Will Trump really pull US troops out of Europe?
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
Euronews
19 minutes ago
- Euronews
Tensions, clashes and low expectations loom over EU-China summit
The summit between the European Union and China, scheduled to take place on Thursday, comes at a pivotal moment for both sides. On paper, at least. Donald Trump's return to the White House has upended the geopolitical chessboard, undermining age-old alliances, inflaming simmering tensions and throwing global trade into head-spinning turmoil. The chaos is such that Brussels and Beijing, long at odds over a string of disagreements and recriminations, began toying with the idea of resetting ties and reinforcing cooperation to weather the Trump-induced storm. The fact that the summit coincided with the 50th anniversary of diplomatic relations only added to the speculation of an impending rapprochement. In May, Chinese President Xi Jinping said the anniversary offered a chance to "properly handle frictions and differences, and open up a brighter future for China-EU relations". Ursula von der Leyen, the president of the European Commission, and António Costa, the president of the European Council, played to the prevailing narrative, committing themselves to "deepening our partnership with China". But then the tide shifted and the tone soured. Beijing's decision to restrict exports of rare earths, the metallic elements that are crucial for manufacturing advanced technologies, caused widespread alarm across European industry and was rebuked by von der Leyen. "China is using this quasi-monopoly not only as a bargaining chip, but also weaponising it to undermine competitors in key industries," she said at the G7 summit in June. "We all witnessed the cost and consequences of China's coercion." Beijing immediately hit back at the Commission chief, calling her speech "baseless" and "biased", but offered an olive branch to build a "win-win" partnership. The damage was done, however. By the time von der Leyen and Costa meet with Xi on Thursday, there are scant expectations for any concrete solution. Hopes are so low for the meeting that officials in Brussels point to the fact of the one-day summit in Beijing happening at all as an achievement. (Under protocol rules, the summit was supposed to happen on EU soil, as both sides take turns as hosts.) "For the EU, the deliverable is a substantive, open and direct conversation between the two of us on every aspect of our relationship," a senior official said last week, speaking on condition of anonymity ahead of the occasion. A second senior official described the summit as a "unique opportunity" to communicate the bloc's concerns with the view of obtaining results "in the short term". "We go there with the expectation that the Chinese will first understand our concerns and, second, take concrete actions to meet our concerns," the official said. "Otherwise, we will have to defend our own interests." No-limits friction There are certainly no shortage of issues to be resolved, with myriad disputes straining EU-China relations since the COVID-19 pandemic. Among the extensive list of friction points, which range from cyberattacks against state agencies to human rights violations, two stand out: Beijing's "no-limits" partnership with Moscow and the trade imbalances caused by industrial overcapacity. For the past three years, Europeans have been aghast at seeing a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council stand firmly by the side of an aggressor nation in breach of the core principles of the UN Charter. Brussels has repeatedly accused China of acting as the "key enabler" behind Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine and supplying 80% of the components that the Kremlin uses to manufacture weapons. Several Chinese entities have been targeted by the bloc for enabling the circumvention of economic sanctions. Last week, two Chinese banks were blacklisted, triggering Beijing's fury. "We urge the EU to stop harming the lawful interests of Chinese companies without any factual basis," said Guo Jiakun, spokesperson of the Chinese Foreign Ministry. "China will do what is necessary to firmly safeguard the legitimate and lawful rights and interests of Chinese companies," he added. Von der Leyen and Costa are set to raise Ukraine during their face-to-face meeting with Xi, however unlikely their pleas are to be heard. The Chinese leader has shown no signs of wanting to disengage from Russia, attending Vladimir Putin's Victory Day parade earlier this year as guest of honour. "We can say that China is de facto enabling Russia's war economy. We cannot accept this," von der Leyen said earlier this month. "How China continues to interact with Putin's war will be a determining factor for EU-China relations going forward." An 'unsustainable' relation On trade, the stakes are equally high – and the expectations, equally low. The bloc has grown increasingly anxious about its ballooning deficit with China, which last year surpassed €300 billion in goods. The figure risks expanding in 2025 due to sluggish demand from Chinese consumers and Trump's prohibitively high tariffs. The European Commission has set up a special task force to monitor the potential diversion of Chinese products from the US to the EU market. The executive is also keeping a close eye on Beijing's lavish use of subsidies, which have been blamed for artificially lowering prices to the detriment of European competitors. "The present situation is unsustainable. We need rebalancing," said a senior official. The dispute came to a boil in October when the EU slapped steep duties on China-made electric vehicles (EVs) to offset the effects of state aid. Decrying the measure as a "naked act of protectionism", Beijing responded with probes into EU-made brandy, pork and dairy, which Brussels then denounced as unfair and unjustified. Another recurring grievance among Europeans is the regulatory barriers that China has erected to encroach upon the private sector and give preference to domestic companies. The row recently led the Commission to exclude Chinese providers of medical devices from European public tenders. Beijing retaliated with a similar ban. Initially, the July summit was considered the stage to reach a common understanding on these open fronts and announce tentative solutions to some of them. While the disputes will still be addressed as part of the busy agenda, the rise in tensions indicates they will remain unresolved as neither side believes the other is ready to relent. The only deliverable that von der Leyen and Costa can reasonably hope for is a joint declaration on climate action ahead of the UN climate conference later this year. Substantial concessions in other fields are improbable, warns Alicja Bachulska, a policy fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR). "Beijing appears confident that time is on its side," Bachulska said. "China's strategic calculus, dominated by its rivalry with the US, currently assesses the EU as too internally fractured to exert meaningful pressure or leverage on Beijing, thereby closing any perceived 'window of opportunity' for a significant reset in relations, despite US actions."
France 24
19 minutes ago
- France 24
'So Trump-like': relief but no surprise in Japan as US cuts tariffs
Around 40 percent of kitchen blades produced in Seki, where knifemaking expertise dates back 700 years, are exported to the United States, local authorities say. The two countries announced Wednesday they had cut a deal to lower the 25-percent tariffs on Japanese goods threatened by US President Donald Trump -- starting on August 1 -- to 15 percent. "Lower tariffs are better" but "I'm not that surprised" at the trade deal, said Katsumi Sumikama, head of Sumikama Cutlery in Seki. "I don't know what truly happened, but I feel like maybe Trump thought tariffs up to 15 percent were acceptable, and boldly proposed a higher tariff rate at first," Sumikama told AFP. "Then as the negotiations took shape, he tried to create a good impression in the public eye by lowering it from 25 percent. That kind of strategy would be so Trump-like." The US leader, who hailed the Japan deal as "massive", has vowed to hit dozens of countries with punitive tariffs if they do not hammer out a pact with Washington by the end of July. Japan is one of five nations to have signed an agreement -- along with Britain, Vietnam, Indonesia and the Philippines -- after Trump said in April he would strike "90 deals in 90 days". Headlines have focused on the impact of US tariffs on the likes of Toyota and others in Japan's huge auto industry, as well as trade in steel, rice and other key goods. But Japanese knives have in recent years become a luxury must-have in kitchens worldwide including the United States, partly fuelled by a pandemic-era home cooking boom. 'Weathered the storm' Blademaking in Seki dates back to the 14th century, when the city in the mountains of Gifu region became a major producer of swords thanks to its rich natural environment. Today its knives are prized for their precision, sleek finish and long lifespan, with record tourism to Japan also boosting sales for companies like Sumikama Cutlery. Exports to North America, including Canada, account for just five percent of the firm's sales on a value basis. The company exports more knives to Europe and other Asian countries. CEO Sumikama, who is in his 60s, said he did not plan price hikes for the US market, even before the tariffs were reduced. Seki's industry has "weathered the storm" through the decades, including during exchange rate fluctuations -- with one dollar worth 80 yen or more than 300 yen at times, he told AFP. On the US side, clients have also survived tumultuous events such as the 2008 financial crisis, meaning they are "not worried at all" about tariffs, he added. If Trump is "trying to make America strong by deliberately raising tariffs" he should know that "problems cannot be solved by such simple means", Sumikama said, adding that "American people will have to bear the burden of higher costs". Sumikama Cutlery, which has about 30 workers, uses machines that guarantee accuracy to one-thousandth of a millimetre to make the knives, then artisans finish the job by hand. Japanese knives make food taste better, "have unique 'wabi-sabi' aesthetics" -- meaning beauty in imperfection -- "and when it comes to sharpness, they're second to none", Sumikama said. "Different countries have different strengths and weaknesses... even if President Trump tells people to make (Japanese-style) knives, they cannot." © 2025 AFP
LeMonde
an hour ago
- LeMonde
Trump urges Coca-Cola to use cane sugar, sparking backlash from Midwestern corn producers
Would you rather have corn syrup or cane sugar? That question has been on Americans' minds since Coca-Cola confirmed on Tuesday, July 22, that it would now produce a portion of its sweetened beverage using cane sugar in the US market. Donald Trump, a well-known fan of Diet Coke – which substitutes regular sugar with aspartame – spilled the beans on July 16, praising the shift by the Atlanta-based company. "I have been speaking to Coca-Cola about using REAL Cane Sugar in Coke in the United States, and they have agreed to do so. I'd like to thank all of those in authority at Coca-Cola," the president said in a message posted on his Truth Social platform. "This will be a very good move by them – You'll see. It's just better!" High-fructose corn syrup has come under fire from Trump and his health secretary, Robert Kennedy Jr., who has made the fight against junk food his top priority. "MAHA wins," Kennedy posted on X on July 19, referencing the acronym MAHA – modeled after Trump's MAGA ("Make America Great Again") – which stands for "Make America Healthy Again." But is that really true? Kennedy declared in April: "Sugar is poison." No one disputes this in a country plagued by endemic obesity, and all experts agree that it's necessary to reduce sugar consumption. "What makes soda unhealthy is that it's liquid sugar, providing empty calories with no nutritional benefits. Swapping one type of sugar for another does nothing to make soda healthier," Eva Greenthal, a researcher at the Center for Science in the Public Interest, told CNN.
