Donald Trump’s decision to withdraw thousands of U.S. troops from Germany, review a planned deployment to Poland, and freeze a project to station Tomahawk missiles on German soil has set off alarm bells in European capitals. In the Old Continent, fears are growing that those moves could be the first step toward a structural reconfiguration of NATO — or even a deeper U.S. pullback within the alliance.
The Pentagon insists the reduction of its presence in Europe will be gradual and will not affect the Alliance’s defensive capability. In fact, on Thursday, after his team suspended the dispatch of an armored brigade to Poland, Trump said he would send 5,000 troops to that country, one of Washington’s closest allies. A clear contrast with the snub to Germany after its chancellor, Friedrich Merz, criticized the U.S. over its war in Iran.
The signs are clear: the U.S. is moving toward a more transactional relationship with NATO and seeks to keep in Europe only those military capabilities that directly serve its global strategic interests — interests increasingly focused on the Americas and Asia and less on European soil.
Friday’s meeting of NATO foreign ministers in Helsingborg, Sweden, which was expected to include U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, will serve as a thermometer for the strained transatlantic relationship. European allies are anxious and curious about a session in which the U.S. top diplomat will try to soothe nerves and present the cuts as a “gradual adaptation” of the U.S. military presence.
NATO secretary general Mark Rutte has chosen to accept the White House’s diagnosis. “This excessive dependence must end,” he warned on Thursday in Sweden, echoing White House pressure for Europe to assume a greater share of its own defense. “It is right that we rebalance so the United States can also turn more to other scenarios,” the Dutchman added.
The Alliance coordinator, whose main task now (and perhaps the most difficult) is to keep Trump inside the military organization and try to prevent him from causing an irreparable blaze, frames the U.S. pullback not as a rupture but as a transition to a “more balanced” alliance.
But the reality is that European allies’ sense of vulnerability does not lie only in losing troops or capabilities, but in the erosion of the U.S. defense umbrella — and in the worry that the hole in that historic shield may be irreparable.
The shift is not a total surprise. Washington has been warning for months (even the previous administration of Democrat Joe Biden spoke of reducing the U.S. presence in Europe) that it would lighten its burden in the Alliance. However, allies are only beginning to digest and accept now, after concrete announcements, that the change is real.
Mistrust has been worsened by tensions with Russia on the Baltic flank and by a growing sense in Berlin, Paris, and Brussels that the transatlantic relationship is entering a phase of strategic uncertainty unseen since the end of the Cold War.
Reward or punishment
For now, several allied diplomatic sources say, the troop withdrawal announcements do not do structural damage to the Alliance. Moreover, Trump’s social media announcement that he would send more troops to Poland — in which he simultaneously praised its president, the far-right Karol Nawrocki — shows the U.S. leader uses these decisions as reward or punishment. That is also a warning to others.
Although the decision about troops in Germany does not substantially alter the military balance — the U.S. still has thousands of soldiers in that country — the halt to sending Tomahawks is causing concern.
The deployment of a U.S. battalion with long-range missiles in Germany had been agreed under the Biden administration as a central piece of new deterrence against Russia. But a few weeks ago, the Trump administration cancelled it. The official explanation is that Washington needs those missiles, but in Berlin the move has been read as a punishment of Germany — and of Merz.
The Tomahawk case has become one of NATO’s largest flashpoints in 2026. It is forcing Europe to accelerate autonomous long-range strike capabilities, several allied sources acknowledge.
Washington’s decision removes “a key component” of Europe’s deterrence against Moscow and leaves the continent exposed during years of military transition, underscores an analysis by the EU Institute for Security Studies (EUISS).
Unease in allied European capitals is not limited to the substance of the decisions. It also extends to how they were communicated — or, rather, largely not communicated. Only a few allies were informed, and with little notice, about Washington’s adjustments to the military organization. The process has been distinctly unilateral.
Sign up for our weekly newsletter to get more English-language news coverage from EL PAÍS USA Edition
