With the world’s attention focused on wars in the Middle East and Ukraine, a major geopolitical development in Europe has gone largely unnoticed: US President Donald Trump’s decision to pull 5,000 troops out of Germany after it refused to support US and Israeli attacks on Iran. While the move represents less than 10 percent of the roughly 80,000 to 90,000 US military personnel stationed in Europe, it amounts to a shot across the continent’s bow.
Is this gesture largely symbolic, or would the withdrawal harm NATO and weaken Europe’s security? Is there more to come if the Europeans continue to defy Trump? And what are the longer-term strategic implications — not just in Europe, but in Asia too?
Pressure to reduce the US military footprint in Europe is not entirely new. During my four years as Supreme Allied Commander of NATO, I often dealt with such concerns. This was at the height of the “forever wars” in Iraq and Afghanistan from 2009 to 2013, when we needed more combat power in those countries. It was also before Russian President Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine and during the days of the Obama administration’s “pivot to Asia.” As a result, we looked hard at reductions in Europe.
WARSHIPS IN ROTA
What makes this moment different is the tone and rhetoric associated with the withdrawal. Trump is clearly frustrated with Europe, especially German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, who said the US was being “humiliated” by Iran. In addition to Germany, the UK, Spain and Italy have drawn Trump’s ire for not providing full access to US operations at their bases. It is certainly possible — even likely — that this could be the start of a broader shift.
The US could continue the drawdown trend by reducing the number of warships in Rota, Spain, which is the home port of six US Navy guided missile destroyers. (Rota is the most requested destination in the Navy by sailors indicating their duty preferences, by the way.) Another target could be the Army forces in Italy, including the 173rd Airborne Brigade, one of the rapid reaction forces for the US and NATO. The US could choose to pull Air Force squadrons out of the United Kingdom as well.
If the administration continues to cut forces in Europe, it would have two effects. One would be to supercharge the European defense “awakening” that has been in progress since Putin invaded Ukraine. If the US continues to pull out of Europe, the Europeans would respond by raising their defense spending, bringing more troops onto active duty and shouldering a greater share of the defense burden. This is not a bad thing overall, of course.
The other effect, however, would be to weaken US influence over NATO and its EU partners. Would those countries be as likely to accompany the US to Asia, for example, and challenge China’s claims of sovereignty over the massive South China Sea? Probably not. They would also be even less enthusiastic about participating in further US military operations in the Middle East — for example, helping to reopen the Strait of Hormuz.
Another potential effect of the troop withdrawals — especially if the administration goes on to cut forces in Italy, the UK and Spain — would be to discourage other nations from wanting to host the US. Being a host nation is not cheap: Japan covers up to 75 percent of the costs of stationing US forces in the form of offsets to salaries, utilities and base construction, for example, while South Korea contributes close to 50 percent. European nations also contribute significantly.
IMPORTANT BENEFITS
They do this because having the US military living within their borders provides a deeper sense of security, and offers a boost to the local economy. However, if they see the US pull out without any warning or consultation, they would begin to reconsider those benefits.
For the US, stationing troops overseas has some financial costs — but pulling them back to the US could ultimately cost even more. The advantages for the US in overseas stations, meanwhile, are clear: US forces are forward-deployed near global hotspots; they deter attacks on US allies and ultimately the US itself; and they are constantly training and interacting with allies. Those are important benefits.
On balance, while there can be day-to-day frustrations within the US’ global network of allies, partners and friends, the benefits of overseas basing generally outweigh the downside. If we are going to reduce forces overall — a questionable decision given the turbulent geopolitics of the moment — let us do it in careful consultation with our friends. A sudden, unplanned and angry departure could create more problems than it solves.
James Stavridis is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist, a retired US Navy admiral, former supreme allied commander of NATO, and vice chairman at Carlyle. This column reflects the personal views of the author and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
From the Iran war and nuclear weapons to tariffs and artificial intelligence, the agenda for this week’s Beijing summit between US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) is packed. Xi would almost certainly bring up Taiwan, if only to demonstrate his inflexibility on the matter. However, no one needs to meet with Xi face-to-face to understand his stance. A visit to the National Museum of China in Beijing — in particular, the “Road to Rejuvenation” exhibition, which chronicles the rise and rule of the Chinese Communist Party — might be even more revealing. Xi took the members
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) on Friday used their legislative majority to push their version of a special defense budget bill to fund the purchase of US military equipment, with the combined spending capped at NT$780 billion (US$24.78 billion). The bill, which fell short of the Executive Yuan’s NT$1.25 trillion request, was passed by a 59-0 margin with 48 abstentions in the 113-seat legislature. KMT Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文), who reportedly met with TPP Chairman Huang Kuo-chang (黃國昌) for a private meeting before holding a joint post-vote news conference, was said to have mobilized her
Before the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and its People’s Liberation Army (PLA) can blockade, invade, and destroy the democracy on Taiwan, the CCP seeks to make the world an accomplice to Taiwan’s subjugation by harassing any government that confers any degree of marginal recognition, or defies the CCP’s “One China Principle” diktat that there is no free nation of Taiwan. For United States President Donald Trump’s upcoming May 14, 2026 visit to China, the CCP’s top wish has nothing to do with Trump’s ongoing dismantling of the CCP’s Axis of Evil. The CCP’s first demand is for Trump to cease US
As artificial intelligence (AI) becomes increasingly widespread in workplaces, some people stand to benefit from the technology while others face lower wages and fewer job opportunities. However, from a longer-term perspective, as AI is applied more extensively to business operations, the personnel issue is not just about changes in job opportunities, but also about a structural mismatch between skills and demand. This is precisely the most pressing issue in the current labor market. Tai Wei-chun (戴偉峻), director-general of the Institute of Artificial Intelligence Innovation at the Institute for Information Industry, said in a recent interview with the Chinese-language Liberty Times
RSS