WASHINGTON (Realist English). The Trump administration has launched a process that could become the most significant review of US military presence in Europe since the end of the Cold War. The six‑month review of European forces, announced by Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth in June, must by November 6 present at least four redeployment options for the approximately 80,000 US troops stationed on the continent.
Pentagon policy chief Elbridge Colby, who has already held consultations with NATO ambassadors in Brussels, has articulated the review’s objective with striking clarity: to move “quickly and irreversibly toward Europe taking primary responsibility for its own conventional defence.” In Colby’s terminology, this concept is called “NATO 3.0.”
Four Scenarios: From Status Quo to Complete Withdrawal
According to the Pentagon’s internal “Terms of Reference” document obtained by Reuters, the review is intended to create a “spectrum of options” — from maintaining current force levels to complete withdrawal.
Key stages of the process:
| Stage | Deadline | Participants |
| Decisive briefing | September 18 | US European Command commander + Pentagon policy chief Elbridge Colby |
| NATO consultations | August 28 | Colby with NATO ambassadors in Brussels |
| Presentation of options | November 6 | To Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth |
| Review completion | December | Final conclusions |
Criteria for evaluating allies include not only traditional ABO (Access, Basing, Overflight — access to bases, basing rights and overflight permissions), but also space, cyber and intelligence architectures, as well as infrastructure supporting global US power projection.
Washington’s Three Motives: From “Freeloaders” to Iran
The review is driven by at least three interconnected motives.
1. Punishment for insufficient support of the Iran war. The Trump administration is unhappy that some European allies did not provide sufficient support for the US‑Israeli campaign against Iran, including denials of base access and overflight rights for US military aircraft. According to CNN, Trump suggested at one meeting that US forces in Europe be reduced by a third in order to “send the right signal” to allies.
2. Pressure on NATO allies. Hegseth has already accused some partners of “freeloading,” and the review itself is designed to “ensure that access, basing and overflight are clearly defined.”
3. Reprioritisation of global posture. As a Pentagon spokesperson stated, the administration is moving “toward providing critical but more limited support, with allies playing the leading role.” Colby, a well‑known advocate of re‑orienting toward Asia, has long called for concentrating US military resources on containing China.
Europe’s Reaction: Fear and Preparation for the Worst
European officials fear that a decision to reduce forces has already been made and the review is merely a formality. As an anonymous European diplomat in Brussels said, allies intend “to send a unified European signal on Thursday, showing how we are increasing efforts together.”
NATO is already preparing for the new reality. Under pressure from Trump, European allies and Canada have committed to increase defence spending to at least 5% of GDP by 2035.
NATO Secretary‑General Mark Rutte expressed some understanding of Trump’s frustration but noted that the “overwhelming majority of Europeans have been useful.”
Steps Already Taken: From Germany to Poland
The review is not merely a theoretical exercise. In May 2026, the Pentagon announced the withdrawal of 4,000 to 5,000 troops from Germany. Later, Hegseth cancelled the rotation of an armoured brigade to Poland and scrapped the Biden administration’s plan for permanently stationing a long‑range artillery battalion in Germany, including Tomahawk missiles.
However, as Foreign Policy notes, plans for large‑scale cuts face competing priorities: Congress and Trump himself may become obstacles to radical changes. The National Defence Authorisation Act for 2026 restricts the Pentagon’s ability to reduce troop numbers in Europe below 76,000.
A New Security Architecture or the Dissolution of the Alliance?
The Pentagon review is not a technical procedure but a political signal. The accelerated timeline (interim results by November 6) and the public disclosure of the Terms of Reference demonstrate Washington’s seriousness of intent. As an anonymous Pentagon official noted: “There is a clear demand signal for options that show us (a reduction) in our force levels in Europe.”
Yet open questions remain. Which of the four scenarios will be presented to Hegseth, and which will he choose? Will Congress, which limits cuts below 76,000 troops, be able to block the most radical options? Will European diplomats manage to convince Washington of their usefulness before the November deadline? And most importantly — will “NATO 3.0,” as Colby envisions it, be a reboot of the alliance or its gradual dismantling?
For now, European capitals are bracing for the worst while the Pentagon calculates scenarios. One thing remains clear: transatlantic relations are entering a phase that will determine the architecture of European security for a generation to come. The question is who will be its author — and whether there will still be room for America in it.
