Democrats and Republicans reached a rare unity against Trump in 2020.Image: keystone
analysis
Is the USA leaving Europe alone militarily? The new US strategy fuels such fears. In fact, the Trump administration also depends on Europe, especially Germany.
December 20, 2025, 1:36 p.mDecember 20, 2025, 1:36 p.m
Daniel Mützel / t-online
In July 2020, on the instructions of President Donald Trump, the US Department of Defense ordered the withdrawal of a third of US soldiers stationed in Germany. The withdrawal order for 12,000 of the 36,000 US soldiers was seen as a “punishment” for Germany and Trump’s “revenge on Merkel”, as the German Chancellor did not want to bow to US demands for higher military spending.
But the US Congress prevented the withdrawal of troops. At that time, Democrats and Republicans reached a rare unity against Trump. People from his own team also stopped his consideration of a US withdrawal from NATO.
Five years later, Trump’s contempt for liberal Europe remains undiminished. The European NATO states have now given in to pressure from the USA and massively increased their defense spending. But the strategy of submission was only partially successful. Because as has become increasingly clear in recent weeks, Trump’s distrust of Europe is not just a question of fact or distribution. It is fundamental. Above all, the Kremlin-friendly US “peace plan” and the new national security strategy show that the US government is striving for a world order in which Europe is no longer an ally, but rather plays a minimal role.
Europe should not fall to Russia
And yet: The rabid Europe-bashing in the US security strategy belies a fact that has so far received little attention: the Trump administration still needs Europe. At least more than she admits publicly. This becomes particularly clear at one point in the document.
The USA needs a strong Europe at its side “to prevent an opponent from dominating Europe,” it says. Translated: The Trump administration also has no interest in the unbridled expansion of Russia’s sphere of influence in Europe.
As Russia-friendly as the diplomatic initiatives from Washington are currently, a capitulation by Ukraine and a possible westward expansion of Russia are also likely to run counter to the interests of the Trump administration. Trump sees Europe above all as a “business zone” in which American companies should make profits as undisturbed as possible. To do this, it needs economically strong and politically compliant European nation states – and not a new hegemon that declares Europe to be its backyard.
“Strategic downgrading” of Europe
The US expert and director of the Atlantic Academy in Rhineland-Palatinate, David Sirakov, contradicts the common thesis that the security strategy means a complete departure of the US from Europe. It is more of a “significant strategic downgrade” of Europe, Sirakov tells t-online. “The European continent continues to be of strategic use to the US government. It’s just no longer a priority.”
It is fitting that the otherwise erratic Trump administration shows a certain degree of continuity in its defense policy practice. Initial fears that the USA would withdraw troops from Europe on a large scale have not yet come true. The number has been stable since Trump took office: According to Pentagon information, there were recently up to 100,000 US soldiers, of which 65,000 were permanently stationed and the rest were on rotation. The announced withdrawal of thousands of US soldiers from Romania also has little impact, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte recently said: “There are still many more US forces on the continent than before 2022.”
US Congress strengthens European flank
No one can currently give a serious answer as to whether it will stay that way. China hardliners in the US government, such as Vice President JD Vance and the influential Pentagon official Elbridge Colby, have long been pushing for a greater shift of military resources from Europe to the Indo-Pacific. This is also suggested by a report from the Reuters news agency, according to which the USA wants to dismantle a large part of its conventional NATO capabilities by 2027. Pentagon representatives told European diplomats this at the beginning of December. It was said that Washington was dissatisfied with the progress made by the Europeans in expanding their own armed forces.
But so far Trump seems unwilling to give in to the pressure. Soon he will probably no longer be able to do this: In order to prevent a troop withdrawal from Europe, the US Congress has just decided to strengthen European security. The 2026 defense budget contains a clause that prohibits the US government from reducing troop levels in Europe below 76,000 in the long term. Both Democrats and Republicans support the plan. The President’s signature followed on Thursday – this means the law comes into force.
USA remains a “global security power”
It is a remarkable turnaround – and a contrast to the anti-European propaganda of the Trump administration. US expert Sirakov even sees a “learning effect” with Trump compared to his first term in office. The political scientist’s argument: Despite his “America First” rhetoric, Trump has so far made only a few course corrections in defense policy. The shrill slogans are primarily motivated by domestic politics. In practice, the Trump apparatus acts more in a realpolitical and, above all, transactional manner.
The assumption of many critics that under Trump the USA would cut itself off from the world and wall itself in in an isolationist manner is also wrong, according to Sirakov. “Trump’s foreign and security policy over the last eleven months is the opposite of isolationism. Rather, the USA sees itself as a transactional global power.” Whether military strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities, support for Israel in the Gaza war or the American military fleet off Venezuela: “If it benefits their interests, the USA will continue to intervene in global trouble spots.”
Trump also depends on Europe
“America First”, but with global aspirations? Some observers also see this as an opportunity for Europe. NATO expert and former adviser to the US State Department, Michael J. Williams, believes that the Europeans sometimes make themselves seem smaller than they are. Because there is strategic dependence in both directions: “As dependent as the European NATO states are on certain US capabilities – especially in intelligence services, reconnaissance and nuclear weapons – the USA also needs the old Europe just as much.”
This applies, for example, to the many US bases in Europe. The fighter jet squadrons, army brigades, command centers and ammunition depots stationed there not only serve to organize deterrence against Russia and to secure American influence in Europe. Many military bases are also hubs for US operations in Africa and the Middle East.
Particularly in the Middle East, the Trump administration continues to see its “core interests” being affected, as the new security strategy states (albeit differently than under Biden or Obama): be it to keep Iran in check, to support Israel and its Arab allies, or to combat anti-US efforts in the region. “In order to underpin its claim to power in neighboring European regions, the USA depends on its military infrastructure in Europe,” says Williams.
US bases in Germany: Strategic advantages
This applies especially to US bases in Germany. Perhaps the most important: the US Air Force Base Ramstein (Rhineland-Palatinate), the headquarters of the US Air Force in Europe and Africa and the headquarters of Aircom, a NATO command authority for air forces. The US military uses Ramstein as a hub for troop transport, global drone operations, such as in Iraq, Pakistan and Yemen, and for evacuation flights, for example from Afghanistan in 2021. The largest US military hospital outside the USA is to be built near the base, in Weilerbach, by 2029. A total of around 16,000 US soldiers are stationed in Ramstein.
According to NATO expert Michael Williams, the air base is indispensable for US operations on this side of the Atlantic: “Everything runs through Ramstein. Without this base, U.S. air operations in Europe, Africa and parts of Asia would be much more difficult.”
Also in Rhineland-Palatinate: the Spangdahlem Air Base in the Eifel. The F-16 fighter jets of the 52nd Fighter Squadron are considered to be ready for deployment quickly and are specialized in crisis missions. The fighter pilots from Spangdahlem were last on duty in the summer. Where exactly is not known. An operation in the Middle East is suspected, probably in connection with Israel’s Gaza war. Which suggests that the Trump administration has also recognized the strategic advantages of European US bases.
Several US high commands in Germany
The US Army also maintains central military facilities in other federal states. The European Command of the US Armed Forces and the Africa Command are based in Stuttgart (Baden-Württemberg) (which, however, are threatened with a downgrade due to the Pentagon’s reform plans). There are also dozens of smaller and larger US bases, mostly in western and southern Germany. Grafenwöhr in Bavaria is home to the largest US Army garrison in Europe, with almost 15,000 soldiers, and the largest US military training area outside the USA.
Critical strategic capabilities were also moved to Germany. In 2023, the US Space Command for Europe and Africa was set up in Ramstein, which, among other things, is intended to ward off threats from space. In view of nuclear-capable anti-satellite missiles and new types of pulse weapons that are currently being developed in Russia and China, the importance of the base is likely to increase rather than decrease. NATO’s early warning systems, for example to detect missile launches in Russia in good time, are also controlled centrally in Ramstein.
“Trump can’t afford that either”
In addition to the strategic disadvantages, a comprehensive troop withdrawal would also entail enormous costs. The US Army would have to build new locations for tens of thousands of soldiers including their families, relocate large military equipment and ammunition depots and completely reorganize the logistical supply of the troops. Estonian politician and former intelligence chief Eerik-Niiles Kross estimates the cost of a complete US withdrawal from Europe at between $70 and $140 billion.
Is Germany fine with this? Are the US bases in this country simply “too big to fail”? To believe that would be naive. Trump is known for his unpredictability. In addition, the ideological hardliners around him are unlikely to care much about the opportunity costs of withdrawing troops. And even if the US strategy is primarily intended to increase the pressure on Europe to organize its own defense more quickly, the risk of an escalation in transatlantic relations is still possible if the Europeans fail in the eyes of the US.
Military expert Williams also does not believe that German US bases are immune to withdrawal plans. But the debate in Germany is being conducted in an overly alarmist manner, he says. “The USA is more dependent on these locations than Germany.” A comprehensive withdrawal would be “self-defeating” and would harm US interests across the Atlantic, said Williams. “Trump can’t afford that either.” Whether the US President also sees it that way can only be assumed.