Donald Trump’s pressure is pushing Europe to increase defense spending and reconsider its dependence on American weapons. At the same time, the United States continues to use European military bases for operations far beyond the continent. This contradiction has become one of NATO’s biggest challenges: the alliance has not fallen apart, but trust among its members is weakening, and European countries are increasingly looking for ways to provide for their own security.
As informed by Reuters
At Mihail Kogălniceanu Air Base in Romania, streets are named after the states of Alabama, Ohio and Alaska, as well as George Washington. American troops have been stationed there since 1999. The base supported U.S. operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and is now located on NATO’s eastern flank, near the border with Ukraine.
Last year, roughly half of the approximately 2,000 American troops left Romania. This was part of a broader review of the U.S. military presence in Europe by the Trump administration and raised concerns in a country where Russian drones have repeatedly entered NATO territory.
Yet in July, nine American KC-135 tanker aircraft were at the base. They supported U.S. aircraft and bombers during the war with Iran. Their crews and personnel partly offset the departure of troops, and more than two months later, the aircraft were still there. This example shows how much Washington still depends on Europe’s military infrastructure.
This duality defines Trump’s current standoff with NATO’s 32 members. The U.S. president has threatened to reduce the American troop presence, demanded that allies increase defense spending, and criticized European governments for refusing to give unreserved support to the U.S.-Israeli war against Iran. At the same time, the United States continues to invest in important military facilities in Europe and use them for operations on the continent, in the Middle East and beyond.
A survey of more than 50 current and former Western officials, military personnel, diplomats and experts suggests that NATO is under serious strain but has not yet broken apart. Nine current and former U.S. officials believe that Republicans and Democrats in Congress, along with U.S. defense companies with a stake in the European market, have enough influence to prevent the country from leaving the alliance. Trump has repeatedly threatened to do so.
But even without a formal U.S. withdrawal, his statements are damaging the alliance. European governments increasingly doubt America’s reliability as a security partner. These doubts are already affecting defense budgets, weapons purchases and long-term planning.
The weakening of trust in Article 5 of the NATO treaty is a particular concern. It states that an armed attack against one member will be considered an attack against them all. Unreliable American guarantees could seriously weaken deterrence against Russia, which is pursuing an aggressive and openly expansionist policy along Europe’s eastern borders.
At least eight alliance members, including Canada, Poland, Denmark and Spain, are looking for ways to reduce their dependence on American weapons, technology and manufacturers. Trump’s campaign to force Europe to spend more on defense could therefore backfire on American companies.
The pressure on Europe has worked, but it has created serious uncertainty. Europe is spending more, taking defense more seriously and shouldering more responsibility – that is a real success. But there is also genuine concern in Europe that the United States could abandon it.
– J.C. Linzenich
Linzenich, who left public service in February after working with Pentagon leaders, the director of national intelligence and members of Congress, sees the increase in European spending as a positive outcome. At the same time, he emphasizes the allies’ fear of being left without American support.
White House spokesperson Olivia Wales said Trump had done more for NATO than anyone else and would always defend U.S. interests without apology. The increase in European defense budgets is also linked to Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022: the war has destroyed cities, claimed hundreds of thousands of lives and forced millions of people to leave their homes.
U.S. Ambassador to NATO Matthew Whitaker described a strong alliance as one in which allies hold one another accountable. NATO, for its part, pointed to remarks by Secretary General Mark Rutte, who credited Trump with helping increase defense spending among alliance members.
U.S. troop reductions in Europe: What can the Pentagon decide?
In June, ahead of the NATO defense ministers’ meeting in Brussels, U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth planned to announce a reduction of about 25,000 troops in Europe, according to two American officials. This would have brought the number of American troops below the 76,000 minimum set by Congress. The requirement was approved by law last year.
The plan met resistance within the Trump administration itself. Instead of announcing cuts, Hegseth told allies that the Pentagon would conduct a six-month review of the U.S. military presence in Europe. He said particular attention would be paid to countries that hesitate when Washington asks for support. Hegseth warned that some allies might receive a negative assessment.
In August, the Pentagon prepared a document with 57 questions for allies, intended to assess their military, financial and political commitment to the United States. One question asked whether a country had publicly supported U.S. foreign policy priorities.
The review exposed disagreements in Washington over how far the United States might reduce its role in Europe. Five senior aides to members of Congress from both parties described growing distrust of the way Hegseth handles NATO affairs. One said Republican and Democratic senators feared a move that could harm the alliance or U.S. national security.
According to three people familiar with the matter, one possible outcome of the review could be a proposal to cut the troop presence by the same 25,000. The White House says the review is intended to ensure an irreversible transition to European-led defense in Europe. The Pentagon described the review as serious, thorough and based on consultation and facts.
More than 81,000 U.S. service members are currently in Europe. The number fluctuates because of rotations and exercises. By comparison, during the four years before Trump’s first term began in 2017, an average of about 65,000 American troops and other service members were stationed in Europe. There were about 74,000 during Trump’s first term, and the number rose to 105,000 after Russia invaded Ukraine under President Joe Biden. Before Trump returned to the White House in 2025, it had fallen back to roughly its current level.
The standoff over NATO is part of a broader reassessment of the international order that the United States helped build after World War II. Trump’s “America First” approach prioritizes American influence and bilateral deals over multilateral cooperation and established rules.
American bases in Europe remain important to Washington
Most allies have met Trump’s demand to increase defense spending. The NATO summit in Ankara in July, which could have sparked an open conflict, was called a great success by the U.S. president. But the six-month review of the U.S. military presence remains the main source of uncertainty.
Some European officials believe NATO’s military leadership can manage a gradual reduction in American forces. Others fear that allies will begin competing for Washington’s favor. Officials in Romania and Poland say both countries are working quietly but persistently to keep American troops on their territory.
Why do all these countries want American soldiers on their soil? Because it is the best deterrent – a human shield.
– George Scutaru
That is how Romanian defense expert George Scutaru, head of the Bucharest-based New Strategy Center think tank, explained the allies’ interest. The war with Iran also showed that Washington depends on Europe’s geography even as relations with its allies deteriorate.
In late March, Italy refused to let some American military aircraft land at Sigonella Air Base in Sicily before flying to the Middle East. However, by the end of June, more than 500 American aircraft had passed through Italian bases, including 343 through Sigonella and 211 through Aviano in the north of the country. Many were carrying ammunition.
On June 20, Trump criticized Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni for refusing to give the Americans access to Italian runways, calling it a serious logistical inconvenience. The Italian government did not respond to a request for comment.
Since 1949, NATO has helped the United States station troops in Europe, deter adversaries and maintain a military presence beyond the continent. In return, Europe receives the protection of the world’s most powerful military. This partnership long enjoyed broad bipartisan support in Washington, but Trump has argued for decades that other countries are taking advantage of American protection at someone else’s expense.
In a 1987 interview with CNN, Trump said Americans were tired of other countries taking advantage of the United States. During his 2016 presidential campaign, he demanded that allies pay more and said he would not mind if NATO fell apart. During his first term, he pushed to increase defense spending from 2% to 4% of gross domestic product, and before returning to office in 2025, he called for 5%.
In March 2025, Trump said he would not defend countries that did not pay. According to NATO, European allies and Canada together spent 2.3% of their GDP on defense in 2025. All of them except Spain agreed to spend 5% on defense and broader security-related costs by 2035.
Former Republican Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, who served as U.S. ambassador to NATO during Trump’s first term, believes he places greater importance on relations with the leaders of Russia and China than on traditional allies. If China is a long-term adversary of the United States, she said, America needs allies.
Despite criticizing the alliance, Washington continues to fund important facilities at European military bases. In Spain, which Trump has called a poor partner and a hopeless case for NATO, the United States shows no intention of giving up Naval Station Rota or Morón Air Base. In May and June, Washington announced upgrades to aviation infrastructure and contracts for $400 million in construction work at Morón. They are intended to help maintain and improve the base over the next decade.
Rota and Morón give the United States access to the Atlantic Ocean and the Mediterranean Sea and help project military power into the Middle East and North Africa. At the Ankara summit, Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez called the stationing of American troops in Europe a sovereign decision by the United States and described Spain’s military relationship with Washington as excellent.
In Romania, the United States has invested more than $100 million in expanding Mihail Kogălniceanu Air Base. Separately, Romania is funding a project worth about $2.7 billion. By 2040, it is expected to turn the base into NATO’s largest air base in Europe, capable of accommodating up to 20,000 people.
After criticizing British Prime Minister Keir Starmer for providing limited support for U.S. strikes on Iran, the United States is spending more than $4.2 billion on existing and planned projects at seven British air bases, according to a presentation by a U.S. Air Force unit. American bombers have carried out strikes on Iranian targets from at least one of them. This underscores Europe’s importance to U.S. operations beyond the continent.
Russian provocations and doubts about NATO unity
A formal U.S. withdrawal from NATO is not necessary to weaken the alliance. In the assessment of at least twelve current and former officials from Europe, the United States and Canada, Trump’s rhetoric alone could convince Russian President Vladimir Putin that the West is divided and more vulnerable than it appears.
Officials fear that Moscow is testing this hypothesis through a series of acts of sabotage in Europe that European countries blame on Russia. Incidents in August included an attempted drone attack on a German airport and a fire at a Polish drone factory.
In July, two days after a visit to the Romanian air base, NATO scrambled Romanian fighter jets to intercept a Russian drone that had entered the country’s airspace. It was shot down by a Romanian F-16 that had taken off from another base. Two more drones, also believed to be Russian, were shot down in the following days. In late July, a Russian cruise missile fell in Poland, another country on NATO’s front line.
Russia’s ambassador to Belgium, Denis Gonchar, denied Moscow’s involvement in the incidents in Germany, Poland and Romania. He called them provocations by Ukraine and other parties allegedly seeking to draw NATO and the European Union into direct conflict with Russia.
European officials accuse Moscow of increasingly brazen violations and see them as part of a campaign to undermine support for Ukraine and test NATO’s unity. Marius Lazurca, national security adviser to Romanian President Nicușor Dan, said that on August 16, a Spanish pilot in an American fighter jet intercepted a drone over Romania. In his view, this was an example of NATO solidarity.
It is obvious that Russia is testing Romania’s defense capabilities and NATO’s response.
– George Scutaru
At the same time, allies do not always understand exactly what Washington expects of them. Poland and Germany have increased defense spending but may still face a reduction in the American troop presence. Denmark spends a larger share of its GDP on defense than the United States, yet Trump is threatening to take over Greenland.
Germany’s Foreign Ministry said the United States would continue to play an important role as Europe takes on more responsibility for its own defense. Denmark’s Defense Ministry did not respond to a request for comment.
Discussions at the Pentagon about possible measures against allies Trump considered disloyal created further tension. In one internal memo, U.S. Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Elbridge Colby discussed the possibility of suspending Spain’s NATO membership after Madrid refused to support the strikes on Iran. The alliance has no mechanism for suspending a country’s membership. Allies arrived at the Ankara summit expecting a confrontation, but Trump shifted from criticizing Spain to praising its warm welcome.
Europe and Canada seek alternatives to American weapons
NATO governments are not waiting for final clarity from Washington. They are rearming at the fastest pace in decades, and some are also looking for alternatives to American military technology.
The increase in spending is being driven both by Trump’s threats and by Russia’s war against Ukraine. According to NATO, European allies and Canada increased their combined defense spending by 20% in 2025 compared with the previous year.
Trump predicted that American defense companies would make significant profits from this. At a meeting with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte in July 2025, he said the United States would produce weapons paid for by the allies. A year later, at the Ankara summit, Trump said the allies had increased defense spending by $150 billion in 2025 and added that they all wanted American equipment.
However, at least eight of NATO’s 32 members – Canada, Poland, Denmark, Spain, Norway, Turkey, France and Germany – are considering how to reduce their dependence on weapons, technology and manufacturers from the United States. One reason is doubts about how long American support will last.
Wendy Gilmour, a former NATO assistant secretary general for defense investment, said that many people had once thought Trump’s first election was a fluke and expected the United States to remain a reliable ally. His re-election, she said, is seen as a deliberate choice, after which America no longer seems like the exceptional democracy it was once considered to be.
Europe cannot yet replace some of the most advanced American military technology. But Canada, Poland and other countries are already buying more non-American equipment, from radars to combat aircraft.
This is causing concern at the Pentagon. In a post in July, Elbridge Colby urged allies to work with the American defense industry rather than try unsuccessfully to recreate or replace it.
Canada, which is engaged in a trade dispute with Trump, illustrates the complexity of these relations. Three former senior Canadian government officials said the Pentagon had sent mixed signals about Ottawa’s efforts to diversify its defense procurement. In June, Canada chose an Australian-made Arctic radar system worth $1.7 billion over an American one. A former Canadian official involved in the decision said the Pentagon supported the choice because the Australian company had promised to deliver the system several years earlier than its American competitor.
At the same time, American officials expressed concern about Canada’s purchase of Swedish-made airborne early warning aircraft instead of American ones, and its consideration of buying Swedish Gripen fighter jets in addition to American F-35s. One Pentagon official questioned whether Canada was a reliable partner in the joint defense of North America as a result.
Canada’s Department of National Defence said it had not yet decided whether to buy additional F-35s after the first batch, due to arrive this year, or choose an alternative. The procurement review is ongoing, and the country aims to secure the greatest possible economic benefits for Canadian businesses and workers.
Gijs Tuinman, a former Dutch minister for defense procurement and personnel, believes dissatisfaction with Trump could prompt European governments to reconsider their participation in major American defense programs. In his view, this could cost U.S. companies billions of dollars.
The risk is enormous. In fact, it is already almost happening.
– Gijs Tuinman
F-35 manufacturer Lockheed Martin said it was seeing strong demand for the fighter and its other products among NATO countries. According to a document accompanying the Pentagon budget, Poland and Finland are due to receive their first F-35s this year, while Canada and Germany will receive theirs later.
Denis Gonchar said the threat from Russia was being exaggerated to persuade Europeans to keep buying expensive American weapons.
Decades of military integration with the United States cannot be undone quickly: building manufacturing capacity takes years, and developing many types of weapons takes even longer. However, a growing number of European, American and Canadian officials see Europe’s dependence on American technology, supply chains and political leadership as a strategic risk.
Chris Chivvis, a former senior U.S. intelligence official for Europe, noted that a responsible European leader cannot entrust their country’s future security entirely to the United States, as European states did after the Cold War. In his view, a major shift in attitudes is taking place in Europe.
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen reflected these sentiments in her annual State of the European Union address. In a 70-minute speech, she did not mention the United States, warned of a rupture in the rules-based international system and urged Europe to urgently rethink its partnerships.
Von der Leyen proposed that Canada become the EU’s first associate member, which would involve closer cooperation on defense, trade and other areas. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, who was in the European Parliament in Strasbourg, received a standing ovation.
Trust in the United States and the future of the transatlantic partnership
In public, European governments continue to project confidence in NATO. Portugal, Norway, Germany and Spain said in response to inquiries that the alliance remained united despite the tensions. Norway called the United States its most important ally, while Portugal said NATO was unimaginable without America.
Germany’s Foreign Ministry also noted that American companies continue to supply a significant share of Germany’s military equipment purchases.
But for deterrence to work, Russia and other adversaries must believe that the United States will defend Europe. Recent polls show that many Europeans doubt Washington’s willingness to come to their aid, while dislike of Trump and distrust of the United States are growing.
A July poll by the Pew Research Center found that people in most of the 36 countries surveyed viewed China more favorably than the United States. Nine NATO members were among them: Canada, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden and Turkey.
Senator Jeanne Shaheen, the senior Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and co-chair of the Senate NATO Observer Group, called the results alarming. Europeans, she said, no longer consider Trump a reliable ally.
According to twelve current and former Western officials, Trump’s plans for Greenland have done the most to undermine trust. Jody Thomas, who served as Canada’s national security adviser from 2022 to 2024, said the United States’ current actions no longer seem either sensible or rational.
In January, at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Trump ruled out seizing Greenland, an autonomous territory of Denmark, by force, but did not abandon his interest in it. In August, a photomontage appeared on his social media page showing the U.S. president towering over Greenland’s mountains and houses, with the words “Hello, Greenland!”
The war in Ukraine exposes weaknesses in NATO’s military readiness
Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine has tested new types of weapons and forced NATO to consider whether the alliance is ready for the next war. Five Ukrainian and Western defense officials said battlefield conditions are changing so quickly that some of NATO’s weapons systems and tactics risk becoming obsolete. Ukraine, which is not an alliance member, adapts in weeks, while NATO procures and develops systems over years, sometimes decades.
The war in Ukraine and Trump’s pressure on European allies have prompted NATO countries to significantly increase defense spending. At the same time, the Pentagon is reviewing its military presence in Europe. Trump accuses the allies of taking advantage of American protection while refusing to support his unpopular war against Iran.
Denys Shtilerman, co-owner and chief designer at Ukrainian missile and drone manufacturer Fire Point, called tanks “worthless” because a drone costing about $5,000 can destroy one. At the same time, European countries continue to spend heavily on tanks, which many military analysts believe will retain an important role in future battles.
Cheap drones have changed other aspects of warfare too: groups of troops and large convoys of vehicles have become much easier targets.
They are good at storming positions. But if there’s a drone above you and you’re not even looking up, what do you think will happen to your unit?
– Oleksandr Pivnenko
That is how Ukraine’s National Guard commander Oleksandr Pivnenko described the training of international military personnel who trained with his units last year. In June, at NATO exercises near Paldiski, Estonia, American and European troops treated dozens of simulated casualties in field hospitals. The scenario assumed that NATO controlled the airspace above the medical facilities. But in an era of long-range, low-signature drones, that control can no longer be taken for granted.
Ukrainian officials say Ukraine is increasingly not just receiving training and assistance from NATO, but also sharing its experience of fighting Russia with the alliance. At the same time, they believe NATO’s military bureaucracy is slow to learn these lessons. A Ukrainian officer who attended NATO psychological operations training in Romania said some of the training materials still use examples from World War II. The alliance did not respond to questions about the criticism of its training programs and bureaucracy.
The war has also exposed a much harder problem to solve: a shortage of air and missile defense capabilities. Russian strikes on Ukrainian cities have demonstrated Europe’s dependence on complex American systems, including the Patriot, first used during the 1991 Gulf War. Ukraine is critically short of interceptor missiles to destroy airborne threats.
To prevent dependence on Patriots from becoming a strategic vulnerability, Europe is developing alternatives. Ukraine is awaiting the new Franco-Italian SAMP/T NG air defense system, designed to intercept ballistic missiles. France has promised to speed up its deployment in Ukraine; European diplomats had previously expected the system to arrive by next spring.
Ukraine’s Defense Ministry said Ukrainian forces and NATO service members have much to learn from one another. The ministry described Ukraine’s use of drones and electronic warfare as unmatched anywhere in the world and highlighted European countries’ efforts to counter Russian drone and missile attacks.
In July, Ukraine and nine European allies formed an air defense coalition. It envisages the joint development of a new ballistic missile interception system. The Freya project brings together about a dozen companies, with Fire Point as its leading private partner. The aim is to build a system that can be produced more cheaply and quickly than the Patriot, while keeping control of production in Europe rather than the United States.
If you’re spending $20 billion on an air defense system, you have to be independent when it comes to your own security.
– Denys Shtilerman
Trump’s pressure has already accelerated Europe’s rearmament, but it has also deepened doubts about how reliable American guarantees will be. NATO remains in place for now, and the United States continues to rely on European bases and allies. But countries across the continent are investing more actively in their own capabilities and alternative technologies. The alliance’s future will depend not only on defense budgets, but also on whether its members can rebuild trust and maintain their shared commitment to defend one another.