WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth will have at least four sets of options in hand for reshaping the American military footprint across Europe by November 6, weeks ahead of a December deadline that will close out one of the most consequential reviews of U.S. force posture on the continent in a generation, according to a Pentagon document seen by Reuters. The review, quietly launched in June, has left NATO allies bracing for the possibility that Washington has already made up its mind to draw down a significant share of the roughly 80,000 U.S. troops stationed across Europe, even as the Pentagon insists the process remains open.
A Six-Month Review Nears Its Decisive Phase
The Pentagon’s internal “Terms of Reference” document, details of which have not been previously reported, lays out the procedural roadmap the review will follow and the criteria that will determine how each NATO ally is judged. Central to that roadmap is a decision briefing set for no later than September 18, when the top U.S. general in Europe is scheduled to sit down with Elbridge Colby, the Pentagon’s undersecretary of defense for policy, to begin shaping the menu of options that will ultimately land on Hegseth’s desk. That September session is described in the document as the pivotal moment in which the broad concepts under review get converted into concrete, actionable choices for the defense secretary.
A senior Pentagon official, speaking to Reuters on condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations, said the decision to generate a detailed spectrum of options rather than a single recommendation reflects how seriously the department is treating the process. “We want to be able to talk through the pros and cons of a variety of different force levels or dispositions,” the official said. The same official added that the review is designed to “provide a spectrum of options from where we are to wherever” the process ultimately leads, language that officials say is meant to signal flexibility but that has done little to ease anxiety among allied capitals.
Colby Heads to Brussels as European Officials Voice Doubt
The release of the Terms of Reference comes as Colby traveled to NATO headquarters in Brussels on Thursday to brief the alliance’s ambassadors directly on the review, meeting separately with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte before addressing the North Atlantic Council. A NATO official confirmed the session, saying simply that “the United States is consulting with Allies as part of its force posture review.”
But the consultations have not fully quieted skepticism inside European delegations. One European official, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the internal deliberations, told Reuters bluntly: “We don’t know if it’s a real exercise or if a decision has already been taken.” The same official said the goal for European diplomats heading into Thursday’s session was straightforward: “What we want to make sure is that the U.S. understands it can rely on many allies.” A second European diplomat, describing a related concern, said it remains important “for the alliance’s top commander to remain involved” in the process and stressed that the review “doesn’t become a beauty contest.” Not every allied government voiced the same unease; one Eastern European official told Reuters the country was “pretty optimistic although nothing is set in stone,” adding that it had “received promising signals from the U.S.” after submitting “an extensive answer to the American questionnaire.”
Trump’s Iran War Grievances Loom Over the Process
The review did not emerge in a vacuum. It follows months of public frustration from President Donald Trump directed at European governments he believes failed to adequately support the United States during its war against Iran, including allegations that some NATO members either denied or slow-walked basing and overflight access for U.S. warplanes during the conflict. The senior Pentagon official acknowledged that frustration is directly shaping the review’s trajectory. “President Trump has also been quite rightly and clearly frustrated with certain allies’ behavior in recent months,” the official said. “So there’s clearly at least some demand signal to have options that would show us [downgrading] our force levels in Europe.”
NATO Secretary General Rutte has sought to strike a more conciliatory tone, acknowledging Trump’s frustration as understandable in some cases while insisting that the “large majority of Europeans have been helpful.” The Pentagon official, for its part, characterized the administration’s broader posture as a deliberate transition rather than a punitive retreat, describing the goal as “transitioning to provide critical, more limited support with allies in the lead.”
Hegseth’s June Ultimatum Set the Stage
Hegseth first announced the review on June 18 during a combative address to NATO defense ministers in Brussels, framing it as the start of what he called “NATO 3.0,” an alliance in which European nations assume primary responsibility for their own conventional defense. He accused unnamed allies of clinging to an “era of free-riding” and declared that the alliance had for too long functioned as “a paper tiger, and a one-way street,” warning flatly, “No more.” He said the review would ensure that U.S. military “access, basing, and overflight are clearly delineated” going forward.
Hegseth’s June remarks went further than policy language, accusing certain allies of endangering American service members outright. “These allies, they put America’s sons and daughters, our sons and daughters, at risk by denying them the predictable access, basing and overflight that never should have been in question at all,” he said, calling the lack of cooperation during the Iran war “shameful.” He also tied continued American financial contributions to NATO directly to whether allies meet agreed-upon defense spending targets, reiterating Washington’s longstanding push for allies to reach 5% of GDP in defense-related spending.
The Terms of Reference Expand the Criteria for Judging Allies
The newly disclosed Terms of Reference document goes well beyond Hegseth’s June remarks in spelling out how allies will actually be scored. Beyond the access, basing and overflight standard known inside the Pentagon by the shorthand “ABO,” the document directs reviewers to examine allied contributions in space, cyber and what it calls “intelligence architectures and infrastructure that enable U.S. global power projection.” The senior Pentagon official said the expanded definition of ABO was designed to ensure that the review accounts for the full range of support NATO allies provide, not just physical basing access.
The document also directs the Pentagon to assess whether individual allies have “a credible path” to meet their NATO spending pledges and to fill gaps in the alliance’s crisis-response structure, known as the NATO Force Model, that emerged after the U.S. announced its own reductions to that model earlier this year.
A Pointed Questionnaire Sent to Allied Capitals
Reuters has previously reported that the Pentagon circulated a detailed questionnaire to NATO governments to help inform the review, covering everything from defense spending levels to procurement strategy and support for broader U.S. foreign policy priorities. Among the questions allied capitals were asked to answer directly: “What if any restrictions has the country placed on U.S. access, basing, and overflight (ABO)? If so, why? Are they willing to reduce or eliminate any such restrictions?” A separate question pressed allies on industrial policy, asking, “Has the country publicly opposed regulations or other measures designed to inhibit or reduce transatlantic defense industrial cooperation? If so, how? If not, would they be willing to do so?” Responses to the questionnaire are due back to Washington by Friday.
The senior Pentagon official described the timeline as demanding but manageable given the groundwork already in place. “We are working very, very hard, and it is a relatively tight timeline,” the official said. “A lot of prior analysis will inform this, which should allow us to move quicker on our end.”
European Diplomats Look to Highlight Their Own Contributions
Ahead of Thursday’s Brussels session, senior European diplomats signaled they intended to use the meeting with Colby to make the case that allied governments are already stepping up. Officials briefed on the planning said the review has fueled genuine uncertainty in European capitals over whether the process amounts to a “genuine consultation, symbolic gesture or negotiating tool,” in the words of one account of the closed-door discussions. Diplomats were expected to point to a jump in European defense spending — NATO’s own figures show outlays climbing by more than $100 billion over the past year — as evidence that the continent is moving to “backfill” some of the capability the United States has signaled it may withdraw.
Strains Already Visible Since the June Announcement
The tension driving Thursday’s meeting has been building since Hegseth’s June address, which exposed fault lines that have only widened over the summer. The Trump administration has already moved to trim U.S. air and naval assets committed to NATO’s high-readiness force, and reports at the time noted friction over basing access with Spain tied to operations against Iran, along with troop-level disputes involving Germany and Poland. Allies were directed to present more detailed defense spending plans at a NATO summit held in Ankara in July, part of the broader push toward the alliance’s pledge to reach 5% of GDP in defense-related spending by 2035, including 3.5% dedicated to core military budgets.
What Comes Next
With allied responses to the Pentagon questionnaire due Friday and the Colby-led decision briefing set for no later than September 18, the review is now entering the stretch in which its findings will begin taking concrete shape. The four sets of options due to Hegseth by November 6 will give the defense secretary roughly a month to weigh the alternatives before the review’s formal December deadline, at which point the administration is expected to decide how much of the current 80,000-strong American troop presence in Europe will remain, be repositioned, or be handed off to European command. For now, the Pentagon maintains that no final decision has been made and that the range of options being developed is intended to inform, rather than predetermine, Hegseth’s eventual recommendation to the White House. Allied governments, watching closely from Brussels and beyond, say they intend to keep pressing their case in the weeks ahead that they remain indispensable partners rather than the “free-riders” Hegseth accused them of being in June.