As President Donald Trump pauses his tariff measures against global trading partners, NATO allies are increasingly alarmed by signals of a reduced U.S. commitment to defending the transatlantic alliance. These concerns come as NATO officials gather in Brussels this week, raising questions about the future of U.S. involvement in Europe amid broader strategic shifts.
On Thursday, NATO members convened in Brussels to discuss military engagement and logistical support for a multinational “reassurance force” aimed at safeguarding Ukraine’s long-term defense and security. However, the United States will not be attending the meeting, leaving many wondering about its evolving role within the alliance.
The absence of U.S. leadership was particularly evident during the Ukraine Defense Contact Group (UDCG) meeting, which will be chaired by the UK and Germany on Friday. This group, established to coordinate military aid to Ukraine, was originally led by the U.S. under Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin. Since the appointment of his successor, Pete Hegseth, the U.S. has yet to chair a UDCG meeting, and Hegseth will not attend the upcoming session either, signaling a potential shift in U.S. priorities.
A source familiar with the situation described the shift as more than just a matter of style, suggesting it reflects a broader change in U.S. strategic thinking that places Europe in a secondary position. “The tariffs speak to that, but so does the language used by Hegseth and Vance, describing Europeans as freeloaders,” the source told Euronews. “This sentiment is deeply embedded in this team, and it’s worrisome for the alliance.”
Despite these concerns, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio sought to quell fears during a foreign minister’s summit last week, asserting that the U.S. remains active within NATO. “The United States is in NATO, and we are as active in NATO as we’ve ever been,” Rubio said, dismissing the concerns as “hyperbole.”
However, NATO diplomats are bracing for a potential reduction in U.S. troop levels in Europe, with reports suggesting that between 10,000 to 50,000 U.S. troops could be withdrawn as part of the U.S. pivot to the Indo-Pacific. This shift has raised alarms, particularly regarding the U.S. military’s longstanding leadership role within NATO. There are even unconfirmed reports that the U.S. may step back from its role in NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR), a position traditionally held by a U.S. general.
While NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte and U.S. Defense Secretary Hegseth have both sought to downplay these concerns, saying there are no immediate plans for a full-scale troop withdrawal, the ambiguity surrounding the future of U.S. involvement remains troubling. “We have had this debate for many years,” Rutte acknowledged, referring to the need for the U.S. to balance its global responsibilities.
The recent appointment of Elbridge Colby, a prominent China hawk, as the Pentagon’s top advisor has further fueled speculation that the U.S. may reduce its military presence in Europe in favor of a stronger focus on the Indo-Pacific. Colby has argued in the past that U.S. forces should be reallocated from Europe to counter rising threats from China.
As NATO grapples with these shifts, the alliance’s future direction remains uncertain. While the U.S. continues to express support for NATO, the growing doubts about its long-term commitment to European defense are making many in Brussels uneasy.
