they can to get F-35s into Turkish hands. So what changed? Geopolitics. Turkey has become increasingly indispensable on multiple fronts — from its role in Syria to its position as a diplomatic bridge during the war in Ukraine. Erdogan has leverage, and Trump appears willing to use military hardware as a relationship-building tool.

As one former diplomat put it bluntly: "Before there was Make America Great Again, there was Erdogan's Make Turkey Great Again." These two leaders share a certain political DNA — strongman tendencies, transactional diplomacy, and a mutual appreciation for leverage. That chemistry is shaping some very consequential decisions.

Why Was Turkey Kicked Out of the F-35 Program?

Turkey's expulsion from the F-35 program came down to one decision: buying the Russian S-400 surface-to-air missile system. For NATO, this was a red line. The S-400 is designed to track and target aircraft — including, potentially, F-35s. If Turkish S-400 systems were ever used to monitor F-35 flight patterns, radar signatures, and stealth profiles, that data could find its way to Russian engineers working to develop countermeasures.

The result would be catastrophic for the entire NATO alliance, not just the United States. Every country flying an F-35 would be at greater risk. The U.S. pulled Turkey from the program and imposed sanctions under CAATSA — the Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act — a law specifically designed to penalize countries that buy Russian military hardware.

Turkey's response at the time? Frustration. In a 2023 interview, President Erdogan argued that the U.S. had pushed Turkey toward Russia by refusing to sell them alternative air defense systems in the first place. When Washington wouldn't sell, Ankara bought from Moscow. It's a complex chain of decisions — but the security risk remains real regardless of the explanation.

What Are Russia's S-400s and Why Do They Threaten NATO?

The S-400 is Russia's most advanced long-range surface-to-air missile system. It can track and engage aircraft, drones, cruise missiles, and ballistic missiles at ranges up to 400 kilometers. It's formidable — and that's exactly why Turkey wanted it.

But for NATO, the problem isn't the weapon itself. It's the sensors and software. The S-400 uses sophisticated radar systems that, if operated near NATO aircraft, could gather invaluable intelligence on how those jets perform, maneuver, and evade detection. In the wrong hands — or more accurately, with the wrong data-sharing agreements — that information flows back to Moscow.

Turkey says it hasn't deployed the S-400s. But as analysts have noted, they're still there. They haven't been dismantled. They haven't been returned. And U.S. law — specifically the certification requirement attached to any F-35 sale — requires that the President and Secretary of Defense confirm Turkey has genuinely given up those systems before a sale can proceed. That certification has not happened.

How Important Is Turkey to NATO Right Now?

Turkey is the second-largest military in NATO after the United States. Its defense spending has surged dramatically over the past decade, reaching nearly $30 billion last year. It controls the Bosphorus strait — the critical chokepoint between the Black Sea and the Mediterranean. It borders both Russia and Iran. Its drone technology, particularly the Bayraktar TB2, has reshaped modern warfare.

In short, Turkey matters enormously. And in an alliance increasingly stretched by Russian aggression in Ukraine and instability across the Middle East, a capable and engaged Turkey is not something NATO can afford to alienate. This is the leverage Erdogan is playing — and playing skillfully.

The shift in Turkey's standing within NATO has been notable. In years past, Ankara was often described as a problematic ally — flagged for democratic backsliding, press freedom violations, and tensions with Greece and Cyprus. Those concerns haven't gone away. But the strategic calculus has shifted. Necessity has a way of smoothing over friction.

What Makes Erdogan and Trump Such a Strong Match?

Both leaders are transactional. Both project strength as a core political brand. Both have demonstrated a preference for bilateral deals over multilateral frameworks. And both have faced criticism for eroding democratic norms at home while positioning themselves as indispensable on the world stage.

That shared political temperament appears to be translating into a warmer U.S.-Turkey relationship than existed even during Trump's first term. The willingness to revisit the F-35 question — something that seemed politically impossible just a few years ago — is one of the clearest signals of that thaw.

But critics warn that personal rapport is not the same as strategic alignment. Turkey has been a vocal supporter of the Palestinian cause in Gaza, which has strained its relationship with Israel. Erdogan has made statements about Israel that make Tel Aviv deeply uncomfortable. And that brings us to another major objection to the F-35 deal.

Why Is Israel Opposed to Turkey Receiving F-35s?

Israel has long operated under a U.S.-backed policy of maintaining qualitative military edge in the Middle East — meaning Israel should always have access to more advanced military technology than its neighbors and potential adversaries. F-35s are central to that edge. Israel flies them. Its neighbors don't.

Prime Minister Netanyahu has argued that selling F-35s to Turkey would upset the regional balance that currently underpins Israeli air superiority. He's pointed to Turkey as a threat not just to Israel, but also to Greece and Cyprus — two EU members with long-standing territorial disputes with Ankara.

Netanyahu's objections carry weight in Washington, particularly in Congress, where pro-Israel sentiment runs deep. Any F-35 sale to Turkey will face significant Congressional scrutiny, and Israel's opposition could prove to be one of the most durable obstacles to the deal actually going through.

Can the US Even Legally Sell F-35s to Turkey Right Now?

Legally, it's complicated. The CAATSA sanctions imposed on Turkey for the S-400 purchase haven't been formally lifted. More significantly, U.S. law requires a formal certification — from both the President and the Secretary of Defense — confirming that Turkey has relinquished the S-400 systems before any F-35 transfer can be authorized.

Turkey has not given up those systems. It says it hasn't deployed them — but that's not the same as giving them up. The Trump administration has signaled a desire to find workarounds and has instructed staff to explore every available option. But absent a clear Turkish commitment to remove the S-400s, critics say any sale would set a dangerous precedent: that legal and security safeguards can be bypassed for the sake of political relationships.

As one seasoned former diplomat summarized: "We're ceding this ground without necessarily getting very much in return. For a recovering diplomat, that's just dumb diplomacy."

The F-35 question is ultimately a proxy for a much bigger debate — about how much the U.S. is willing to compromise on security principles to maintain alliances, and whether transactional diplomacy can substitute for genuine strategic trust. The answer to those questions will shape NATO's credibility for years to come.