We are not the only country which has favoured the J model over the A400M. The A400M has had a lot of issues. It is also a bigger aircraft (in between the J model and a C-17) which is not necessarily what we want/need. Again, in line with one of the issues with the Taipan/Tiger, there is a big advantage to be operating the same or similar platform as the countries which we normally operate with in a coalition environment, which isn’t just the USA. Additionally, it is a much simpler transition process for 37SQN and all of the supporting units to continue with a C130 platform rather than move to a whole new platform.

It might have been a different consideration had the A400M been an outstanding success.

To be fair, it’s not like DoD has had a great experience with first-generation Airbus products, namely Tigers and Taipans and their supply chains, turning them into “hangar queens”.
On paper the first-generation A400M, Tiger or Taipan might have looked very promising. But after decades of in-service experience by dozens of operators, including actual combat experience, at least you know the lessons learned have been incorporated in a mature, evolved late-model Herc, Apache or Blackhawk/Seahawk. And the product will work as advertised, with a massive, reliable supply chain behind it.
It seems that FINALLY, DoD & DMO may actually be learning the lessons of previous expensive and wastful procurement failures, and are buying the sausage instead of the sizzle.