A Pentagon review will produce at least four force options by 6 November, as NATO allies weigh the future of around 80,000 U.S. troops stationed across Eur…
A Pentagon review will produce at least four force options by 6 November, as NATO allies weigh the future of around 80,000 U.S. troops stationed across Europe.
The Pentagon is accelerating a review of the United States military presence in Europe, with Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth expected to receive at least four options for future troop deployments by early November. The process could reshape the American security footprint across the continent and is being closely watched by NATO governments already under pressure to assume a larger share of Europe’s defence.
Pentagon preparing several options
According to a Reuters report published on 27 August, an internal Pentagon document sets 6 November as the target for presenting Hegseth with at least four sets of options concerning U.S. forces in Europe. The wider six-month review is due to conclude in December.[1]
The review concerns roughly 80,000 American military personnel currently stationed across Europe, a figure also cited publicly by NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte earlier this year.[2]
The document reportedly provides a more detailed picture of how the Pentagon intends to reach its conclusions.
A key stage is expected by 18 September, when the senior U.S. military commander in Europe is scheduled to participate in a decision briefing with Pentagon policy chief Elbridge Colby. That meeting is intended to help define the options eventually sent to Hegseth.[1]
Colby is also expected to discuss the review with NATO ambassadors at alliance headquarters in Brussels on Thursday, 27 August.
No final decision on troop reductions has been announced.
More than troop numbers
The review appears to go well beyond a simple calculation of how many soldiers should remain in individual countries.
According to the Pentagon terms of reference obtained by Reuters, U.S. planners are examining whether NATO allies provide reliable American military access, basing and overflight rights. They are also assessing space, cyber and intelligence infrastructure that supports U.S. military operations.[1]
Allies are additionally being evaluated on whether they have credible plans to meet NATO defence-spending commitments and whether they can fill capability gaps within the NATO Force Model if Washington reduces some of its contributions.
A questionnaire sent by the United States to allies asks about restrictions placed on American forces, defence procurement, transatlantic industrial cooperation and support for broader U.S. foreign-policy objectives. Responses are due on Friday, 28 August.[1]
This makes the exercise unusually broad. The eventual U.S. military posture could depend not only on geographic or operational considerations, but also on how Washington assesses the political and defence policies of individual allies.
NATO governments watching closely
European officials have expected the United States to shift more military attention and resources towards the Indo-Pacific for several years. The uncertainty now concerns the speed, scale and geographic distribution of any reduction.
Reuters reported that some European officials privately fear Washington may already be inclined towards cuts, despite the Pentagon’s insistence that the review is considering a range of possibilities.[1]
A senior Pentagon official told the news agency that the administration was moving towards providing “critical, more limited support with allies in the lead.”
Washington has repeatedly argued that European countries must take greater responsibility for their own security. Hegseth has accused some NATO members of “free-riding”, while President Donald Trump has long criticised European allies for relying heavily on American protection.
More recently, tensions have also emerged over the level of European support for U.S. military policy in the Middle East. According to Reuters, the Trump administration has expressed frustration with allies that Washington believes restricted or delayed access, basing or overflight arrangements during the U.S.-Israeli war against Iran.[1]
NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte has acknowledged American frustration while stressing that the majority of European allies have cooperated with Washington.
Europe is spending more on defence
The review comes as NATO’s European members are already increasing defence expenditure sharply.
At the 2025 Hague Summit, NATO members committed themselves to investing 5% of GDP annually in defence and defence-related security spending by 2035. At least 3.5% is intended for core military requirements, with the remaining 1.5% covering areas such as infrastructure, resilience and defence-related investment, according to NATO’s defence investment framework.[3]
NATO says European allies and Canada increased their combined core defence spending by nearly 20% in real terms during 2025.[3]
Ahead of the Ankara NATO Summit in July, Rutte said European allies and Canada had generated an additional $258 billion in defence investment across 2025 and 2026 and were assuming more responsibility for conventional defence, the eastern flank and support for Ukraine.[4]
That shift is central to Washington’s argument that Europe should eventually replace some capabilities historically supplied by the United States.
However, troop numbers alone do not capture the importance of the American presence.
U.S. forces provide intelligence, logistics, air defence, command-and-control systems, nuclear deterrence and other capabilities that cannot always be replaced quickly by national European forces.
Rutte has described the American military presence as evidence that the United States remains deeply invested in European security, while also accepting that Washington increasingly expects Europe to carry a larger share of the burden.[2]
A strategic decision for both sides of the Atlantic
The question facing NATO is therefore not simply whether American troop numbers decline.
A carefully coordinated transition could encourage stronger European defence capabilities while preserving NATO’s deterrence. A rapid or politically selective withdrawal, however, could create military gaps or uncertainty over the alliance’s ability to respond to a crisis.
The Pentagon says it wants to examine the advantages and disadvantages of different force levels before making recommendations.
That distinction will matter particularly to countries on NATO’s eastern flank, where alliance forces have been reinforced since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and where governments see the American presence as both a practical military capability and a political guarantee of U.S. involvement in European defence.
For now, the decisive dates are approaching quickly: allied questionnaires are due by 28 August, a senior Pentagon decision briefing is planned by 18 September, and Hegseth is expected to receive the main options by 6 November.
Only after that process will Europe know whether Washington is planning a modest redistribution of forces — or a more fundamental change in the transatlantic security architecture.
Discussion about this post