Quick summary
The United States is reportedly moving to cut back key military contributions to NATO, signaling a tougher stance toward European defense obligations and pushing allies to shoulder more of their own security. Reports describe specific reductions in assets like fighter jets, submarines, and refueling aircraft, and this shift has prompted surprise and concern among some European capitals. The move fits into a broader push to hold NATO partners accountable for defense spending and to incentivize greater self-reliance in Europe.
Donald Trump has long criticized NATO members for underinvesting in their own defense and for relying too heavily on U.S. military power. He has repeatedly complained that Europeans do not meet spending commitments, and he has taken actions such as ordering troop reductions in Germany to underscore that complaint. Those moves have strained transatlantic relations and forced allies to rethink contingency plans.
The U.S. intends to significantly reduce military contributions available to assist European allies in a crisis, including fighter jets, warships and mid-air refueling aircraft, German news outlet Spiegel reported on Tuesday.
The NATO alliance is under unprecedented strain, with some European countries concerned that Washington may withdraw outright.
President Donald Trump has slammed European allies for not spending enough on their militaries and pledged to withdraw thousands of troops from Germany. His ambition to take control of Greenland, a Danish overseas territory, has further inflamed transatlantic tensions.
🇺🇸🇪🇺 NEW: U.S. reduces NATO military support
The United States is scaling back key military assets assigned to NATO, including fewer fighter jets, reduced strategic bombers, and no submarine contributions, according to Der Spiegel and Reuters.
The move, discussed in a closed NATO briefing, has reportedly surprised European allies and highlights Europe’s heavy reliance on U.S. defense support amid ongoing tensions with Russia.
Source: Der Spiegel
According to reporting from European outlets, Washington plans to remove a range of capabilities from the pool it makes available to NATO. That would include long-range reconnaissance aircraft, aerial refueling tankers, and submarines that have quietly formed the backbone of allied deterrence. The intention is to press European partners to plug the gaps rather than defaulting to U.S. assets whenever a crisis flares.
Those inside the discussions framed the change as a test: countries that rapidly step up to cover the shortfalls will maintain close cooperation, while those that lag will find a colder reception. U.S. envoys reportedly told allies that cooperation will continue, but only with partners who demonstrate swift, practical responses to the capability shortfalls. Some European officials read that as a veiled threat, while others see it as a blunt incentive to invest in national and collective defenses.
Washington will also pull its submarines from NATO altogether, envoy Alexander Velez-Green reportedly told officials behind closed doors.
Europe will be responsible for maintaining its own supply of reconnaissance drones, a key weapon on the modern battlefield of Ukraine.
Hegseth’s envoy stressed that the US is prepared to cooperate closely only with NATO partners who act quickly to close the gaps left by Washington’s scaling back of support.
Some officials in the secret meeting interpreted the message as an indirect threat, according to Der Spiegel.
Beyond hardware, the reported pivot is about political leverage: the U.S. wants clear, measurable progress from allies on defense spending and capability development. The upcoming Force Sourcing Conference will be the first formal forum for member states to map out how they will cover any shortfalls. Expect debates over burden sharing, timelines for capability delivery, and who will lead key missions in future crises.
European capitals reacted with a mix of alarm and grudging acceptance. For some, the news was a wake-up call that decades of relying on American power could not continue without consequence. For others, the reduction raises genuine strategic concerns, especially in theaters where U.S. platforms have provided unique reach and deterrence.
Domestically, the picture is straightforward: the administration argues that a stronger, better-funded NATO benefits everyone, and that the United States should not be the default payer and default deployer forever. This is framed as a necessary correction rather than an abandonment, meant to force partners to choose whether they will meet their commitments. The debate now moves from closed briefings into public policy discussions among allies and in capitals across the Atlantic.
Operationally, the gap will be watched closely. Submarines, bombers, and aerial refueling are not easily or quickly replaced, and shortfalls could affect planning for rapid crisis response. NATO nations that want continued U.S. support will need to commit money, materiel, and missions on a faster timetable than they have in the past.
Whatever happens next, the reported U.S. shift signals a new chapter in transatlantic relations: a harder edge to partnership that demands reciprocal investment. Allies will now make choices about capability, leadership, and how close a security relationship they want with Washington going forward.
Add comment