Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth flew to Brussels on June 18, 2026, and announced a six-month Pentagon review of every American troop and asset stationed in Europe. He said the outcome depends on how fast European allies take primary responsibility for their own security. He called the new direction "NATO 3.0" — a rebooted alliance where Europe leads, the U.S. scales back, and the old Cold War burden-sharing model is gone. The announcement came three weeks after the Pentagon pulled 5,000 troops from Germany, and it's almost certainly not the end of the drawdown.

1. The US Is Done Waiting (Hegseth, Trump)

Hegseth is blunt: Europe chose gender equity over artillery for decades, and America paid for it.

Europe made the wrong choices. Hegseth told NATO defense ministers that instead of tanks, fighters, and air defenses, European governments focused on "gender equity and climate change and defense austerity." He said the upcoming review "is a review that some countries will fail, and others will pass with flying colors," and that he'd "be candid about that both in private and in public."

The Iran war exposed the freeloading. When U.S. forces needed base access in Europe to conduct operations against Iran, European allies said no. Hegseth called it "shameful" and said those allies "put America's sons and daughters at risk by denying them the predictable access, basing and overflight that never should have been in question at all." Pentagon General Alexus Grynkewich described the same problem more diplomatically: an "unhealthy co-dependence" on American forces.

America is spending more, not pulling back globally. The U.S. plans a $1.5 trillion defense investment for fiscal year 2027. This review isn't a retreat — it's forcing Europe to finally pick up what it was always supposed to carry.

2. But Europe Says It's Already Moving (Rutte, Pistorius, European Defense Ministers)

European allies argue they answered the call — and Hegseth's framing ignores the last year entirely.

European officials say the surge is already happening. NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte called the direction "a stronger Europe in a stronger NATO," described the $90 billion increase in European and Canadian defense spending in 2025 as "an astounding figure," and said allies would "demonstrate progress" at the Brussels meeting. It's a 20% year-over-year increase. Rutte credited Hegseth's February 2025 speech for spurring it.

The formal commitment was already made. At the June 2025 Hague Summit, NATO allies committed to spending 5% of GDP on core defense requirements by 2035, up from the old 2% benchmark. Spain negotiated an exemption, pushing the final text to read "allies commit" rather than a universal pledge. NATO is also finalizing a new force model that specifies which nations provide troops, aircraft, ships, and refueling tankers as U.S. asset categories shrink.

Germany's own defense minister called the troop withdrawal "foreseeable." Boris Pistorius stressed the mutual benefit of the American presence but acknowledged that "European allies needed to adjust their defense postures." European officials say the adjustment is happening — and that Hegseth is grading a test Europe is actively taking.

3. Still, the Hawks in Both Parties Say This Backfires on America (Wicker, Reed, Rogers, Smith)

The sharpest critics of the drawdown aren't European leaders — they're American lawmakers from both parties.

Pulling troops early sends the wrong signal to Putin. Senate Armed Services Committee Chair Roger Wicker and House Armed Services Chair Mike Rogers issued a joint statement warning that withdrawing forces "risks undermining deterrence and sending the wrong signal to Vladimir Putin." They're not against Europe spending more. They're against the unilateral timing.

The stakes go beyond Europe. Germany hosts the European Command headquarters, Ramstein Air Base, and U.S. nuclear missile sites. Defense experts note that American presence there "facilitates the projection of American military power into the Mediterranean, the Middle East, and Africa" — not just the defense of Germany. Pulling back changes America's reach, not just Europe's risk.

Democrats are using sharper language. Sen. Jack Reed of Rhode Island, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said the withdrawal "suggests American commitments to our allies are dependent on the president's mood." Rep. Adam Smith called it "not grounded in any coherent U.S. national security policy" and said it would "embolden Russia." Republican lawmakers are exploring appropriations controls, nomination holds, and authorization bill provisions to constrain future moves — Rep. Rogers has vowed to impose "pain" if the administration violates statutory force posture minimums.

Where This Lands

Hegseth says NATO was broken before he got there and the review fixes it. Rutte and European defense ministers largely agree on the destination — more European autonomy — even while disputing where Europe is starting from. The bipartisan bloc of U.S. defense hawks doesn't disagree that Europe should spend more; they disagree that America should pull back before Europe's replacement capacity actually exists. Turkey hosts a NATO summit next month, and the six-month review clock is now running.

Sources