Potentially, where the employee possesses specialised knowledge and the actual training assignment involves it. Being called a trainer or preparing a course outline does not by itself establish the knowledge standard.
Prove expertise before teaching
Show how the employee acquired and applied the knowledge, what the U.S. team will learn and why the assignment requires that capability. The ease with which knowledge can be imparted can matter, but teaching others is not automatically disqualifying.
Establish qualifying foreign employment and the corporate relationship separately from the curriculum and business reason for the transfer. Curricula change, and the change can cut either way. A course narrowed to basic operation after preparation weakens the specialised-knowledge argument, because the assignment then resembles ordinary onboarding; a course broadened into implementation and troubleshooting may strengthen it, but only where the employee genuinely holds the added knowledge.
Either way the file should carry the revised outline and not the version originally drafted. Hypothetical example: a drone-imaging services company replaces its proprietary flight-planning stack with an off-the-shelf product between preparation and the intended start, and the specialist’s advantage over a new hire narrows sharply; the honest response is to reassess whether the assignment still meets the standard, not to keep teaching the retired system on paper.