.jpg&w=1920&q=75)
Since taking office over a year ago, President Donald Trump has expressed dissatisfaction with the disproportionate burden of Europe’s defense falling on the US. Trump has been particularly vocal about considering withdrawing US troops from Europe after NATO allies have been reluctant to assist the US in the conflict with Iran. Italy and Spain have been particularly disappointing in their refusal to allow US forces to use Italian and Spanish military bases to carry out operations against Iran. Even the United Kingdom initially denied a US request to use British military bases, including Diego Garcia, to stage attacks on Iranian targets. The British prime minister eventually reversed this position.
A US Troop Withdrawal From Europe Is Imminent
In a Truth Social post, President Trump said, “The United States is studying and reviewing the possible reduction of Troops in Germany, with a determination to be made over the next short period of time. Thank you for your attention to this matter!” Germany is the host for approximately 36,400 permanently stationed US forces and is the target of the first troop withdrawal. “President Trump has ordered the withdrawal of 5,000 US troops [the equivalent of one Armored Brigade Combat Team] from Germany, escalating his clash with Berlin and NATO allies over their reluctance to support the war in Iran, officials said Friday,” according to The Wall Street Journal. The announcement came after German Chancellor Friedrich Merz publicly criticized US strategy in Iran. Merz observed that Iran’s leadership “was ‘humiliating’ the US and that he didn’t see a US strategy,” the WSJ wrote. These comments did not sit well with the American president. The Federalist, in a report on the subject, observed, “A War Department official described Merz’s rhetoric as ‘inappropriate and unhelpful,’ stating, ‘the President is rightly reacting to these counterproductive remarks.’” Trump then announced to the press on Saturday, May 2, that he planned to "cut way down, and we’re cutting a lot further than 5,000."
However, the decision to go forward with the troop withdrawal was not a knee-jerk reaction to Merz’s comments. Again, according to the WSJ: “'This decision follows a thorough review of the Department’s force posture in Europe,’ said Sean Parnell, the chief Pentagon spokesman. ‘We expect the withdrawal to be completed over the next six to twelve months.’” And Germany is not the only NATO country coming under scrutiny for a possible troop withdrawal.
During a press availability at the White House, President Trump was asked about additional US force reductions, particularly for Spain and Italy. Trump responded: “Yes, probably, I probably will. Why should I, you know, look, why shouldn't I? Italy has not been of any help to us, and Spain has been horrible, absolutely horrible. You know.” Currently, there are about 3,500 US troops in Spain and 12,600 in Italy, according to the Council on Foreign Relations.
A report in The Federalist makes the point that “Merz’s remarks, coupled with the fact that Europe relies heavily on energy flows from the Strait of Hormuz, while the US does not, seem to have prompted the Trump administration to initiate a paradigm shift, curbing Europe’s reliance on US troops to serve European interests.” Europe taking on more responsibility for its defense raises the question of how much it would cost NATO and other European countries to pay for their own security. The International Institute for Strategic Studies, a British think tank, estimated in a 2025 research report that “taking into consideration one-off procurement costs and assuming a 25-year lifecycle, these costs would amount to approximately USD1 trillion.” So, it is in Europe’s interest to have US forces deployed in their countries to provide security, at least in the near term, especially with Russia’s demonstrated inclination to invade its neighbors.
Redeploying overseas forces to the continental US is consistent with the Trump administration’s National Security Strategy, which emphasizes the defense of the Western Hemisphere and countering China. However, re-stationing of US troops domestically has in the past prompted rotational deployment of troops for nine-month assignments. An Atlantic Council report estimates that such deployments cost “nearly $70 million more per year than annual recurring costs of a forward-stationed ABCT [Armored Brigade Combat Team] in Germany or Poland.” This cost assumes that rotational deployments would be constant, keeping an ABCT on rotation at all times. There may not be a rotational deployment. The troop withdrawal of 5,000 may not be replaced with temporary duty troops stationed in Germany.
Of the over 221,500 US military and civilian personnel stationed abroad, given the new National Security Strategy, are US forces in the right places to support it? It seems that the Trump national security team is taking a hard look at the threat from China and has a new focus on addressing transnational criminal organizations in America’s backyard. A re-prioritizing of US forces deployed globally is probably in order.
~
The views expressed are those of the author and not of any other affiliate.
.jpg&w=1920&q=75)
