European Allies on Edge as Hegseth Reviews America’s Military Footprint
European governments are watching closely as Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth conducts a sweeping review of America’s military presence across the continent—a process that could reshape how the United States allocates its forces and require NATO allies to assume greater responsibility for their own defense.
The review comes as President Donald Trump’s administration presses European nations to fulfill their financial and military obligations instead of relying indefinitely on American taxpayers and troops.
Gen. Alexus Grynkewich, NATO’s supreme allied commander in Europe and head of the U.S. European Command, participated Friday in a virtual briefing for Pentagon policy chief Elbridge Colby regarding possible changes to American force deployments.
Grynkewich joined the discussion in his capacity as commander of U.S. forces in Europe “as Europe continues to take more and more responsibility for its defence, and as the Alliance continues to strengthen and transition to ‘NATO 3.0,’” a NATO spokesperson said.
The Pentagon review is expected to generate at least four sets of policy options for Hegseth, according to a document obtained by Reuters.
Approximately 80,000 American service members are currently stationed throughout Europe. Hegseth has not said explicitly that the assessment will lead to troop reductions, but he has made clear that the administration wants European governments to carry a larger share of the collective-defense burden.
The defense secretary announced the review during a June meeting with NATO defense ministers in Brussels. He said the process could last up to six months and would include consultations with Congress, which has imposed legal restrictions intended to preserve a minimum American force presence in Europe.
The review is not merely a troop-counting exercise. It is designed to determine whether America’s current deployments reflect the country’s strategic interests, allow the military to meet worldwide obligations and provide taxpayers with an appropriate return on their enormous investment in European security.
For decades, Washington has stationed troops, equipment and military infrastructure across the continent while several NATO members failed to meet previously agreed defense-spending targets. Trump has repeatedly argued that the imbalance is unfair to Americans who finance a disproportionate share of the alliance’s collective security.
Hegseth reinforced that message by warning that allies engaged in “free riding” could lose part of the American financial contribution to NATO if they continue ignoring their commitments.
That position represents a clear application of Trump’s “America First” foreign-policy doctrine: alliances must serve mutual interests and impose mutual responsibilities. Membership in NATO cannot operate as a one-way guarantee under which the United States supplies the manpower, money and military protection while wealthy European governments prioritize domestic programs.
The administration’s frustration intensified after some allies reportedly denied the United States access to bases or airspace during military operations connected to the conflict with Iran.
Hegseth criticized those governments and indicated that the force-posture review would consider whether dependable basing and overflight rights can be secured. From the administration’s perspective, nations benefiting from the American security umbrella should not obstruct the U.S. military when Washington faces an active threat.
Any major reduction in American forces would likely alarm European governments, particularly amid continuing concerns about Russia and the security of NATO’s eastern flank. But the possibility of change may also provide the pressure needed to make allies invest seriously in their own defense capabilities.
Trump’s critics have repeatedly portrayed demands for equitable burden-sharing as hostility toward NATO. The administration’s position, however, is that requiring allies to become stronger does not weaken the alliance. It can make NATO more credible by ensuring that its members possess the resources and political will necessary to defend their own territory.
Congress will remain an important factor in any final decision. Lawmakers have placed statutory limits on reducing the U.S. military presence in Europe, meaning Hegseth cannot freely implement every option without legislative involvement.
No final proposal has been selected, and the review remains underway. Nevertheless, the process sends Europe an unmistakable message: America’s commitment can no longer be treated as a substitute for national defense spending, reciprocal cooperation or genuine alliance obligations.