The Pentagon added Cirrus Design Corp. to its latest Section 1260H list of Chinese military companies operating in the U.S. this week. The Wisconsin-incorporated company is listed under Aviation Industry Corporation of China Ltd. (AVIC), which the Pentagon says is directly owned and controlled by China’s State-Owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission.
The designation does not itself impose sanctions, but fiscal 2024 defense legislation bars the Pentagon from entering into or renewing contracts involving listed entities beginning June 30, 2026.
🚨 UPDATE: @DeptofWar just designated Cirrus Aircraft an official Chinese military company, and as of June 30, Cirrus is prohibited from receiving Pentagon contracts.
— Congressman Pat Harrigan (@RepPatHarrigan) June 9, 2026
Two weeks ago I wrote about how the most delivered piston aircraft manufacturer in America has been owned by the… https://t.co/DXrYf8ZwX5
“Cirrus Aircraft, the most delivered piston aircraft manufacturer in America, has been wholly owned by the CCP’s primary aerospace and defense conglomerate since 2011,” Rep. Pat Harrigan, R-N.C., recently wrote in a post on X. “The same Chinese company that builds fighter jets and drones for the PLA has been sitting inside our aviation industry for nearly 15 years. How did we let this happen?”
The company’s ownership traces to a 2011 merger between Cirrus and China Aviation Industry General Aircraft Co. Ltd.
Cirrus Aircraft Limited, which is listed on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange, describes Cirrus Design as an indirect wholly owned subsidiary. Its 2025 annual report lists AVIC, CAIGA and CAIGA Hong Kong as controlling shareholders. The report says CAIGA Hong Kong owns 80.18 percent of Cirrus Aircraft Limited, and that CAIGA and AVIC are deemed to hold the same interest through controlled corporations.
Public records show some federal aviation work involving Cirrus, though no large current Pentagon business line. The Air Force Academy has used Cirrus T-53A aircraft in its powered flight program, and academy materials say the first T-53 arrived in June 2011 and the last two of 25 arrived in May 2012.
Federal procurement data compiled by HigherGov also shows an FAA contract for SF50 Vision Jet initial and recurrent pilot training, but that contract is outside the Defense Department and has a ceiling of $429,662.
Cirrus reported $1.35 billion in revenue for 2025.
What about flow down effects? Usually, in defense contracting, regulations apply to all tiers (contractors and subcontractors.) The USAF contracts with several flight schools for Initial Pilot Training. Some of these use SR20 and SR22 aircraft. There are other USAF contracts for flight familiarization for non-pilot aircrew with activities that also use Cirrus aircraft. Would this affect those contracts?
Were there other US aircraft manufacturers?
Cessna’s Skycatcher is gone, it was being produced in CC.
So what? I am sure all of the Cirrus executives are soooo disappointed… lol. They make one of the best airplanes around.
Yes, Continental Motors.
News is that it is being sold to an American company.
the only part of this that is of real iterates to me (I was in defense contracting for 37 years) is the moronic statement from the representative noted above. HOW COULD THIS BE? it came to be as cirrus went broke as did nearly every GA manufacturer inn the 45 year since I earned my engineering degree and went into aerospace. Why dod they go broke? for the most part the FAA certification process is amazingly complex and costly, It has to be done 2 x ones for the product and once to make the product. Next the GA world is FULL off optimistic CEOs and a pessimistic customer base. 3 it is HARD to lead to fly so there has to be a good reason to buy and for the most part the product has to fulfill a real mission . a few have figured this out.. Avait, the Carbon cub guys . American Champion.. to m=name a few…to name a perpetual loser… The Monney , the Tiger, The Commander (so many owners not able to remember). Cirrus build a good product mainly w us manufacturing and technology and chances capital. Same problem in the engine world. NOW could the Chinese ownership been avoided? yes w government loans and bailouts..no one wanted to do that. For the most part the people in the government screaming get loudest now about jobs going overseas are the same who support the people who make the decisions to do so. that being US businessmen . tone polite the Chinese did not take the jobs they were sold to them same as Mexico etc.