
Will Trump really pull US troops out of Europe?
History may repeat itself, but not always with the same impact.
In 2012, when then-US defence secretary Leon Panetta announced the withdrawal of two combat brigades - roughly 8,000 troops - from Europe in order to reduce military spending, western European governments shrugged it off.
When US president Donald Trump mused this year about withdrawing US forces from Europe, it sent barely concealed shockwaves through European chancelleries.
The difference: Panetta at the time said America's security commitments to Europe and to NATO were "unwavering".
By contrast, Trump has threatened not to protect NATO members that spend too little on defence. And his own vice president and defence secretary made disparaging comments about European allies in a now-infamous group chat earlier this year, with defence chief Pete Hegseth expressing his 'loathing of European free-loading', according to the Atlantic magazine.
Get the difference?
On the eve of the NATO summit in The Hague this week, the chatter about the US military leaving Europe for good has somewhat subsided.
Yet, European diplomats do fear an announcement by Trump after the summit. The Pentagon did not immediately respond to a Euronews request for comment.
Reason enough to hear from top US military experts whether they think a massive US troop withdrawal is on the cards and what the impact of such a move would be for the United States – logistically, financially and politically.
First in line is the US ambassador to NATO, Matthew Whitaker, a lawyer by education, whose task has increasingly tended to soothing nervous European allies.
'Look, European security is on top of my mind,' he said at a recent public forum in Brussels. 'America needs allies, we can't do it all alone. And the reports on the US drawing down its troop presence are absolutely not true. Everything else we will discuss with our allies.'
Right now, the US has nearly 84,000 active service members in Europe, according to the US European Command (EUCOM) in Stuttgart. The total number varies due to planned exercises and regular rotations of troops in and out of the continent.
For example, following Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, some 20,000 were deployed to states neighbouring Russia, Belarus, and Ukraine to support Ukraine and contain the conflict.
Over the course of the war, the total number of troops has ranged between approximately 75,000 and 105,000 military personnel, primarily from the Air Force, Army, and Navy.
The bulk of those troops is stationed in Germany (40,000), Poland (14,000), Italy (13,000) and the UK (10,000) with the rest scattered across the continent from Norway to Turkey.
The practical logistics of a US withdrawal from Europe, such as redeployments to the US or elsewhere, would be significant and time-consuming.
'If this were to happen in a systematic manner, it would take many months, probably at least a year,' Mark Cancian, a retired colonel and senior advisor at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington, told Euronews.
'The entire equipment, every tank, needs to be prepared and shipped. Then the families of the soldiers need to be shipped and finally the service members themselves,' he added. 'All in all, a quarter of a million people might be impacted, maybe more.'
The biggest problem would be where they might go. 'Current bases in the US could absorb 5,000 people, maybe 10,000,' Cancian said. 'But the rest? It would take years to build new facilities.'
Whether Trump would decide something of that strategic and political magnitude the effects of which would only almost certainly be seen beyond his presidential term is more than doubtful, according to Ian Lesser, a senior political analyst at the German Marshall Fund (GMF), a transatlantic think tank.
'We already saw an attempt by Trump to withdraw a sizable force from Europe during his first term, which only met considerable resistance from the security community in the US and was eventually shelved by President Biden,' Lesser told Euronews.
The US Congress would also have to approve the withdrawal, which is not certain given the number of defence hawks, especially in the Senate. A recent bipartisan draft proposal by Republican Lindsey Graham and Democrat Richard Blumenthal on tougher anti-Russian sanctions reportedly has the backing of up to 90 of the 100 senators.
'Trump has no desire to look weak. But a dramatic reduction of the American military footprint in Europe would do exactly that to him,' Lesser said.
In addition, a large part of the US forces in Europe are not members of combat brigades, which typically consist of about 5,000 soldiers each, but support troops who man a huge military infrastructure, especially in Germany.
Historically, Ramstein Air Base, for instance, and its neighbouring Landstuhl Regional Medical Center, the largest American hospital outside the United States, played a key role in supporting forward military operations, especially in the Middle East.
'It would make little sense to announce plans to withdraw US troops from Europe the moment there is an escalating war happening between Israel and Iran,' former US ambassador William Courtney told Euronews. 'And it would probably lead to massive criticism,' added Courtney, an adjunct senior fellow at the RAND Corporation, a global think tank.
And then there are Trump's efforts to mediate in the war in Ukraine. 'Trump viewed a US troop withdrawal in connection with his strong hopes for an end of the war and improved relations with Moscow. Yet, it turned out there is no basis for that, no possibility, the negotiating positions of Russia and Ukraine being too far apart,' Courtney said.
Were US troops to be withdrawn, Europe would have to replace the entire military infrastructure currently provided by the US at all levels, according to a study by the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) based in London. That means bases, training areas, weaponry and ammunition, administrative and organisational architecture, intelligence provisions and much more.
This comes with a hefty price tag: the nine authors of the IISS study estimate that replacing the US contribution to NATO with European assets would amount to approximately $1 trillion (€870 billion).
It's not clear what the cost of a US troop withdrawal would mean for the US taxpayer. None of the experts quoted in this article was ready to advance a number.
That's one reason none of them considered such a decision as very likely.
'No way,' Daniel Runde told Euronews, a senior advisor with Washington-based consulting firm BGR Group and author of The American Imperative: Reclaiming Global Leadership through Soft Power.
'Trump will absolutely not do it. His aim is to get the Europeans to spend 5% of their GDP on defence. Then he will move on.'

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


France 24
28 minutes ago
- France 24
Trump insists Iran nuclear programme set back 'decades'
Over a 12-day conflict, Israel pounded Iranian nuclear and military sites while Iran launched waves of missiles at its foe during their deadliest-ever confrontation. The United States joined the fray in support of its ally, hitting two nuclear facilities with massive bunker-buster bombs over the weekend, while a guided missile from a submarine struck a third. But leaked US intelligence cast doubt on the damage caused by American strikes, saying they had set back Tehran's nuclear programme by just a few months. "They're not going to be building bombs for a long time," said Trump, adding that the strikes had set back the programme by "decades" and that the Iran-Israel ceasefire that he declared was going "very well". Earlier, Israel's military said it was "still early" to assess the damage caused to Iran's nuclear programme. "I believe we have delivered a significant hit to the nuclear programme, and I can also say that we have delayed it by several years," said Israeli military spokesman Brigadier General Effie Defrin. The head of Israel's military, Eyal Zamir, on Tuesday said Israel and the United States had set back Iran's nuclear programme "by years". But US media on Tuesday cited people familiar with the Defense Intelligence Agency intelligence report as saying the American strikes did not fully eliminate Iran's centrifuges or enriched uranium stockpiles. The strikes sealed off entrances to some facilities without destroying underground buildings, according to the report. Israel had said its bombing campaign, which began on June 13, was aimed at preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon, an ambition Tehran has consistently denied. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in an address to the nation after the ceasefire, announced that "we have thwarted Iran's nuclear project". "And if anyone in Iran tries to rebuild it, we will act with the same determination, with the same intensity, to foil any attempt," he said. 'Legitimate rights' Iranian lawmakers on Wednesday voted in favour of suspending cooperation with the United Nations' nuclear watchdog, according to state TV. "The International Atomic Energy Agency, which refused to even marginally condemn the attack on Iran's nuclear facilities, put its international credibility up for auction," parliament speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf said, according to the broadcaster. The decision to suspend cooperation with the IAEA still requires the approval of the Guardian Council, a body empowered to vet legislation. Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian said Tuesday his country was willing to return to negotiations over its nuclear programme, but that it would continue to "assert its legitimate rights" to the peaceful use of atomic energy. In an interview with the Al Araby Al Jadeed news outlet, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said attacks on Iran's nuclear facilities would have "serious and profound repercussions" on the country's future. He said Iran remained committed to the Non-Proliferation Treaty but that it had failed "protect us or our nuclear programme", adding that Iran's approach towards the non-proliferation regime "will undergo changes", without elaborating. - Shadow war - While Iran and Israel have been locked in a shadow war for decades, their 12-day conflict was by far the most destructive confrontation between them. Israeli strikes hit nuclear and military targets -- killing scientists and senior military figures -- as well as residential areas, prompting waves of Iranian missile fire on Israel. The war culminated in US strikes on underground Iranian nuclear sites using bunker-busting bombs -- which Israel lacks -- followed by an Iranian reprisal targeting a US military facility in Qatar, the largest in the Middle East. Trump shrugged off that response as "weak", thanking Tehran for giving advance notice and announcing the contours of the ceasefire just hours later. Some Israelis welcomed the truce. "Finally, we can sleep peacefully. We feel better, less worried, for the kids, for the family. And I hope it stays that way. That's the most important," Yossi Bin, a 45-year-old engineer in Tel Aviv, told AFP. In Iran, people remained uncertain whether the peace would hold. Amir, 28, fled from Tehran to the Caspian Sea coast and told AFP by phone, "I really don't know... about the ceasefire but honestly, I don't think things will return to normal." Israeli strikes on Iran killed at least 610 civilians and wounded more than 4,700, according to the health ministry. Iran's attacks on Israel killed 28 people, according to official figures and rescuers. © 2025 AFP


Euronews
an hour ago
- Euronews
UK to buy 12 fighter jets capable of carrying nuclear weapons
The UK will buy 12 F-35A fighter planes that can carry nuclear warheads in the biggest strengthening of the country's nuclear deterrent for a generation, the British government has said. The move, which was announced to coincide with the NATO summit in the Netherlands, will give Britain's Royal Air Force a role in the UK's nuclear programme for the first time since the 1990s, when defence cuts were made following the end of the Cold War. Currently, the country's nuclear deterrent is limited to a fleet of four nuclear-armed submarines. UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer explained that the decision to purchase the US-built warplanes was both a boost to the country's national security and a sign of its commitment to NATO at a time of 'rising nuclear risks'. 'In an era of radical uncertainty we can no longer take peace for granted, which is why my government is investing in our national security,' Starmer said. 'The UK's commitment to NATO is unquestionable, as is the alliance's contribution to keeping the UK safe and secure, but we must all step up to protect the Euro-Atlantic area for generations to come,' he added. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte 'strongly' welcomed the announcement. 'This is yet another robust British contribution to NATO,' he said. It is not immediately clear when the UK will purchase the jets, which will allow the UK to contribute to NATO's dual-capable aircraft (DCA) capability. Only a small number of NATO members, including Belgium and Germany, currently have the required jets and training to carry US-provided nuclear weapons. Britain's decision to bolster its air force comes as part of a European drive to increase defence spending, amid threats from Russia and concerns that the US will play a reduced role in the continent's security. To appease US President Donald Trump, many European countries are expected to agree to spend 5% of their GDP on defence by 2035. However, some nations have expressed unease, with Spain calling the deadline 'unreasonable'. Belgium has also indicated that it is unlikely to reach the target. Britain's new F-35A planes will be housed at RAF Marham, an air base in Norfolk, the UK government said.


Euronews
an hour ago
- Euronews
Kaja Kallas: 'We've listened to Trump' on defence spending
The EU has 'listened to President Trump' and 'everyone is doing more' to boost European defence spending, High Representative for Foreign Affairs Kaja Kallas told Euronews Today as NATO leaders gather in the Hague on Wednesday for a landmark summit. Kallas was asked by Euronews' Shona Murray to comment on NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte's pre-summit message to the US president, lavishing praise on his handling of the Western alliance and the conflict in Iran. "You are flying into another big success in The Hague this evening. It was not easy but we've got them all signed on to five percent," Rutte wrote, in a message posted by Trump on social media, referencing the target for GDP expenditure that Trump has called for from NATO members. 'Mark Rutte is speaking Trump, I think he's speaking the language that President Trump definitely understands and he needs to get this across,' Kallas said. 'I think it very important that everyone is doing this 5% and agreeing to this.' 'President Trump has been calling for this for quite some time - that everybody should do more for their own defence, and Europe is stepping up, we definitely have listened to President Trump and everyone is doing more,' she said. 'Weakeness provokes' Putin, Kallas says Asked if the US was diverging from the other NATO members in its approach to Ukraine, Kallas said, 'when member states agreed to spend more on defence, that also means that they have more means to help Ukraine'. 'When it comes to Europe we have agreed that we will support Ukraine militarily, and we will also put more pressure on Russia so that they would also want peace in order end this war so it is very clear for us,' she said. She said security throughout the world 'is very much interlinked', citing North Korean soldiers being active in Ukraine, support that Iran is giving to Russia, and sanctions circumvention by some countries, 'so if we don't push back aggression in one place, it just is a call to use aggression elsewhere', Kallas said. Increased defence spending is the best path to deflect Russian President Vladimir Putin's aggression, Kallas said. 'I don't see into Putin's mind but looking back how he has been working, he understands strength,' she said, adding: 'If we invest more into defence, we are stronger so it doesn't provoke him." "Weakness provokes him: if he thinks that he's stronger, he can take up this war, then he will take up war, but if he sees that we are strong, then he doesn't look our way, and that's what we are doing.'