Arab News | US allies should watch its European forces review closely

The Pentagon is currently in the middle of an important review to determine the future of America’s military presence in Europe. The outcome will have implications not only for European security but for the broader region as well.

Current US troop levels in Europe are already far below their Cold War levels. At the height of the Cold War, hundreds of thousands of American troops were stationed across the continent. Today, only 68,000 US military personnel are permanently assigned to Europe, with about another 12,000 rotating in and out of the continent.

In May, the Trump administration announced plans to withdraw about 5,000 US troops from Germany. The decision prompted significant opposition in Congress, including from Republicans. The following month, ahead of the NATO Summit, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced a broader six-month review of the US military presence in Europe. The reasoning behind the decision to reduce American troop numbers in Europe is twofold. On the one hand, there is a belief that Europe should defend itself. On the other, there is a growing frustration with a perceived lack of assistance during Operation Epic Fury.

The review is expected to produce recommendations this fall before the process concludes by the end of the year

Luke Coffey

The review is expected to produce recommendations this fall before the process concludes by the end of the year. This means the Pentagon is now about halfway through the process.

Unlike many major policy debates in Washington, the details of which often leak into the media, remarkably little is publicly known about the review. But there are four broad possibilities that provide a useful framework for thinking about what might happen if the administration wants to reduce force levels.

The first would be for President Donald Trump to reduce force levels in Europe while removing the same number of troops from the overall size of the US military. This would probably be the fastest and cheapest way to reduce America’s military presence on the continent. President Barack Obama took a similar approach in 2013, when about 10,000 US troops were removed from Europe.

But considering that Trump is seeking a $1.5 trillion defense budget and the US is involved in a war against Iran, it seems unlikely that he would shrink the overall military simply to reduce the American presence in Europe.

The second option would be to reduce the number of rotational forces sent from the US to Europe. But this would create its own challenges. Trump has publicly expressed support for establishing a new American base in Poland. Because US forces in Poland are mostly rotational, substantially cutting rotational forces while potentially expanding the American footprint there could prove difficult.

The third option would be far more expensive and introduce significant geopolitical shock into the transatlantic community: removing forces permanently based in Western Europe and bringing them back to the US or possibly relocating some to Asia.

As policymakers finalize the review, they should remember why American forces are stationed in Europe in the first place

Luke Coffey

This would be hugely expensive and time-consuming. It would involve moving not only service members and equipment but also families and dependents. Communities receiving these personnel would need adequate housing, schools, medical facilities and other infrastructure to accommodate an influx that could potentially number in the tens of thousands. Moving permanently based forces from Europe to Asia would be even more complicated and expensive.

The fourth option would be to reduce or end some rotations from the US to Europe and instead use forces already permanently based in Europe to rotate into Central and Eastern Europe. Instead of a US-based unit deploying to Estonia, a unit based in Germany could do so, for example.

This approach could reduce the total number of American forces in Europe while maintaining commitments to countries such as Poland and avoiding the expensive and time-consuming process of relocating permanently based forces back to the US.

As policymakers finalize the review, they should remember why American forces are stationed in Europe in the first place. They are not there simply to protect Europeans but also to advance US national interests. The defense of Europe is a consequence of America’s military presence but it is not the reason for it.

Forward-deployed forces give policymakers in Washington more options and allow the US to respond more quickly to global events, especially in regions surrounding Europe. Just as importantly, the infrastructure and military footprint America maintains across the continent enables it to project military power much farther afield.

The recent war against Iran demonstrated this clearly. NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte has said that Europe supported between 4,000 and 5,000 US flight missions during Operation Epic Fury. That scale of operations would have been far more difficult without the network of bases, infrastructure and access agreements the US maintains across Europe.

Finally, it makes little strategic sense to examine America’s force posture in Europe entirely in isolation. When Trump returned to the Oval Office in January 2025, he and his Pentagon announced plans for a broader review of America’s global military posture. Yet, more than a year and a half later, that broader review is rarely discussed, while attention has increasingly focused mainly on Europe.

The US is a global power with global interests. Decisions about force posture in Europe can affect America’s ability to respond to developments in other regions such as the Middle East.

As the Pentagon approaches the end of its review, America’s allies and partners should therefore be watching closely. Not only those in Europe but also in Asia and the Middle East. The administration has made clear that it prioritizes homeland defense and America’s role in the Western Hemisphere. The decisions made about Europe could therefore provide an important indication of how the administration intends to balance those priorities with America’s military commitments elsewhere.

Today the focus may be Europe. Tomorrow it could be somewhere else.