When this scenario has been played out so many times all over the world, European air forces included it is only a reasonable concern to have.
It's also been 'played out' plenty of times in the other direction too.
Each AF that for instance orders, outside of the nations that designed and built them, that buys Typhoons or Rafales, or Gripens is not buying a US aircraft.
Even if they already operate US equipment too.
So this whole simplistic idea does not hold up.
Does the US sometimes pressure AF's to buy their equipment? Yes.
So do the French, plus the consortium that built Typhoon.
The huge sales by the UK to mainly Saudi Arabia in the 80's and 90's took many by surprise, they were controversial and it later transpired that what we call corruption and what the Saudi's call doing business, were a part of it.
In short, exactly what the US is often accused of and often has done.
Ditto the French.
I think you are mixing apples and oranges when you are comparing the US's political and diplomatic pressure exerted in such deals with that of the EU countries.
Now that is not only simplistic but outright ignorant.
Thanks for telling me how ignorant I am, want to do a test on this? I'm game.
For instance, look at a very notorious case, selling the F-104 to European NATO nations, which was however NOT a result a US diplomatic pressure but a plain and simple bribe by Lockheed to some European, notably German politicians. Illegal too.
When it it came out in 1975 it was however very embarrassing for the US. And very damaging for Lockheed.
Interestingly, that was also the same year that the F-16 was picked to replace those F-104's, another case of US diplomatic pressure or commercial bribes? It was a General Dynamics aircraft then, not LM.
Actually no, not this time, can YOU think of a more suitable aircraft then to take those NATO nations into the 1980's and beyond?
I can't, Mirage F1E? Not going to be modern post late 1980's against later expected Soviet types.
Saab 37? Not a NATO nation, great aircraft but separate versions for attack/recce and air defence.
YF-17? Recently rejected by the USAF for the YF-16 as it was then, F-18 not quite a going concern at that time.
In the 1980's and 90's the US was loath to sell Taiwan certain hardware, being more interested in pleasing China, the ROC really wanted a BVR capability for it's F-16's.
Eventually they gave up and brought Mirage 2000's instead.
I bet the US were pissed off at that, not only annoying China but of course missing out on sales.
Not much they could do about it though.
Closer to home, after UK scientists who made up 20% of the Manhattan project and did much of the early science before joining that project, were booted out 1946 and agreements on cooperation torn up, did the UK, bankrupted by WW2 just accept it?
No, the Attlee government went ahead with a UK program.
As did France a bit later.
In the mid 60's the UK came under great diplomatic and economic pressure to join the US in Vietnam, not for material more political support. LBJ's insults, snubs to PM Wilson made no difference.
There is a reason why LBJ is the only US President not to have a state visit to the UK, the only POTUS the Queen in 69 years on the Throne has never met.
20 years back, reporting in the UK press of how Clinton put a lot of pressure on PM Blair to adopt advanced versions of the AMRAAM for Typhoon upgrades and future applications, AMRAAM was already in service with the RAF on Typhoons, Tornado F3's and RN Sea Harrier FA2's.
One leaked letter had Clinton saying 'I feel very strongly about this issue'.
However, the UK led MBDA project won out, now in service on Typhoons. The Meteor AAM.
Ditto the pressure 15 years before to adopt HARM rather than the BAe ALARM.
I could cite many more cases but why bother?
At the end of the day, the Swiss are not in NATO, always procured what they want to, so the idea that the new US President somehow strong armed the Swiss into making a choice that was already a possibility, is yes, risible and ignorant.