Cart
0
Hegseth Weighs Major U.S. Troop Cuts Across Europe
The Pentagon is preparing at least four options for Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on the future of roughly 80,000 U.S. troops stationed across Europe. The options are due by November 6, ahead of the review's December deadline, as Washington pushes European allies to assume more responsibility for their own defense.
NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte meets with Pete Hegseth, US Secretary of Defense form NATO.INT
For decades, tens of thousands of American troops have formed one of the most important pillars of NATO's military posture.
Now, the Pentagon is asking a question that could reshape the alliance itself: How much of that American presence does Europe still need?
Gear Spotlight- What Our Readers Are Picking Up
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is set to receive at least four different force-deployment options by November 6, according to Pentagon documents reviewed by Reuters. The broader six-month review is scheduled to conclude in December.
The review was announced by Hegseth on June 18 during a NATO defense ministers' meeting in Brussels.
Hegseth described it as a genuine examination of America's military posture rather than a predetermined troop withdrawal.
He said the objective was to push NATO toward “Europe leading” and taking primary responsibility for the defense of the continent.
That message has now moved from rhetoric into planning.
The Pentagon's previously undisclosed Terms of Reference reportedly set out the criteria officials will use to examine U.S. bases, troop deployments and supporting infrastructure across Europe.
The review is not limited to counting soldiers.
Officials are examining access to bases, overflight rights, intelligence capabilities, cyber infrastructure, space assets and the ability to move American forces rapidly across the continent.
European allies have also been asked to provide information about their defense spending, military capabilities and cooperation with the United States.
That makes the review potentially much bigger than a simple troop-cutting exercise.
It could determine where American forces are based, which countries receive them and what capabilities remain available to NATO during a crisis.
The timing is particularly significant.
When Hegseth announced the review in June, he criticized NATO members that had refused to support U.S. military operations during the conflict with Iran.
He argued that some allies had denied America predictable access to bases and airspace, creating additional risks for U.S. personnel.
Hegseth did not name individual countries in his NATO speech, although Spain had come under particular criticism from Washington over its refusal to support certain U.S. operations against Iran.
The consequences could therefore extend beyond military efficiency.
European governments are watching to see whether countries viewed favorably by Washington receive a larger American military presence while others could see forces reduced.
Poland, for example, has pushed for a larger permanent U.S. military footprint as it positions itself as a key NATO state on the alliance's eastern flank.
Germany, Britain, Romania and Greece, meanwhile, have provided infrastructure used by U.S. forces supporting Middle East operations.
The Pentagon's next major milestone comes September 18, when the top U.S. general in Europe is expected to participate in a decision briefing with Pentagon policy chief Elbridge Colby.
That meeting is expected to help shape the options eventually presented to Hegseth.
Colby is also expected to brief NATO ambassadors in Brussels, although European officials remain skeptical about how much influence their views will ultimately have.
Some diplomats fear the review could simply formalize decisions that Washington has already made.
The Pentagon rejects that interpretation.
Its stated approach is to evaluate America's European posture against strategic requirements and the responsibilities being assumed by NATO allies.
There is also a practical constraint.
Congress has legislated minimum requirements concerning U.S. forces in Europe, meaning any major reduction would have to account for existing legal restrictions and congressional authority.
And there is a broader military question behind the numbers.
America's European forces are not there solely to defend European territory.
They provide access, logistics, airpower, intelligence, command infrastructure and rapid reinforcement capabilities that can support U.S. operations far beyond Europe itself.
Reducing the footprint could therefore save resources and force European allies to carry more of the burden.
But moving too quickly could also reduce America's ability to respond to a crisis involving Russia or another threat.
That is why the November 6 deadline matters.
The Pentagon is not yet announcing a specific troop cut.
It is preparing options.
Hegseth will ultimately have to decide which posture best serves the administration's vision for NATO, while President Donald Trump remains the commander in chief with the final authority over major U.S. force decisions.
The choice could define America's military relationship with Europe for years.
After decades in which European security depended heavily on American troops, Washington is now demanding that Europe carry more of the load.
By November, Hegseth could have four different answers on his desk.
The question is no longer whether the United States wants Europe to do more.
It is how much America is willing to pull back while still promising that NATO remains ready to fight.
Editor's Note: The Pentagon review does not currently establish that a specific number of U.S. troops will be withdrawn from Europe. The four options being prepared are part of an ongoing review, and any final force changes remain subject to decisions by the administration and applicable congressional requirements.
