WASHINGTON — Rep. Don Bacon said Saturday that a reported Pentagon review of large cuts to U.S. forces in Europe has “little support” in Congress and that “some folks in Pentagon seem oblivious to current Russian aggression.”
Bacon, a Nebraska Republican, retired Air Force brigadier general and chairman of the House Armed Services Committee’s cyber subcommittee, posted the comment on X at 8:49 p.m. Eastern on Sept. 19. He quoted an NBC News post from Sept. 17.
There is little support for this in Congress. Some folks in Pentagon seem oblivious to current Russian aggression.
The NBC News report, by Dan De Luce, Gordon Lubold, Courtney Kube and Abigail Williams, attributed the options to seven current and former U.S. and Western officials. The published lede said the Pentagon was weighing a plan to pull “planes, ships, weapons and tens of thousands of U.S. troops from Europe.” A same-week NBC newsletter put the range discussed at about 25,000 troops, or as many as 40,000. The Department of War has not posted a release confirming those figures or announcing a decision.
Official troop count and the statutory floor
U.S. European Command, in data provided to the Department of War inspector general, reported about 80,253 U.S. military personnel in Europe in January–March 2026, plus 6,499 civilians, according to the Operation Atlantic Resolve report to Congress covering that quarter. The same report states that Atlantic Resolve is the U.S. operation in the EUCOM area of responsibility “to demonstrate the United States’ commitment to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s (NATO) collective defense and to deter and—if necessary—defeat Russian aggression against NATO.”
Congress wrote a numerical floor into the Fiscal Year 2026 defense authorization. Section 1249 of the House amendment to S. 1071, and the parallel Section 1304 of H.R. 3838, bar the use of FY2026 funds to reduce the number of Armed Forces members “permanently stationed in or deployed to” the EUCOM area of responsibility below 76,000, or to return specified bases and major equipment, until the secretary of defense and the EUCOM commander independently certify to the congressional defense committees that the action is in U.S. national security interests, that NATO allies have been consulted, and that the department has assessed the threat posed by the Russian Federation. The same sections also bar use of those funds to relinquish the EUCOM commander’s role as NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander Europe. The enacted FY2026 NDAA is Public Law 119-60.
Bacon’s office said after House passage that the FY2026 bill “preserves U.S. force posture in Europe and authorizes additional security assistance to the Baltic Nations and Ukraine,” in a Dec. 11, 2025, statement. The Senate Armed Services Committee’s reported FY2027 bill, S. 4784, would extend a similar 76,000-person restriction into fiscal 2027, again until dual certifications and a Russia-threat assessment are submitted.
What the Pentagon and NATO have said on the record
Secretary of War Pete Hegseth told NATO defense ministers in Brussels in June that the United States would review its European force posture over as long as six months and would consult Congress. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, at a June 18 press conference, said allies had “heard the US announcement to review force posture in Europe,” that the work “will take months,” and that Hegseth said it would be done “in close consultation with Allies.”
On June 3, EUCOM issued a release stating that Department of War officials had notified allies the United States would “rightsize its contributions to the NATO Force Model,” consistent with the 2026 National Defense Strategy and a department concept it called “NATO 3.0.” Under Secretary of War for Policy Elbridge Colby is leading the initiative, the command said. Gen. Alexus G. Grynkewich, who commands EUCOM and serves as SACEUR, said in the EUCOM statement that there had been “an unhealthy co-dependence in the NATO Force Model on U.S. forces” and that “the potential reality of simultaneous conflict in multiple theaters demands it.” He said Canada and European allies could “step-up now” with manned and unmanned aircraft and naval vessels as the United States reduced forces “sourced” to the model.
Rutte said at the same June briefing that SACEUR had told ministers the NATO Force Model change “is strengthening NATO’s defence plans.” NATO’s public page on the NATO Force Model describes it as the alliance’s planning framework for assigning forces, not as a public troop-by-troop inventory of U.S. units already on the ground.
On Sept. 2–3, Grynkewich hosted an EUCOM component commanders conference in Stuttgart whose published topics included a “NATO 3.0 Posture Review” and “NATO Cooperative Burden Shifting,” according to EUCOM public affairs.
On Sept. 18–19, NATO’s Military Committee met in Copenhagen. The committee chair, Adm. Giuseppe Cavo Dragone, said in the alliance’s official readout that allies had “seen once again the reckless behaviour of Russia, including airspace violations, drone incidents, hybrid activities and attempts to test Allied resolve,” and that “NATO will do what is necessary to defend every inch of Allied territory.” Grynkewich attended as SACEUR.
Earlier official cuts and the Armed Services response
In May, the Department of War said it would withdraw about 5,000 personnel from Germany. Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell said the decision “follows a thorough review of the Department’s force posture in Europe and is in recognition of theater requirements and conditions on the ground.”
The Republican chairmen of the two Armed Services committees, Sen. Roger Wicker of Mississippi and Rep. Mike Rogers of Alabama, issued a joint statement on May 2 saying they were “very concerned” by the withdrawal of a U.S. brigade from Germany. They wrote that converting allied 5 percent-of-GDP spending pledges “into the military capability needed to assume primary responsibility for conventional deterrence will take time” and that “prematurely reducing America’s forward presence in Europe before those capabilities are fully realized risks undermining deterrence and sending the wrong signal to Vladimir Putin.” They argued the 5,000 troops should be moved east rather than withdrawn from the continent and said “any significant change to the U.S. force posture in Europe warrants a deliberate review process and close coordination with Congress and our allies.”
Bacon has taken a similar line on smaller moves already made. In June he said he would not vote for a defense-heavy reconciliation bill without a plan to replace troops pulled back from Eastern Europe, including a brigade associated with Poland. On July 3 he wrote on X that “the civilian leadership at the Pentagon is out of step with the White House, most of Congress and the rest of the country” on Europe, NATO and Ukraine.
NATO’s own description of its eastern-flank posture, updated June 17, lists nine multinational battlegroups. The United States is the framework nation for the battlegroup in Poland and a contributing nation in Bulgaria and Hungary.
No public Department of War or EUCOM statement as of Sept. 20 confirms that a 25,000- or 40,000-person cut has been chosen, that Gen. Grynkewich has delivered a final menu of options, or that a recommendation has gone to President Donald Trump. Those details remain attributed to unnamed officials in the NBC report Bacon quoted.