The Trump administration announced on May 1 that the United States will remove 5,000 troops from Germany within the next six to 12 months, and the decision has renewed debate over the relevance and importance of America’s military presence in Europe.[1] Previous administrations have also sought to reduce military forces on the continent. President Barack Obama removed 10,000 troops from Europe while in office. President Donald Trump announced the removal of 9,500 more during his first term, though that reduction never occurred.[2]
Past efforts to draw down US forces from Europe were wrong then, and the decision to remove 5,000 troops from Germany is wrong now.
The administration says that it prioritizes the defense of the homeland and the Western Hemisphere. But about 87 percent of active-duty US military personnel are already based permanently in the United States.[3] The troops the White House wants to bring home from Germany will make no significant additional contribution to America’s role in the Western Hemisphere. Meanwhile, those same troops help maintain Europe’s security and stability.
The Current Situation
Today, the United States maintains roughly 68,000 permanently based active-duty troops in Europe, not including rotational forces.[4] Depending on exercises, deployments, and operational requirements, the total US presence on the continent usually ranges from about 80,000 to 100,000 personnel. This is only a fraction of America’s Cold War–era footprint. US troop levels in Europe reached roughly 475,000 active-duty personnel in the late 1950s, when the US military served as a bulwark against Soviet and Warsaw Pact forces.[5] This means the number of permanently based active-duty US troops in Europe today is about 86 percent lower than the Cold War peak.
Of course, having US troops based in Europe provides security to America’s European partners. But this is the consequence of, not the reason for, America’s military presence on the continent. First and foremost, US forces are in Europe because their presence advances America’s own security, economic, and geopolitical interests.
Before any administration makes a final decision on the removal of US forces from an allied country, policymakers should ask and satisfactorily answer four questions:
- Does the removal of these forces strengthen America’s geostrategic position in the relevant region?
- Does the removal of US forces from a particular country give America’s geopolitical adversaries any advantage?
- Was the decision to remove these forces made as part of a comprehensive strategic assessment of America’s military needs and capabilities globally?
- Has there been a process of consultation and coordination with the relevant ally in the event that removing US forces from a particular country must happen?
Based on publicly available information, the White House’s announcement to remove troops from Germany does not seem to pass this test. With Russia continuing its war against Ukraine and threatening the stability of Europe, US forces are needed on the continent more than ever. Keeping these troops in Europe is, first and foremost, in America’s national interest.
Key Points to Remember
As policymakers and commentators consider the merits of this debate, here are seven points they should remember.
1. Europe is too important to America’s economic well-being to ignore. The global economy’s future might be in Asia, but right now America still depends heavily on Europe. Roughly half of the world’s gross domestic product comes from North America and Europe. The US and Europe are each other’s top trading partners. In fact, 48 out of 50 states export more to Europe than they do to China. Across the board, America exports 3.5 times more to Europe than it does to China. For some states, the figure is considerably higher.[6]
Almost 56 percent of all foreign direct investment into the United States comes from Europe, totaling approximately $3.5 trillion.[7] This makes Europe the single largest source of foreign investment in the United States. Together with America’s exports to Europe, this investment supports millions of jobs across the country.
Right now, Vladimir Putin is trying to undermine the stability in Europe that has produced decades of economic prosperity. That prosperity not only benefits Europe, but also the American economy and, ultimately, the American worker. Maintaining a US troop presence in Europe helps preserve stability and peace across the continent.
2. US troops in Europe give policymakers in Washington more options. Instead of looking at Europe only through the lens of European security, policymakers should consider what lies beyond the continent: the Maghreb, the Levant, the Middle East, the South Caucasus, Russia, and the Arctic.
This wider region is a zone of instability and unpredictability that has been the source of many of America’s geopolitical challenges in the past. It also sits astride some of the world’s most important trade and transit chokepoints, oil and gas pipelines, and fiber-optic cables. The large US garrisons built across Europe during the Cold War now serve as the forward operating bases of the twenty-first century. Having forces forward deployed in Europe gives US policymakers flexibility and options when deciding how and when to use military force in one of the most important geopolitical regions in the world.
3. Maintaining US forces in Europe is good value for money. The United States has had major military bases in Europe for decades, including some of the best training sites available to the US military. Furthermore, many countries where US troops are located contribute significant amounts of money to offset the costs of hosting American forces. For example, Germany spent approximately $1.1 billion between 2010 and 2019 on costs linked to the deployment of US forces in Germany, including about $730 million for construction projects.[8] Poland, through the US-Poland Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement, helps cover infrastructure, logistics, and other host-nation support costs connected to the US military presence there. These costs were estimated at approximately $136 million per year.[9]
Studies have shown that replacing permanently based forces in Europe with rotational forces costs more in the long run. Rotational forces also reduce local knowledge, institutional relationships, and interoperability with allied forces.
4. The presence of US bases in Europe facilitates America’s global reach. The presence of US bases in Europe serves as a cornerstone of America’s relations with its transatlantic partners. The trust derived from these bases helps facilitate America’s global reach.
For example, having bases in the United Kingdom recently allowed the United States to launch an operation from there to capture a vessel connected to Russia’s shadow fleet that was skirting international sanctions.[10]
Had the United States not maintained a large military presence in Germany, Landstuhl Regional Medical Center would not have been available during the decades of military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan to provide lifesaving medical care close to the point of injury.
Most recently, the United States would not have had the same global reach to conduct sustained air operations against Iran as part of Operation Epic Fury without the overflight and basing rights that European countries provided. For example, Germany allowed B-1B Lancer bombers to land on its territory.[11] And because America’s tanker fleet had permission to use air bases in Europe, US fighters and bombers could remain in the air for longer periods.[12]
America’s forward-deployed forces, whether in Europe or Asia, and the allies and partners that come with them, set the United States apart from Russia and China. Moscow and Beijing lack the same network of allies and partners that offer basing and overflight rights, which reduces their global reach.
5. America’s enemies and adversaries benefit when the United States retreats. Recent history shows that when America removes forces from Europe, geopolitical consequences can follow. In 2013, President Obama removed roughly 8,000 troops from Europe. Around the same time, Britain removed approximately 5,000 troops from Germany.[13] Then in 2014, Russia invaded Ukraine and moved tens of thousands of troops into that country.
Removing US forces in an ad hoc manner, without being part of a larger strategic review, and without meaningful consultation or a clear communication strategy, weakens the transatlantic alliance. It reduces America’s influence among its European partners and leaves its adversaries better positioned on the global stage.
6. US forces in Europe are not bargaining chips in any negotiations with Russia. Removing US forces from Europe, or relocating them inside the continent from one place to another, should not be a bargaining chip during the peace talks between Russia and Ukraine.
President Obama made a similar mistake during his failed Russian “reset” in 2009. In addition to bringing US troops home, he canceled key sites for America’s missile defense structure in Europe. As a result, not a single US tank remained on European soil for the first time since World War II.[14] None of these actions garnered any goodwill from Russia, which then used military force to annex Ukraine’s Crimea and invade its Donbas region.
The Trump administration would be naïve to believe that removing US forces from Europe could serve as a concession that might change Russia’s behavior. On the contrary, the deterrent role that US forces play in Europe will be part of what ultimately brings Russia to the negotiating table and leads to a just and fair peace for Ukraine.
7. Any decision to remove US forces from Europe should be part of a larger strategic review and made in close consultation with America’s partners. The announcement to remove troops from Germany appears to have come out of nowhere. The White House made it without a meaningful strategic review or clear assessment of the move’s impact or cost. It also has not considered how the Pentagon could implement the decision without undermining US military capabilities, troop morale, and readiness, or how the change might affect families.
The second Trump administration promised to conduct and release a global posture review to better calibrate the presence of US military forces around the world. Even though this review was due to be published last summer, it has yet to be released or made public.[15] So the decision to remove troops from Germany was not part of a strategic review, but in response to a political grievance against Berlin.
Endnotes
- “US Troops Based in Europe,” Reuters, April 10, 2026, updated May 2, 2026, https://www.reuters.com/world/details-us-troops-based-europe-trump-mulls-removing-some-2026-05-02. ↑
- Mathew R. Gordon and Gordon Lubold, “Trump to Pull Thousands of US Troops from Germany,” Wall Street Journal, June 5, 2020, https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-directs-u-s-troop-reduction-in-germany-11591375651. ↑
- Figures calculated from data found at Defense Manpower Data Center, “DoD Personnel, Workforce Reports and Publications,” Department of Defense, accessed May 6, 2026, https://dwp.dmdc.osd.mil/dwp/app/dod-data-reports/workforce-reports. ↑
- “US Troops Based in Europe,” Reuters. ↑
- Molly Carlough, Benjamin Harris, and Abi McGowan, “Where Are US Forces Deployed in Europe?,” Council on Foreign Relations, February 27, 2025, https://www.cfr.org/articles/where-are-us-forces-deployed-europe. ↑
- Daniel S. Hamilton and Joseph P. Quinlan, The Transatlantic Economy 2026: Annual Survey of Jobs, Trade and Investment between the United States and Europe (Foreign Policy Institute, School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University, and Transatlantic Leadership Network, 2026). https://transatlantic.amchameu.eu/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/Transatlantic_Economy_2026-3.pdf. ↑
- Hamilton and Quinlan, The Transatlantic Economy 2026. ↑
- “Germany Spent over $1B to Cover Costs Linked to US Troops,” Associated Press, July 6, 2020, https://apnews.com/general-news-e0c872a17b8c25a544a75b5bfcbc6179. ↑
- Jakub Link-Lenczowski, “US and Poland Sign Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement,” Janes, August 19, 2020, https://www.janes.com/defence-intelligence-insights/defence-news/us-and-poland-sign-enhanced-defense-cooperation-agreement. ↑
- Dan Sabbagh, “UK Helped US Seize Russian-Flagged Tanker, Defence Ministry Says,” The Guardian, January 7, 2026, https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/jan/07/uk-helped-us-seize-russian-flagged-tanker-defence-ministry-says. ↑
- Todd South, “B-1s and B-52s Pour Into Europe for ‘More Bomber Pulses’ over Iran,” Air and Space Forces Magazine, March 9, 2026, https://www.airandspaceforces.com/b-1s-b-52s-bombers-europe-iran-epic-fury. ↑
- “US Tankers and Cargo Planes Stationed in Sofia Amid Iran-Israel Strikes, Bulgaria Safe,” Novinite, February 28, 2026, https://www.novinite.com/articles/237249/US+Tankers+and+Cargo+Planes+Stationed+in+Sofia+Amid+Iran-Israel+Strikes%2C+Bulgaria+Safe. ↑
- Louisa Brooke-Holland and Claire Mills, “UK Withdrawal from Germany: The End of an Era,” House of Commons Library, March 19, 2013, https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn06746/. ↑
- Alexander A. Burnett, “Twenty-First TSC Assists Movement of Last Main Battle Tanks Out of Europe,” US Army, April 5, 2013, https://www.army.mil/article/100363/21st_tsc_assists_movement_of_last_main_battle_tanks_out_of_europe. ↑
- “US Expected to Complete Global Force Posture Review Late Summer or Early Fall: Official,” Korea JoongAng Daily, June 24, 2025, https://koreajoongangdaily.joins.com/news/2025-06-24/national/defense/US-expected-to-complete-global-force-posture-review-late-summer-or-early-fall-Official/2336985. ↑