Written by Christian Taylor.
Reports have surfaced suggesting that former President Donald Trump is preparing to withdraw about 20,000 U.S. troops from Europe. The decision, reportedly driven by his frustration with European nations’ low defense spending, highlights a continued debate over the costs of maintaining America’s extensive overseas military presence.
A Call for Europe to Step Up
An Italian news outlet, ANSA, cited an unnamed European diplomat who claimed Trump wants European countries to bear more responsibility for their own security. According to the report, Trump plans to reduce the U.S. troop presence in Europe by 20%—or roughly 20,000 soldiers—and demand financial contributions from European allies to maintain the remaining troops.
The diplomat stated, “These soldiers are a deterrent, and the costs cannot be borne only by American taxpayers.” Trump has long pushed NATO allies to increase their defense spending, urging them to contribute at least 5% of their GDPs, up from the current average of 2%.
The move aligns with Trump’s broader foreign policy strategy of shifting costs away from U.S. taxpayers and pressuring allies to shoulder more of the financial burden. While NATO countries agreed during Trump’s first term to increase their military spending to meet the alliance’s 2% target, Trump argued this was still insufficient given the scale of U.S. contributions.
The Numbers Behind U.S. Troop Presence
Currently, there are about 100,000 American troops stationed in Europe, the highest number since 2005. Many of these troops were deployed during the Biden administration in response to Russia’s actions in Ukraine. Critics have pointed out that this buildup reflects a growing U.S. commitment to Europe’s security, despite NATO members’ continued reluctance to meet their financial obligations.
Trump’s proposal would cut 20,000 troops, leaving 80,000 to remain in key strategic locations. For the soldiers who stay, Trump reportedly wants European countries to pay for part of the cost, arguing that these forces primarily serve as a deterrent for Europe’s benefit.
This is not the first time Trump has attempted to draw down U.S. troop levels overseas. During his first term, he proposed withdrawing 9,500 troops from Germany, but his plans were reportedly blocked by senior military leaders.
A Pattern of Resistance
Trump’s efforts to reduce the U.S. military footprint overseas have faced significant pushback, not only from foreign allies but also from within his own administration. His attempts to withdraw troops from Syria in 2018 and 2019 were met with fierce resistance, with some officials resigning in protest and others outright deceiving the President about troop levels.
For example, in Syria, military officials admitted to misleading Trump about the number of American forces on the ground. Jim Jeffrey, a former diplomat who replaced Brett McGurk, confessed in 2020 that the actual number of U.S. troops in northeast Syria was “a lot more than” the 200 soldiers Trump had agreed to leave. Jeffrey admitted, “We were always playing shell games to not make clear to our leadership how many troops we had there.”
This pattern of resistance extended to Iraq as well. For years, the Pentagon reported there were 2,500 U.S. troops in Iraq, but Maj. Gen. Pat Ryder recently revealed that the actual number is much higher. Ryder declined to provide the exact figures, raising further questions about transparency and accountability.
Why Europe Should Take the Lead
For decades, the U.S. has shouldered the bulk of NATO’s defense responsibilities. While American troops have played a critical role in maintaining peace and stability in Europe, Trump’s stance reflects a growing frustration among many Americans who feel that Europe isn’t pulling its weight.
By demanding that European countries increase their defense spending and contribute financially to the upkeep of U.S. troops stationed on their soil, Trump is challenging a system that has arguably become imbalanced. NATO’s original mission was to ensure collective defense, yet the U.S. consistently spends more on defense than all other member nations combined.
Trump’s critics often argue that his approach undermines alliances. However, his supporters see it as a necessary step to restore fairness. Asking European countries to invest more in their own security seems reasonable, especially when U.S. taxpayers are footing such a significant portion of the bill.
Our Take
Trump’s plan to withdraw 20,000 troops from Europe and demand greater financial contributions from NATO allies is a step in the right direction. For too long, the U.S. has carried the weight of global security while European nations have fallen short of their obligations. This kind of imbalance not only strains American resources but also fosters dependency among NATO members.
However, the resistance Trump has faced from within his own administration is concerning. When military officials openly admit to deceiving the President and the public about troop levels, it highlights a lack of accountability that undermines trust in our institutions.
The American people deserve transparency about the costs and risks associated with maintaining such a large military presence overseas. If Europe truly values the security provided by NATO, its member nations must step up and share the financial burden. It’s not isolationism to ask for fairness—it’s common sense
