U.S. Ambassador to NATO Reveals Trump's Plan to Reassess American Military Presence in Europe After NATO Hague Summit

These remarks align closely with Trump's longstanding criticism of NATO, notably the disparity between U.S. and European defense spending.

Ambassador Whitaker, appointed as the U.S. Permanent Representative to NATO in April 2025, previously served as Acting U.S. Attorney General from November 2018 to February 2019 under President Donald Trump. His appointment to the NATO ambassadorship was confirmed by the Senate with a 52-45 vote, reflecting partisan divisions due to concerns over his qualifications and past controversies.

During his tenure as Acting Attorney General, Whitaker faced scrutiny for his oversight of the Mueller investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election. Critics questioned the legality of his appointment, as he had not been confirmed by the Senate for a previous role that would place him in the line of succession. Additionally, his prior public criticisms of the Mueller probe raised concerns about potential conflicts of interest.

Despite these controversies, Whitaker assured senators during his NATO confirmation hearing that the Trump administration's commitment to the alliance was "ironclad." He emphasized that his role would involve pressing NATO members to meet increased defense spending targets, aligning with President Trump's demands for greater burden-sharing among allies.

"Europe must step into an equalized role," Whitaker said at that hearing, echoing a familiar refrain from Trump administration officials. "Our allies must match America’s commitment in tangible terms." The Ambassador also discussed "equalization" in Tallinn but did not provide a definition of what he meant by the term.

Democrats expressed concerns during the hearings that Whitaker might too aggressively push Europe into commitments it was not yet ready to fulfill, potentially destabilizing the alliance at a moment of continuing geopolitical tensions.

European diplomats and officials have long feared that the U.S. could shift its military focus away from Europe toward the Asia-Pacific region, primarily to counterbalance China’s growing influence. Speculation intensified after NBC News reported last month that Pentagon officials had drafted scenarios outlining the withdrawal of approximately 10,000 troops from bases in Germany and Eastern Europe, though the administration refused to confirm those details.

Trump himself has publicly questioned the strategic rationale for keeping large U.S. troop deployments in Europe, calling such expenditures unnecessary and disproportionate compared to allies' commitments. This stance echoes a sentiment articulated decades earlier by General Dwight D. Eisenhower, NATO’s first supreme allied commander and later U.S. president, who himself once raised questions about the long-term presence of American troops on European soil. Whitaker alluded to this historical analogy during a panel discussion at the Lennart Meri Conference alongside Polish Foreign Minister Radosław Sikorski and Estonian Foreign Minister Margus Tsahkna.

Whitaker also sent a clear message that the time for debate was limited. "President Trump has just said enough," Whitaker said firmly. "This is going to happen now. It’s going to be orderly, but we're not going to have a lot of patience for any more foot-dragging."

With a touch of benevolent humor, one could note that Whitaker, a robust Trump loyalist, does somewhat resemble a debt collector from a collections agency who prefers hearty but gruff honesty to outright yelling. On his first official visit as the U.S. Ambassador to the alliance, he traveled to Estonia, repeatedly emphasizing in Tallinn that decisions will be made carefully to ensure no critical gaps are left in Europe. He also described himself as a "straightforward Midwesterner" [Whitaker was born in Des Moines, Iowa, and has spent much of his life in the Midwest] who likes to speak plainly.

According to a high-level Baltic governmental source, there is general awareness that "cuts are coming [to the U.S. military presence in Europe], but their exact scope remains unclear. The baseline reduction should be at least 10,000 troops, mainly affecting ground forces, logistics support for Ukraine, and other elements added over the past few years," the source stated.

However, the source noted that significantly larger cuts have not been ruled out, and paradoxically, discussions about more extensive cuts also primarily concern ground forces, despite the fact that ground forces wouldn't have a central role in a Pacific scenario.

"At least one faction within the political Pentagon would prefer to relocate those Army battalions to the U.S. southern border, where it would be possible to score far more political points than in South German barracks," the source commented. 

According to his assessment, it’s also crucial to consider what happens to the forces remaining in Europe. "Logically, it would make sense to reposition them closer to where the threat actually is, rather than keeping them far away at considerable logistical distances but still within Russian missile range in Germany," the senior foreign and security policy expert concluded.

Speaking in Tallinn about the possible reduction of U.S. forces in Europe, Whitaker referred to General and later President Dwight Eisenhower, who, as NATO’s first Supreme Allied Commander, famously stated in 1951: "If in ten years all American troops stationed in Europe for defense purposes have not been brought home, then this whole project (NATO) will have failed."

Even then, the goal was set for European allies to assume primary responsibility for their own defense relatively quickly. However, the Cold War rapidly intensified, resulting in U.S. troops maintaining a firm presence in Europe. By the mid-1950s, Washington emphasized nuclear deterrence as a means to reduce the need for extensive conventional forces in Europe. Nevertheless, the number of American troops stationed in Europe remained significant — around 450,000 soldiers in the late 1950s, decreasing slightly thereafter. By 1960, there were approximately a quarter million U.S. troops in West Germany, a figure that remained the standard for decades. In 2024, approximately 85,000 U.S. military personnel were estimated to be stationed in Europe on either a rotational or permanent basis.

By the late 1960s, the simultaneous U.S. military commitments in Europe and the Far East (Korea, Vietnam) became increasingly burdensome. Under a Pentagon initiative in 1968, about 28,000 U.S. troops were withdrawn from West Germany. Many of these were reassigned to Southeast Asia or returned to domestic bases to support operations in Vietnam.

As a replacement, the REFORGER concept (Return of Forces to Germany) was developed. In January 1969, for the first time, 12,000 American soldiers practiced rapid deployment to Europe, swiftly making use of pre-positioned equipment and ammunition, and immediately taking defensive positions. This demonstrated to NATO that while the U.S. intended to reduce its permanent peacetime forces, it remained capable of quickly reinforcing Europe if necessary.

Admiral James Stavridis, former NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe and current Bloomberg columnist, recently urged the revival of REFORGER in an opinion piece. Indeed, in recent years, the concept has seen a form of revival. 

Last year, in an interview with The Baltic Sentinel, Poland's former Chief of Defense, General Rajmund T. Andrzejczak, described how, at the start of the full-scale war in Ukraine, the U.S. swiftly deployed Global Response Forces to Poland, subsequently supporting the immediate landing of a brigade from the 82nd Airborne Division arriving from across the Atlantic. However, even these reinforcement operations require political approval from Washington, prompting the Polish government to unsuccessfully request replacing the rotating U.S. presence with permanent forces.

Representatives of the Estonian and Lithuanian governments have confirmed they have heard no plans about the withdrawal of U.S. forces from the Baltic states. Yet, considering the previously cited official's assessment that Trump might target forces supporting operations in Ukraine — primarily those recently deployed — this suggests a potential withdrawal of troops stationed in Poland. 

Such a move would directly and significantly affect Baltic security. In such a scenario, there would no longer be grounds to claim that these cutbacks don't affect Baltics. Ambassador Whitaker promised to listen closely to allies, and it is up to the Baltic leaders to clearly convey to the United States the symbolic and military damage of withdrawing from Poland or elsewhere close to Russia's border (Romania hosts a considerable U.S. presence). Given Donald Trump's decision-making style, these steps might happen abruptly and decisively — boom, done.