Exclusive-America's next top general in Europe will also lead NATO forces, officials say
WASHINGTON/BRUSSELS (Reuters) -President Donald Trump will maintain the traditional role of a U.S. general at the helm of NATO, at least for now, three U.S. officials, a Western official and a NATO source said, even as Washington pushes European allies to take more responsibility for their security.
Trump himself privately communicated the decision to NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, the Western official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.
The Pentagon, White House and NATO did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
The decision will relieve European NATO allies and even some of Trump's fellow Republicans amid concerns that Washington's tough talk on Europe, and skepticism about the war in Ukraine, could signal a swift retrenchment in America's military leadership.
Still, officials say U.S. warnings that Trump's administration needs to shift its focus to Asia and homeland security are sincere. While no decisions have been made, Trump's administration has discussed possible troop reductions in Europe, where about 80,000 U.S. personnel are based today.
The next expected U.S. nominee for the positions of both Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR) and U.S. European Command (EUCOM) is Air Force Lieutenant General Alexus Grynkewich, the U.S. officials said.
The U.S. officials spoke on condition of anonymity ahead of an announcement expected in the coming days.
The position of SACEUR, which oversees all NATO operations in Europe, has been filled by a U.S. general since its creation after World War Two. U.S. Army General Dwight D. Eisenhower became the alliance's first SACEUR in 1951.
Since taking office in January, Trump's administration has pressured Europe to ramp up its own defense spending, saying Europe should be primarily responsible for defense on the European continent.
How quickly Europe assumes such a role remains a big question, and there have been discussions within the administration about the possibility of handing over the job of Supreme Allied Commander Europe to a European nation, officials say.
"Make no mistake: President Trump will not allow anyone to turn Uncle Sam into 'Uncle Sucker'," U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth told reporters during a visit to NATO headquarters in February.
During Trump's first term, maintaining NATO and the leading U.S. role in the alliance was a top priority for his Pentagon chiefs. Retired Marine Corps General Jim Mattis, his first defense secretary, resigned in part because of Trump's skepticism towards NATO.
While the United States was still expected to pressure Europe to do more, and could in the future start redirecting U.S. troops elsewhere as part of a broader review of U.S. deployments, the U.S. decision to maintain the role of SACEUR is certain to be welcomed by key allies of Trump in Congress.
The two Republican lawmakers who lead the Pentagon's oversight committees in the U.S. Congress issued a rare joint statement in March expressing alarm about a potential U.S. withdrawal from the SACEUR command structure.
Grynkewich, who is now the director for operations at the U.S. military's Joint Staff, would succeed Army General Christopher Cavoli, who has been in the role since shortly after Russia's 2022 invasion of Ukraine, helping oversee billions of dollars in U.S. security assistance to Kyiv.
Trump entered office in January predicting he would be able to end the war in Ukraine in 24 hours. In the months since, he has found that the conflict is more intractable than he believed and has blamed his predecessor, Joe Biden, for allowing it to happen.
(Reporting by Phil Stewart; Editing by Don Durfee and Daniel Wallis)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Star
2 hours ago
- The Star
Editorial: Trump's deal-making diplomacy not breaking deadlocks
An explosion of a drone lights up the sky over Kyiv during a Russian drone strike on Saturday. — Reuters US President Donald Trump's diplomacy of mediation through a deal between the major powers has once again ended in failure. Isn't it time for him to change his approach to Russia, which continues its aggression against Ukraine? Trump held telephone talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin. This was the third such talk since the launch of Trump's second administration. During the meeting, Trump asked Putin, 'When are we going to end this [the war]?' But Putin did not answer and also refused to accept the 30-day unconditional ceasefire proposal backed by Trump. Prior to these telephone talks, Russia and Ukraine held direct talks between senior officials in Turkey for the first time in nearly three years, but no progress was made. Trump may have been trying to make a breakthrough in his top-level talks with Putin. However, after the meeting, Putin revealed that he would propose the drafting of a memorandum on a future peace treaty. This may be an attempt to prolong the negotiations by adding new procedures and to create an even more advantageous situation in the war. Putin also repeated his assertion that it is important to 'eliminate the root causes of this crisis'. This refers to demands that Ukraine cannot accept, such as ruling out Ukraine's future membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (Nato). It is Putin's tactic to take advantage of his counterpart's conciliatory stance and increase his demands. Trump should understand that continued concessions to Putin will not lead to progress. Trump must return to the basics that Russia's aggression against Ukraine is a clear violation of international law and unacceptable, and then proceed with negotiations. To counter Russia, it is essential to increase international pressure in close cooperation with European countries. It is appropriate that after the talks, Trump called Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and the leaders of France, Germany, and other major European countries to share information. European countries have warned that they will impose additional sanctions if Russia does not agree to a ceasefire. In the US Senate, deliberations are also underway on a Bill for additional sanctions that would impose high tariffs on countries that import energy from Russia. There is a need to increase the options available to put pressure on Russia. With the lack of diplomatic achievements, there are indications that Trump will decrease his engagement in the role of mediator in future. This is because after talks with Putin, Trump posted on social media that 'Russia and Ukraine will immediately start negotiations' as if leaving the negotiations up to those parties. However, it should not be forgotten that the United States is providing Ukraine with weapons and military intelligence, which is the greatest source of pressure on Russia. If the United States pulls back, Washington will inevitably be accused of giving in to Putin. – The Yomiuri Shimbun/Asia News Network
The Star
2 hours ago
- The Star
Stop scaring future world leaders off US campuses
HERE'S yet another way in which US President Donald Trump is making America neither Great Again nor strong, but weaker, and for a long time to come: He's sabotaging the US-centred trans-national intellectual and personal networks that have amplified American power by breaking the pipeline of future leaders of foreign countries who were educated and shaped in the US. His administration is doing that by expelling, harassing, or intimi-dating foreigners at US univer-sities. It revoked the visas of more than 1,400 international students on American campuses. In some cases, the government alleged that students were pro-Palestinian protesters, in others that they committed 'crimes', even if those turned out to be unpaid parking tickets or were even non-existent. Many of the revocations had no clear rationale at all. As part of the specific showdown between the White House and Harvard University, the administration threatened to stop the institution from enrolling international students altogether; however, on Friday a federal judge temporarily halted the ban. Before that, the many lawsuits brought by international students over their visa statuses caused enough chaos that the government promised to restore due process to its review of student visas. Whether it does or not, though, the damage may already be done. No matter how many students this bureaucratic jihad ultimately forces to go home, it will dissuade myriad other young talents abroad from applying to study in America in the first place. Why should they subject themselves to legal risk or hostility (on top of America's outlandish tuition costs) when they could instead get their degrees in other countries? And among those bright young things forming new ideas, expertise, and friendships outside rather than inside of the US will be some of tomorrow's world leaders. To grasp what America in the coming years will miss out on, consider the subtle but influential webs of soft power that have long been among the boons of America's status as an educational superpower. When covering the Asian financial crisis of the late 1990s, or again the global one of the late 2000s, I often heard that negotiations among countries and institutions went better than expected – and better for the US, in particular – because a lot of the people in the meetings had spent time on the same campuses, studied under the same professors, or even sat in the same classrooms. They wore different garb and spoke English in different accents. But they shared the language and mentality of, say, Harvard's Kennedy School, or the economics departments at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology or the University of Chicago. Mario Draghi, for example, has been an Italian and a European central banker (as well as a prime minister of Italy), just as Raghu-ram Rajan ran India's central bank and the research side of the International Monetary Fund, among other things. But both got their PhDs at MIT, and were influenced by Stanley Fischer, a titan of finance (and himself a former central banker of Israel). As a professor at MIT, Fischer in fact mentored future central bankers on most continents except Antarctica. Mark Carney, a former central bank governor in Britain and Canada (and Canada's current Prime Minister), is not among them – he went to Harvard instead. In some cases, these biographies make for stories of stunning success for the individuals as well as for the world and the host country, the US. Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala is a Nigerian who studied at Harvard and MIT, then went on to reform Nigeria's economy in two stints as Finance minister, before working at the World Bank and running the World Trade Organisation. She's still Nigerian, but now a US citizen as well. The list of US-educated heads of state is also long. For ambitious Latin Americans and Africans, a stint or two on an American campus is practically a rite of passage. The founding father of Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew, sent his younger son to Stanford and the elder to Harvard's Kennedy School; that one later became Singapore's third prime minister. Taiwan's current president got his master's degree from Harvard; his predecessor got hers from Cornell. The Jordanian king also studied in America (at Georgetown), as did much of his policy elite. Saudi Arabia's crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman, did not, but that makes him an outlier among Saudi royals. The Israelis love to take a swing through American campuses, including incumbent Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu (MIT and Harvard). On it goes, from Moldova to South Korea and Indonesia, where the current president did not study in the US but his influential Finance Minister, Sri Mulyani Indrawati, did (University of Illinois); she has called her American years formative. Whether an American educa-tion always makes foreign leaders more pro-American or pro-Western, or even just more capable, is moot. At a minimum, though, it lets international students see the world and their own countries through American eyes, narratives, metaphors, and references. It gives them a literal and figurative vocabulary with which they will later run international organisations or negotiate with the White House. The scholar Joseph Nye defined soft power as the ability to get others to want what you want. To the extent that a US education gets others to think as Americans think, it is the ideal tool of soft power, if you choose to see it that way. There are of course many other reasons for the US to host international students – about a million a year as of last count. Foreigners who study in America go on to invent and pioneer new technologies and business models at disproportionate rates, and most do it in and for the US. If the Trump administration pushes them away, those talents will innovate in and for China instead, or other adversaries and competitors. But the ability to form intellectual and personal networks across the world is enough reason to keep American education cosmopolitan, as opposed to barricading the ivory tower and closing American minds. In that way, education is like trade: enriching when it's open, corrosive when it closes. The benefits I'm describing pay out slowly, admittedly, and Trump isn't known for his attention span or long-term planning. But some rewards can be immediate, even if hard to quantify. Bilal Erdogan (Indiana University and Harvard) has surely talked at least some sense about America into his father, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. And as relations between the US and China become ever tenser, it surely helps both countries that Xi Jinping can turn to his daughter Mingze for discreet pointers about the Yanks. She too reportedly went to Harvard, though under an alias. Little else is publicly known, not even whether she paid all her parking tickets. – Bloomberg Opinion/Tribune News Service
The Star
2 hours ago
- The Star
Return to The Rock
US President Donald Trump wants to convert Alcatraz back into a federal prison, decades after the California island fortress was converted into a tourist destination because it had become too costly to house America's worst criminals. The prison off the coast of San Francisco – nicknamed 'The Rock' – is where the government sent notorious gangsters like Al Capone and George 'Machine Gun' Kelly as well as lesser-known men who were considered too dangerous to lock up elsewhere. Circled by herons and gulls and often shrouded in fog, Alcatraz has been the setting for movies featuring Sean Connery, Nicolas Cage and Clint Eastwood. Trump says Alcatraz, now part of the National Park Service, is needed to house America's 'most ruthless and violent' criminals. 'When we were a more serious nation, we did not hesitate to lock up the most dangerous criminals, and keep them far away from anyone they could harm. That's the way it's supposed to be,' Trump said on his Truth Social site. California Democratic state senator Scott Wiener criticised Trump, saying he wants to create a 'domestic gulag right in the middle of San Francisco Bay'. Alcatraz is in the bay and visible from San Francisco's Golden Gate Bridge. It is known for its years as a prison, from 1934-63, but its history is much longer. Tourists visiting Alcatraz Prison, a National Parks site located on Alcatraz Island in San Francisco Bay in San Francisco, California.— Reuters/AP President Millard Fillmore in 1850 declared the island for public purposes, according to the park service, and it soon became a military site. Confederates were housed there during the Civil War. By the 1930s, the government decided that it needed a place to hold the worst criminals, and Alcatraz became the choice. 'A remote site was sought, one that would prohibit constant communication with the outside world by those confined within its walls,' the park service said. 'Although land in Alaska was being considered, the availability of Alcatraz Island coincided with the government's perceived need for a high security prison.' The remoteness eventually made it impractical. Everything from food to fuel had to arrive by boat. 'The island had no source of fresh water,' according to the US Bureau of Prisons, 'so nearly one million gallons of water had to be barged to the island each week'. The cost to house someone there in 1959 was US$10.10 a day compared with US$3 at a federal prison in Atlanta. It was cheaper to build a new prison from scratch. Despite the location, many prisoners tried to get out: 36 men attempted 14 separate escapes into the bay, according to the FBI. Nearly all were caught or didn't survive the cold water and swift current. Escape from Alcatraz, a 1979 movie starring Clint Eastwood, told the story of John Anglin, his brother Clarence and Frank Morris, who all escaped in 1962, leaving behind handmade plaster heads with real hair in their beds to fool guards. The warden's house at Alcatraz Island in San Francisco. — Reuters/AP 'For the 17 years we worked on the case, no credible evidence emerged to suggest the men were still alive, either in the US or overseas,' the FBI said. Alcatraz became part of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area and was opened to the public in 1973, a decade after it was closed as a prison. The park service says the island gets more than a million visitors a year who arrive by ferry. A ticket for an adult costs US$47.95, and visitors can see the cells where prisoners were held. Rob Frank, 55, of Springfield, Missouri, said he toured Alcatraz about a decade ago. He said it's hard to imagine the millions of dollars that would be needed to reopen the prison. 'It didn't seem very humane to me,' Frank said. 'They had the cells stacked on top of each other. Small cells. Everything's concrete. It was kind of a dark place.' In 1969, a group of Native Americans, mostly college students, claimed to have a historical right to Alcatraz and began an occupation that lasted for 19 months until federal authorities intervened in 1971. '(Their) underlying goals ... on Alcatraz were to awaken the American public to the reality of the plight of the First Americans and to assert the need for (Native) self-determination,' late historian Troy Johnson wrote. — AP
