The phrase “America First” carries with it considerable historical weight. As the United States undergoes our recent reconsideration of the perks of liberal international trade, we find that “America First” is undergoing a rebranding as well—from a phrase that connotes isolationism on the foreign policy stage, to a phrase that celebrates putting the needs of Americans and American industry before anyone else. Nowhere is this America First ideal more important than in our national defense, the very industry responsible for keeping us safe.

Yet as the nation considers what it means to put America and Americans first, the Pentagon is considering awarding a billions-dollar defense contract to Airbus, a foreign-owned company that has engaged in a rash of illegal international dealings, including with our greatest strategic antagonist, China. Airbus Group is the 12th largest defense contractor in the world; a Europe-based company does not reach that size without selling products outside of Europe.

Meanwhile, the top five defense contractors in the world are all American corporations. Thanks in a large part to America’s domestic free markets, we enjoy the opportunity to pick and choose the best among multiple suppliers of defense-related goods and services. In the Pacific McGeorge Global Business and Development Law Journal, Lindsay McCarl argues for the importance of awarding defense contracts to domestic companies:

There are a number of reasons why the U.S. Government should prefer domestic companies when awarding defense procurement contracts. During a major conflict in which U.S. national security may be compromised by awarding contracts to companies controlled by hostile countries, the U.S. armed forces could secure the supply of goods with domestic producers. In addition, where jobs are at stake in a global recession, the U.S. government could award more defense-related contracts to domestic suppliers to attempt to maintain, or even expand, the industrial base.

As the United States economy combats rising inflationary pressures and a market that could benefit from large doses of mood stabilizers in recent months, the continued goal of the federal government should be to award contracts to American companies before awarding them to any foreign companies. There is no excuse to award a contract to anyone located outside of our borders.

Liberal international trade advocates might argue that a foreign-owned contractor is acceptable for the same reasons that private companies outsource to other nations. However, Airbus is uniquely unqualified to serve our nation because of its engagement in Chinese bribery. On the world stage, the United States and China continue to challenge one another with soft power battles all over the globe. China’s influence is a challenge to American influence—and as Americans become more skeptical of our policy leaders’ ties to Chinese owned businesses, then we should also remain vigilant when a company like Airbus works towards a billion dollar defense contract.

This is especially true considering Airbus was recently forced to pay over $3.9 billion in fines and penalties across the globe for violating the Arms Export Control Act (AECA) and its implementing regulations, the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), in the United States. This was the largest global foreign bribery resolution to date and it was handed down just last year. We aren’t talking about sins of the past, but rather a current, multi-year endeavor that took multiple investigative agencies across multiple countries to finally put an end to.

If a company like Airbus has a recent past that includes bribing a foreign competitor like China, and given that nation’s history of not respecting intellectual and technology rights for multinational corporations, what benefit does the U.S. government get by awarding a large defense contract to said company?

In addition to Airbus’s ties to illegal bribes across the world, note that the United States won a $7.5 billion arbitration case in the World Trade Organization (WTO) against the European Union for “providing massive subsidies to Airbus that have seriously injured the U.S. aerospace industry and our workers.” As U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer put it, a 15-year investigation “confirmed that the United States is entitled to impose countermeasures in response to the EU’s illegal subsidies.” It was the largest award in WTO history, and more importantly, it was because of the harm that Airbus and the European Union caused American manufacturers.

Despite America’s internal debate over the principles of free market international trade in the post-Trump era, while a growing portion of the population has become more skeptical, a majority of Americans appreciate the benefits that the liberal international order has provided the world since the early 1990s. A great example of this is the celebration of multicultural and international trade in the song American Saturday Night by country music singer Brad Paisley. Americans of all political stripes still look at international free trade as a value add for themselves and society. However, when it comes to the defense of our nation and the lives of our men and women in uniform, then the default should always be to award defense contracts to American companies employing American workers under the protections afforded under American law.

Outsourcing our nation’s defense, piece by piece, to companies around the world is a recipe for disaster on myriad levels. But most importantly, outsourcing to international companies who may not necessarily share the strategic vision American foreign policy deciders have for our military, and outsourcing to a company with strong ties to America’s largest strategic threat, borders on complete dereliction of duty to the country and to our armed forces.

The American public should care about who these large defense contracts get awarded to, and in this situation, this American implores our federal government to make a decision that puts American corporations, American workers, and American interests first.

R.J. Caster is a recovering congressional staffer who left D.C. for warmer—and more conservative—pastures in Texas and Florida. He is currently a political consultant who specializes in digital strategy.