It was last month announced by the Pentagon that up to 1,000 US troops currently stationed in Romania will be brought home without any replacements being sent. This decision ruffled feathers within the foreign policy community in Washington, including among members of President Donald Trump’s own party.
There have been three main criticisms. The chairs of the House and Senate Armed Services Committees, Rep. Mike Rogers and Sen. Roger Wicker, respectively — both Republicans — quickly released public statements condemning the move. They argued that at a time when pressure is being put on Russia to come to the negotiating table over Ukraine, it is not the moment to reduce the US military presence in Europe. In addition, there was no formal coordination with Congress on this decision, even though current defense legislation restricts reductions in America’s military presence in Europe unless certain certifications are provided to Congress.
Second, the announcement came in what felt like a policy vacuum. For months, the administration has been promising a new Global Posture Review “by the end of the summer.” This is intended to determine where US military forces are needed around the world and where troop numbers should change. Yet, even though we are now into November, there is still no review in sight. This has led many to wonder how a decision to remove US forces from Europe could be made in isolation from the broader strategic review that is supposed to be underway.
Finally, according to media reports, Romania was given only two days’ notice before the decision to reduce the number of troops in the country was made public. For many policymakers in Washington who focus on the transatlantic community, this lack of consultation with such an important ally had uncomfortable echoes of President Barack Obama’s 2009 decision to cancel the installation of key components of America’s missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic — both of which learned of the decision only hours before the White House made the announcement. That episode damaged US-European relations and the recent decision regarding Romania risks doing the same.
Frankly speaking, Trump has had a problem with his Pentagon, with politically appointed officials sometimes getting ahead of the president when it comes to policymaking. Since returning to the Oval Office in January, there have been at least two cases involving Ukraine — related to US military support and intelligence sharing — that caught the White House, and the president himself, off guard. In the case of the US troops being withdrawn from Romania, it is unclear what Trump’s personal involvement or knowledge was. But what is clear is that, from an analytical point of view, removing US forces from Europe undermines the president’s ability to broker peace in Ukraine.
Any reduction of the US force posture in Europe — particularly in Eastern European countries that received additional American troops after Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine — could be seen by Moscow as a concession before meaningful negotiations have even begun.
The debate about America’s global force posture is part of a larger discussion inside the administration about what the country’s role in the world should be. In simple terms, there are three groups competing for influence.
The first is the traditional Republican school of thought, which values alliances and US leadership on the global stage. The second is the isolationist camp, which would prefer to see America withdraw from overseas commitments and focus on domestic challenges, perhaps taking a more active role only within the Western Hemisphere. The third group, currently dominant in the Pentagon, consists of the “prioritizers,” who believe that every tool of US national power should be directed toward deterring China and securing the Indo-Pacific — even at the expense of long-standing partners in Europe and the Gulf.
What the prioritizers fail to appreciate is that US forces in Europe contribute to deterrence and flexibility far beyond the continent itself. Up to 90 percent of America’s ground forces are already based in the US and about 60 percent of the navy is oriented toward the Pacific. Removing a relatively small number of troops from Europe would have little strategic effect but significant geopolitical cost.
The notion that these forces could simply be redeployed to Asia is unrealistic. It would require new agreements with regional allies and the construction of new bases, a process that would take years and enormous resources.
While US troops stationed in Europe do strengthen European security, that is not their sole purpose. Their forward presence also provides American policymakers with greater flexibility to respond to crises elsewhere in the world. For decades, tens of thousands of US troops based in Europe have deployed to the Middle East to work alongside partners, particularly in the Gulf, for example. It is faster and cheaper to deploy forces from Europe to the Middle East than from the continental US.
The same logic could apply to East Asia. US forces based in Germany, for example, are geographically closer to the South China Sea than those stationed in the contiguous US.
Ad-hoc announcements about moving troops out of Europe without considering the broader geopolitical implications undermine America’s credibility and leadership. Such moves have ripple effects that go well beyond Europe. The world today is more interdependent than at any other point in history. A US decision in one region inevitably affects others.
America’s choice to withdraw some forces from Europe should therefore serve as a wake-up call to its allies around the world — from the Middle East to the Indo-Pacific. Leaders in these regions should encourage Trump to make such decisions within the framework of a broader strategic vision. The geopolitical stakes are simply too high for America to act otherwise.