The Pentagon has launched a fresh evaluation of America’s military presence across Europe, reopening a months-long debate over whether U.S. forces should dig in deeper or pack up and head home. The review arrives after a chaotic stretch marked by announced troop reductions, abrupt reversals, and eleventh-hour interventions from the White House.
Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Elbridge Colby framed the assessment as a search for certainty. Speaking at NATO headquarters Thursday, he said the administration wants “predictability” from European allies, not blanket permission to use every base. Yet Colby pointed to the recent Iran conflict as evidence that access cannot be taken for granted. “It wasn’t always in evidence during Operation Epic Fury,” he noted.
The current U.S. force level in Europe sits at roughly 15 percent of its Cold War peak, according to Luke Coffey, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute. About 85 percent of American ground troops already reside permanently on U.S. soil. Coffey argued that pulling several thousand more soldiers from Europe would barely affect homeland security but would deal a real blow to American strategic interests.
Barry Posen, a political science professor at MIT, sees the administration’s demands as unreasonable. “He wants to obtain something extra for defending Europe, and that is total discretion about how to use European bases,” Posen said. “It is unlikely that he will obtain it, even from his best friends in Europe.”
The turbulence began in May when the Department of War announced it would cut Army brigade combat teams in Europe from four to three, relocating more than 4,000 soldiers plus artillery and heavy equipment. Days later, President Donald Trump promised 5,000 additional troops to Poland following Karol Nawrocki’s election as president. At the same time, Trump floated possible reductions in Germany, leaving allies guessing about the administration’s true intentions.
Secretary of War Pete Hegseth reportedly prepared another troop cut proposal over the summer but scrapped it after Secretary of State and National Security Adviser Marco Rubio and other senior officials intervened. Meanwhile, NATO allies began planning to replace $40 billion to $50 billion in American aircraft, ships, and drones withdrawn from alliance crisis-response allocations.
Britain initially balked at supporting U.S. strikes against Iran before Prime Minister Keir Starmer authorized limited use of British bases for defensive operations. Spain outright denied Washington access to Rota and Morón, rejecting all flight plans tied to the operation. Those refusals, Colby suggested, underscored exactly why the Pentagon now wants ironclad assurances.
The review’s outcome could settle whether the administration pursues a broad European drawdown or concentrates forces in countries willing to grant Washington the access it demands.
