U.S. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth on June 18 announced a six-month review of U.S. force posture and basing in Europe, warning that NATO allies failing to meet defense spending commitments could face consequences as Washington pushes the alliance toward what he called a new era of burden-sharing.
Speaking at a meeting of NATO defense ministers in Brussels, Hegseth said the review would examine America’s military footprint in Europe and help ensure that European allies assume primary responsibility for the continent’s conventional defense.
“I’m announcing today a six-month Department of War review that will examine America’s force posture and basing in Europe,” Hegseth said.
The review comes as the Trump administration is pushing NATO members to increase defense spending and take over capabilities long provided by the United States.
Earlier this month, NATO officials disclosed that the United States would no longer assign certain capabilities—including an aircraft carrier strike group, support ships, aerial refueling aircraft, and dozens of combat aircraft—to NATO crisis-response plans.
The Trump administration has said that the United States must preserve greater military flexibility as it prepares for the possibility of simultaneous conflicts, particularly in the Indo-Pacific region.
Hegseth described the U.S. force posture review as part of a broader transformation of the alliance into “NATO 3.0,” a return to what he characterized as NATO’s original mission as a hard-edged military alliance focused on deterrence and warfighting.
“It will be designed to ensure that NATO is moving fast and irreversibly toward Europe leading, stepping up to take primary responsibility for the defense of Europe, stepping up to ensure our forces are postured for America’s global needs,” Hegseth said.
While Hegseth did not question the U.S. commitment to NATO’s Article 5 collective defense clause, he indicated that allies failing to meet spending targets could see reductions in U.S. contributions.
“Going forward, our annual NATO dues will be contingent on other countries meeting their defense spending targets,” he said. “Where other allies do not spend with urgency, our dues contributions will go down. … It’s a review that some countries will fail and others will pass with flying colors.”
NATO 3.0
Hegseth sharply criticized what he described as decades of underinvestment by European allies.
“For too long, NATO has been a paper tiger and a one-way street. No more,” he said.
He argued that after the Cold War, NATO drifted away from its core military mission and toward issues unrelated to deterrence and defense. He described an era in which the alliance had lost its way by focusing on “gender equity and climate change and defense austerity.”
Instead, he said, the alliance must return to being “a real military alliance that’s focused on hard power and real deterrence.”
Hegseth said European allies had made progress in boosting military spending, citing NATO’s new benchmark of spending 5 percent of gross domestic product on defense and related investments.
He also highlighted planned increases in U.S. defense spending, saying U.S. President Donald Trump had committed to defense budgets exceeding $1 trillion in 2026 and $1.5 trillion in 2027.
“We will lead and exceed our own NATO spending standards,” Hegseth said.
US Contributions Already Cut
The review comes weeks after Washington informed allies that it would reduce certain contributions to NATO’s force model, a planning framework that assigns military capabilities to respond to crises and defend alliance territory.
“In May, the Department of War told allies that we’re reducing our contributions to the NATO force model,” Hegseth said, adding that some allies had already begun stepping in to fill the gaps.
NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte confirmed on June 18 that those reductions have already taken effect.
“The question yesterday came up: Is this immediate or not? It is immediate,” Rutte told reporters before the ministerial meeting.
Rutte clarified that the changes relate to NATO planning assumptions rather than actual wartime commitments.
“Why I’m a little bit reluctant to say this is because it is a planning tool,” he said. “So what would happen in reality? If war would break out … all allies, including the U.S., will max out what they can do to make sure we can fight the war.”
Despite the changes to force planning, NATO officials said that the alliance’s nuclear deterrence posture remains intact.
In a statement following a June 18 meeting of NATO’s nuclear planning group, allies reaffirmed that they maintain a “safe, secure, effective, and credible nuclear posture to preserve peace, prevent coercion and deter aggression.”
They described the alliance’s strategic nuclear forces as the “supreme guarantee of Allied security” that underpin NATO’s deterrence architecture.
Ryan Morgan contributed to this report.
Friends Read Free
Copy
Facebook
Tweet
