Exclusive: America's next top general in Europe will also lead NATO forces, officials say
WASHINGTON/BRUSSELS, May 30 (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.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
22 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
FORESIGHT SOLAR: Solar farm fund struggles to keep the lights on - but is fighting back
Stock market listed Foresight Solar Fund is in retrenchment mode. It's selling assets – some of its solar farm sites – and buying back shares from shareholders. In just two weeks it faces a discontinuation vote at its annual general meeting, although the special resolution is unlikely to garner sufficient support. Two thirds of shareholders would have to back it to go through – a similar vote last year was not supported. The trust's board also recently confirmed that it had been in 'discussions' with other parties about the future of the fund. Although Foresight remains schtum about the nature of these talks, they are likely to have involved a merger with a similar trust – or going private. It all represents a massive state of flux which will deter many investors from going anywhere near it. Yet Foresight has one big attraction, in the shape of the income it derives from the energy its solar panel farms generate. Since launching in late 2013 the trust has increased the dividends it pays to shareholders every year. For the 2024 financial year it handed out quarterly dividends totalling 8p a share. This year the intention is to tickle up the annual payment to 8.1p. For new investors this income is made all the more compelling by the fact that the trust's shares sit at a massive 30 per cent discount to the value of underlying assets. The result is a share price of 77p, compared to the £1 price that shares were issued at in October 2013 – and an annual dividend equivalent to 10.6 per cent. Foresight is not alone. Double-digit share price discounts are currently common within the renewable energy infrastructure trust sector – and, for that matter, across infrastructure funds generally. They are a reflection of higher gilt yields, making these income-focused trusts comparatively less attractive. Concerns over persistent inflation, weak economic growth and sticky interest rates have also dampened institutional interest. Over the past year the average renewable energy infrastructure trust has delivered investors a total loss of 6.7 per cent, while Foresight's losses are less at 1.5 per cent. To contextualise, Foresight has generated a ten-year return of 46 per cent. Ross Driver, manager of Foresight Solar, says they are doing all they can to improve matters. The solar sites it owns in Australia are being disposed of, as are selected operations in Spain and the UK. In total, it has sites in 58 locations. The proceeds of any sales, says Driver, will be part used to pay down borrowings and return cash to investors. He adds: 'We're selling assets and pulling all the levers while paddling with as many oars as possible in a tsunami.' Driver insists that if sentiment within the asset class improves his trust offers investors a good income, with the potential for share price growth. It's a view shared by some analysts. In a note last month, investment bank Peel Hunt said that Foresight Solar's shares offered 'an attractive tactical opportunity' while Rachel May, research analyst at investment group Shore Capital, says that the trust's board is trying hard to narrow the share price discount. While some people are unhappy about the impact of solar farms blighting the countryside, Driver says it's a trade-off. 'We need to decouple the country off a volatile gas price,' he adds. The trust's annual charges total 1.2 per cent and the stock market identification code is BD3QJR5. Its market ticker is FSFL. In total, investment house Foresight manages assets of £12 billion, primarily in infrastructure.
Daily Mail
22 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
HAMISH MCRAE: Rules are rules when it comes to trade... until all the major players ignore them
You cannot, Mr Bailey, get the toothpaste back into the tube. Last week the Governor of the Bank of England, Andrew Bailey, gave a speech to investment managers in Dublin on how important world trade was to global growth and how the system had to be reformed. So far, so good. But when you go through the detail it was all about trying to rebuild trading relations with Europe and how to make the so-called 'rules based' world trade system work better. And the problem there is that the world has changed. The UK will not go back to anything like a pre-Brexit relationship with Europe, and the US will not go back to a pre-Trump approach to global trade. The task for British political and financial leaders is to exploit the opportunities that have arisen, rather than hark back to a none-too-brilliant past. On Brexit, the Governor was careful to make the disclaimer that as a public servant he didn't take a position on it, but what he said had a clear spin. We had to 'minimise negative effects on trade' and that the changing relationship with Europe has 'weighed on the level of potential supply'. At least he didn't cite the Office for National Statistics' calculation that in the long run Brexit would cost 4 per cent of national output. On that figure I prefer the comment of one of his predecessors, Mervyn King, arguably the most notable UK economist of his generation: 'They can't possibly know that. They just make it up.' Nor did Bailey refer to the determined drive by Europe to make banks shift their business and people to EU centres, including Dublin. Instead it was all about trade in finance being 'a two-way street', failing to mention that the UK has a huge surplus on exports of financial services, or indeed that there were 678,000 jobs in the City of London at the end of 2023, some 30 per cent more than in 2016. Of course we need as good a relationship as possible with all trading partners, but we need to acknowledge that, insofar as the City has been successful post-Brexit, it is despite hostility from Europe. As the still bubbling row about transferring euro-derivatives clearing from London to the EU shows, realistically that hostility will continue. On world trade the Governor acknowledged that the system has come under too much strain 'and it is incorrect to dismiss those who argue for restrictions on trade as just wrong-headed'. And the blame for imposing that strain goes mainly to China, which as he noted, heavily subsidised key industries to help them dominate world markets. China imposed 5,400 'subsidy policies' between 2009 and 2022, two-thirds of the global total. He made the point, too, that it was reasonable for countries to seek security of supply, but suggested they do so by dealing with reliable partners rather than trying to bring production back home. These are sensible comments, in particular acknowledging that Donald Trump has a point and China has abused global trading rules. He notes the damage done to trade by Covid and Russia's invasion of Ukraine. He points out how important trade in services is, particularly for the UK. It's an interesting, thoughtful and conventional analysis, and maybe that is what we should expect from a central banker – but I fear it is a naive one. Why? Take Europe. There is a huge trading imbalance between the UK and EU. They sell far more goods to us than they buy, and we export more services to them. But they are not going to change their rules to increase their imports of services. Take China. It's not going to stop subsidising its industries for fear of getting ticked off by the World Trade Organization. As for the US, it has given up on the whole International Monetary Fund-WTO system, that's that. So instead we have to negotiate our way through a bilateral trading world. The UK has made a good start. There are lots of reasons to attack our Government's financial policies, but doing deals with the US, the world's largest economy, and India, soon to be the third largest, deserves to be welcomed. We seem to have a slightly better relationship with Europe, and I don't see why we shouldn't get on with China. Let's try to be nice, as Andrew Bailey was in Dublin, but let's be aware that the rules-based order is dead.
Daily Mail
29 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
RACHEL RICKARD STRAUS: I fear Labour is set to slap tough new rules on where you invest your Isa
It is all but certain that Chancellor Rachel Reeves will slash the amount that we can put in cash Isas. She has repeatedly refused to deny that she will – and industry sources suggest the most likely limit will be £4,000 of our total £20,000 tax-free allowance – the rest to be used only for investing. But details hiding in official savings figures that have until now been overlooked make me fear that far more Isa restrictions are on the cards. Here's why. Reeves has stated two motivations for meddling with Isas. The first is helping people to get a better return on their savings. Her theory is that if she restricts the amount we can save tax-free in cash we will invest instead (whether this strategy will work is debatable: it is more likely that we will just divert our cash into ordinary savings accounts). The second motivation is the one underlying all of Reeves's decisions: to help drive economic growth. This ambition will not be fulfilled simply by restricting cash Isa limits. Even if it leads to a wave of cash flooding into financial markets, only a small pool of it will go into UK companies. New investors are likely to put money into popular stocks – such as Nvidia, Meta and Apple – rather than favouring the UK. The UK makes up only 4 per cent of the global stock market, so an investor opting for a well-diversified portfolio would be unlikely to put much into this country. That's why, if Reeves wants to achieve her aims, she will have to force us to invest in assets that would boost UK growth. She may insist that a portion of stocks and shares Isas must be directed at UK companies. She made a similar demand of pension funds last week – and sources tell me this is being discussed for Isas as well. It wouldn't be the first time such an idea was mooted – the previous government considered something similar when it tried to launch a British Isa that savers could use to invest in UK companies. The next clue that Reeves will force – or incentivise – savers to invest part of their Isa allowance in the UK is in the Premium Bond figures. Premium Bonds hold so much of our cash that if encouraging us to invest more was her sole priority, she'd be slashing the amount we can put in them too. From a saver's point of view, Premium Bonds offer an even poorer return than cash Isas. At least in an Isa you earn interest. With Premium Bonds you're simply holding out for a prize. There are millions more holders of Premium Bonds than cash Isas – around 24 million versus just 14 million – and we hold a stonking £127.7 billion of cash in them. As many as 1.2 million savers hold the maximum permitted amount of £50,000 in Premium Bonds. No doubt plenty of that cash could be earning a better return if invested instead. If her priority was to get better returns for savers, she would slash that maximum. But, of course, she won't. Not just because it would be unpopular – that has not stopped her in the past. But because, unlike cash Isas, money saved in Premium Bonds does help drive economic growth. Premium Bonds are one of the products sold by NS&I to bring in billions for the Government for it to spend. It is a form of government borrowing – but one that doesn't appear on the books like other types of debt. Her willingness to overlook poor returns for savers in Premium Bonds shows where her priorities lie: economic growth first, savers' wealth second. The third clue lies in the official Isa figures from HMRC. They reveal that restricting the amount we can save in cash to encourage us to invest more will not work. Until 2015, Isa allowances were restricted just as Reeves is currently planning. You could only put a proportion of your Isa allowance in cash – the rest had to go in stocks and shares. If Reeves is right that savers need to have their cash Isa allowance curbed to get them to invest, you would expect that savers might have flocked to cash as soon as the rules were abolished in 2015. But they did not. In fact, when they were permitted to save as much of their allowance in cash as they liked, they chose to invest more. Before 2015, for every £10 going into a cash Isa, £4.10 went into a stocks and shares Isa. After 2015, for every £10 going into cash, £5.90 went into stocks and shares, analysis by investment platform XTB shows. The proportion going into stocks and shares has ballooned – we hold £431 billion in stocks and shares Isas, compared with £294 billion in cash Isas. So the Chancellor can't use the excuse that she needs to restrict cash Isas to get savers to buy more stocks and shares – they are already investing more. But that won't matter to her. The real motivation is to drive growth – and in this plan cash savers are merely a pawn. So what comes next? I fear the freedom to save and invest within our Isa however we choose is about to be clobbered on all fronts. Savers need to prepare for a regression back to 1999, before the Isa was even launched. Back then, savers were reliant on Personal Equity Plans. These were the predecessor of the Isa and offered tax-free investing but required you to put a proportion of your allowance into UK companies. That is where we're heading – back where we started, with our freedoms restricted, as if nothing had been learned.
