The United States appears poised to pull a significant portion of its military forces out of Europe. The Trump administration's National Security Strategy for 2025 — a key strategic document — says it's time for the continent to "stand on its own two feet" and take "primary responsibility for its own conventional defense" — or, in other words, prepare for the moment when Washington will withdraw. This is what Franklin S. Miller, Eric Edelman, and Walter B. Slocombe write for Foreign Affairs.
"At a meeting of NATO defense ministers in June 2026, U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said the Pentagon was "moving rapidly and irreversibly toward Europe assuming primary responsibility for Europe's defense." Two months later, in August, U.S. Deputy Defense Secretary Elbridge Colby said NATO would move toward "a stronger, fairer, and more resilient Alliance"—that is, one in which Europe would do most of the work of its own defense. The administration then sent a questionnaire to all NATO allies to find out whether they agreed with President Donald Trump's policies and priorities; the unspoken threat was clear—those who did not would face reduced American support. The Pentagon is said to be working on a study to determine the optimal level of US forces in NATO, but it is clear that the study’s task is simply to provide cover for the course that Trump, Hegseth and Colby have already chosen.
For Trump and his representatives, the withdrawal from Europe makes perfect sense. In their view, the continent is rich and powerful enough to defend itself. In the meantime, Washington should focus its military resources on the growing challenges in Asia and the Middle East.
However, the administration’s logic is flawed. The withdrawal from Europe will not protect Washington’s interests anywhere in the world. On the contrary — it will weaken not only NATO but all of the United States’ partnerships. It may even threaten American territory. The administration’s planned withdrawal is not dictated by a real assessment of alliance management, threat analysis or historical experience. Instead, it is the result of a blatant bias against Europe, which makes it both reprehensible and dangerous.
Trump to demand Europe repay US for military aid to Ukraine
The statement marks a potential new stage in Trump’s policy
Making the world unsafe for democracy
When Trump returned to the White House, many European officials hoped that, as in his first term, the president would talk more than act more harshly. However, it soon became clear that Trump did indeed intend to carry out his threat to withdraw from the continent. In October 2025, the administration announced that it was permanently withdrawing about 1,000 troops from Romania, thereby reducing the American presence on NATO’s eastern flank. In May 2026, his team canceled the deployment to Europe of an Army task force equipped with the new Dark Eagle hypersonic weapons system, which could threaten important military targets in Russia and thus strengthen deterrence. Also in May, the Trump administration canceled the deployment of the 2nd Armored Brigade Combat Team, which was to replace an existing American unit, leaving the continent with about 5,000 fewer troops.
According to a report in the "New York Times" in June 2026, the Pentagon's political department has notified American allies that even deeper cuts are coming. Washington plans to reduce by 1/3 the number of F-15E and F-16 fighters of the US Air Force stationed in Europe, withdraw all eight aerial refueling tankers, redirect one of the two bomber groups intended for Europe, withdraw 15 of the total 26 maritime patrol aircraft stationed on the continent, as well as a submarine capable of launching cruise missiles and an aircraft carrier battle group. Washington is also considering removing a significant part of the US armed forces from the NATO command structure. In July, for example, Hegseth downgraded the rank of the commander of US Army Forces in Europe from four to three stars. In the process, he forced the respected combatant commander, General Chris Donahue, out of retirement. Apparently, Hegseth also plans to replace many of the American officers currently holding senior command positions with European officers. In the future, the White House is even considering making NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander—the alliance’s highest-ranking military officer—a non-American. The appointment of an American as Supreme Allied Commander has been a tenet of American leadership and a key part of NATO solidarity since the organization’s inception.
If that happens, Europe has talented commanders who can fill those positions. The reality, however, is that the continent cannot provide what the United States can. For example, no European commander has the same experience in leading large formations in war or in coordinating and training the armed forces of multiple countries as their American counterparts. European countries cannot compensate for the loss of American maritime patrol aircraft, which means they will have serious difficulties in monitoring Russian underwater activity. The situation is made worse by the fact that in early September the US Navy refused to participate in a NATO anti-submarine exercise in the North Atlantic for the first time in decades - a highly reckless and dangerous decision, given that Russian submarines armed with nuclear-tipped cruise missiles use these very waters to approach the American coast. Similarly, NATO cannot currently replace the aerial refueling aircraft, the carrier strike groups or the long-range bomber capabilities that the Pentagon plans to withdraw.
Weakening NATO as a whole would be highly controversial even in normal times, but these are anything but normal. Russian President Vladimir Putin is continuing his invasion of Ukraine while making direct threats to NATO countries on an unprecedented scale. For more than a decade, Putin has waged what experts call a “gray zone war” or “hybrid war” against NATO, in which Russia sabotages member states and then denies involvement. Moscow, for example, has killed Russian émigrés opposed to the Kremlin, planted incendiary devices in Western factories and cargo planes, sent drones with explosives to attack NATO airfields, cut submarine cables in the Arctic Ocean and the Baltic Sea, interfered in elections, and carried out cyberattacks. In December 2025, the head of the British Foreign Office, Blaise Metreveli, said that Russia posed an “acute threat” to the United States. for the continent, planning arson and sabotage operations, cyberwarfare and drone attacks across Europe.
In the past 15 months, Russia has carried out such actions significantly more frequently and brazenly. In August 2026 alone, suspicious activity linked to Russia was recorded in Bulgaria, Estonia, Germany, Italy, Poland and Slovakia. In early September, London detained a British citizen hired by Russian intelligence to sabotage a drone factory in the UK. Putin has also deployed more military forces to areas of Russia bordering NATO countries. This, in turn, has led several senior military and intelligence officials in the Alliance to warn that Putin is planning to conduct limited ground operations against NATO in the next few years.
The fact that Putin has become more aggressive at the same time that Washington is retreating is no coincidence. In a world of aggressive and revanchist national leaders — and Putin is undoubtedly one of them — the perceived weakness and unreliability of the United States encourages such behavior. Conversely, a convincing American commitment to defending European targets is the best way to deter attacks in the gray zone. Indeed, Washington’s unreliability in Europe creates serious uncertainty about its commitment to defending other regions, including the Indo-Pacific. Chinese leader Xi Jinping and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un will almost certainly take the U.S. decision to withdraw from defending its NATO allies as a sign that Washington will not defend Taiwan and South Korea. The United States’ security commitments cannot be seen in isolation: the perception of a retreat from commitments in one region inevitably raises doubts among allies and adversaries about U.S. commitments elsewhere.
In fact, Washington’s retreat could even threaten American territory. The deployment of U.S. air, naval, and ground forces abroad helps keep enemy forces away from American shores. The proposed withdrawal of U.S. anti-submarine warfare forces, including patrol aircraft and attack submarines, is a perfect example: it makes it easier for Russian forces to reach the United States.
The United States wants a European-led defense
He praised progress within the alliance and said Europe remains a critical area for the United States
Nuclear fallacies
The Trump administration says it is not abandoning Europe altogether. In response to concerns and criticism of its decisions, the government has said that Europe will still have the last guarantee of American nuclear deterrence. According to the "Financial Times", US officials have said that the administration is considering stationing US nuclear weapons in more European countries, similar to existing arrangements for stationing nuclear bombs and aircraft in Europe.
But the plan omits some of the nuclear reforms that would most likely strengthen deterrence, such as accelerating a program to develop new sea-based nuclear cruise missiles. And even if Trump pursues such reforms, it is unrealistic to believe that more US nuclear weapons in European bases, or any other change to the nuclear arsenal, will strengthen deterrence. After all, if the United States is not prepared to deploy significant conventional forces to help defend Europe, then there is little reason for Putin — or any other leader — to conclude that Washington would ever take the giant step of using nuclear weapons.
The fundamental question concerns the credibility of US threats to use military force - both conventional and nuclear - if NATO were openly threatened or attacked. As the late British nuclear policy expert and scholar Sir Michael Quinlan noted, non-nuclear war is "the most likely route to nuclear war "in fact, the only likely route... The risk would be highest when a violent conflict at a lower level has already erupted. War prevention must therefore operate at all levels of military conflict between states capable of using nuclear weapons." Any serious consideration of the possibility of using nuclear weapons would almost inevitably come in the context of an imminent or already ongoing conventional war. Conventional and nuclear deterrence are inextricably linked. The presence of American nuclear forces on European soil during the confrontation with the Soviet Union was always intended to broadly link the defense of the United States to that of Europe. Reducing the American contribution to the continent’s conventional defense ultimately weakens both conventional and nuclear deterrence against renewed Russian aggression.
There is therefore no logical or military reason for the United States to withdraw from Europe. The only plausible explanation is a decidedly illogical one: Trump hates the continent.
Crossing the Line
Because this administration, left to its own misguided biases, is endangering U.S. national security, Congress must step in and ensure that no further harm is done. It must pass legislation consistent with last year’s National Defense Authorization Act, which prohibits the use of authorized or appropriated funds to reduce or alter the number of U.S. troops in Europe. In effect, Congress must prohibit any presidential administration from reducing the number of U.S. troops on the continent without express congressional approval. It must also require the White House to submit annual secret and public reports on threats to NATO and the Alliance’s ability to deter and defend against them — along with suggestions and recommendations on how NATO can be made stronger. The report should outline how U.S. forces in Europe help protect U.S. territory and enhance U.S. military operations beyond Europe.
Congress should also protect the very structure of NATO from Trump’s bad judgment. For example, in future defense spending laws, it should require that the post of Supreme Allied Commander Europe be filled by a four-star U.S. military officer, so that neither Trump nor any future president can relinquish the position. This would not only ensure the Alliance’s maximum effectiveness, but also protect the "chain of command"—the chain of command that has ensured, and has ensured since the 1950s, that U.S. nuclear weapons can be used in combat only with the president’s explicit authorization. Ultimately, it will help ensure that America’s nuclear deterrent remains credible.
Has Europe cracked Trump’s code?
But if Europe fails to stand on its own two feet, the continent once made up of empires will become a plaything for Russia and the United States.
Notably, given Trump’s threats against Canada and Greenland, Congress would have to explicitly prohibit the United States from forcibly seizing territory in any NATO country. To reinforce this prohibition, Congress should prohibit the administration from deploying American forces to an allied country in peacetime unless the host country has requested or consented to it. Washington should also pay more attention to peacetime planning in general. If the United States is to defend Europe and itself, it must not only have the military and other tools it needs to succeed in war. They must also convince both friends and potential adversaries that they can be relied upon to fight alongside their allies if necessary.
Since 1949, the United States has maintained its commitment to the most successful military alliance in modern history. It has done so despite deep concerns that the Soviet Union would overwhelm the Alliance and despite repeated internal debates about its purpose. The United States has built and maintained allies’ trust in American security guarantees. Thanks to American leadership, NATO has kept peace in Europe, helped end the 40-year Cold War, and helped create a continent whole and free. To squander that alliance and the trust of America’s partners on unproven theories and petty grievances would be the ultimate act of self-harm — an act that threatens the peace and prosperity of the American people.”