WASHINGTON/BRUSSELS — President Donald Trump ordered the withdrawal of approximately 5,000 U.S. troops from Germany on May 2 — approximately 14 percent of the American military presence in the country — in what NATO called a moment that “underscores the need for Europe to continue to invest more in defence and take on a greater share of the responsibility for our shared security.”
The withdrawal, confirmed by Chief Pentagon Spokesman Sean Parnell in a brief statement, is to be completed over the next six to twelve months and comes amid a public feud between Trump and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz over the U.S. war with Iran. It is the largest single reduction of U.S. military presence in Germany in decades and the second significant American force reduction in Europe in less than a year.
How It Happened
The decision unfolded rapidly over three days. Merz publicly said the United States was being “humiliated” by Iranian leadership and criticized Washington for lacking a clear strategy in the ongoing conflict. Trump responded on social media Wednesday, writing that the U.S. was reviewing possible troop reductions in Germany with a “determination” to be made soon. On Thursday he posted that Merz should “spend more time on ending the war with Russia/Ukraine” and “fixing his broken Country.” By Friday, the Pentagon made it official.
“This 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,” Parnell said in the Pentagon’s official statement. The statement made no reference to the Merz dispute. Trump ignored questions about the withdrawal from reporters as he boarded Air Force One in Ocala, Florida.
It is not the first time Trump has threatened to pull troops from Germany. In his first term he ordered the withdrawal of approximately 9,500 troops but never completed the process — President Biden formally reversed the order soon after taking office in 2021. This time, the Pentagon has confirmed the order and provided a timeline, making the withdrawal significantly more concrete than the first-term threat.
What Is Being Withdrawn — and What Stays
The 5,000 troops represent approximately 14 percent of the 36,000 American service members stationed in Germany. Germany hosts the headquarters of both U.S. European Command and U.S. Africa Command — the two combatant commands responsible for American military operations across the European and African theaters. It is also home to Ramstein Air Base, the largest U.S. Air Force installation outside the continental United States, and Landstuhl Regional Medical Center, the primary U.S. military trauma facility in the European theater. U.S. tactical nuclear weapons are stored at Büchel Air Base under NATO’s nuclear sharing arrangements, according to the U.S. Army Europe and Africa Command.
The Pentagon did not address what would happen to the approximately 30,000 troops remaining in Germany, whether affected units would redeploy to other NATO countries, or how the withdrawal would affect the command infrastructure headquartered there. Depending on operations, exercises, and rotations, between 80,000 and 100,000 U.S. personnel are typically stationed across Europe as a whole.
European security analysts noted that the withdrawal of troops is only part of the concern. Ed Arnold, a European security expert at the Royal United Services Institute in London, said allies are at least as worried about the U.S. redeployment of Patriot missile systems and ammunition from Germany to the Middle East — a capability gap more immediately pressing for NATO’s air defence posture than infantry headcount. Patriot batteries take years to procure and train crews for. No spending pledge closes that gap in the near term.
Trump’s Relationship With NATO and the Burden-Sharing Dispute
Trump’s decision to withdraw troops from Germany is the most dramatic action yet in a sustained pressure campaign against NATO allies to increase their defence spending — a campaign that has defined his relationship with the alliance across both of his terms. Since taking office in 2025, Trump has repeatedly warned that European allies must shoulder more of their own defence burden or face reduced American commitment, and has railed against NATO for its refusal to support the United States in the Iran war, which began on February 28.
The pressure has produced results. At the June 24-25, 2025 NATO Summit in The Hague, all 32 NATO heads of state and government unanimously agreed to commit to investing 5 percent of GDP annually on core defence requirements and defence- and security-related spending by 2035 — a commitment that NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte explicitly acknowledged was driven in part by sustained American pressure, according to the Hague Summit Declaration.
“This has been since the 1950s, since Eisenhower, a big irritant on the U.S. side. They have always been committed to NATO, but they also had the expectation that we would spend more, that we would at least spend the same as they are doing,” Rutte said at a December 2025 press conference with Chancellor Merz, according to the official NATO transcript.
The 5 percent commitment is structured in two parts: at least 3.5 percent of GDP directed to core defence requirements and NATO Capability Targets, and up to 1.5 percent for critical infrastructure protection, network defence, civil preparedness, innovation, and defence industrial strengthening, according to NATO’s official defence expenditure page. In 2025, for the first time, all 32 NATO allies met or exceeded the previous 2 percent benchmark — compared to only three allies in 2014. European allies and Canada increased defence spending by 20 percent compared to 2024, reaching a collective average of 2.3 percent of GDP.
Germany’s Specific Commitment — and the Irony of the Timing
The timing of Trump’s withdrawal from Germany carries particular irony given Germany’s own defence investment trajectory. Chancellor Merz has committed Germany to reaching the 3.5 percent core defence spending threshold by 2029 — six years ahead of the 2035 deadline. Germany has earmarked more than €108 billion for security and defence in 2026 alone, according to the official NATO press conference transcript.
Rutte praised Germany’s commitment at the time as “a truly impressive shift demonstrating exactly the kind of resolve we need to ensure our security. Germany is leading by example and sending an important signal. A signal that Europe is ready to take on more responsibility.” The withdrawal order, delivered days after Merz publicly criticized U.S. strategy in Iran, suggests the defence spending commitment and the political relationship are being treated by the Trump administration as separate tracks — one rewarded, the other punished.
NATO’s Response and What It Signals
NATO spokesperson Hart’s response was diplomatically careful. The statement did not name Trump, did not criticize the decision, and did not describe it as a setback. Instead, Hart framed the withdrawal as consistent with the alliance’s own strategic direction — “a shift towards a stronger Europe in a stronger NATO” — while signaling that NATO was still gathering information about the specifics.
“We are working with the U.S. to understand the details of their decision on force posture in Germany,” Hart said. “This adjustment underscores the need for Europe to continue to invest more in defence and take on a greater share of the responsibility for our shared security.”
The diplomatic restraint reflects a calculated decision by NATO leadership. Publicly criticizing a withdrawal ordered by its most powerful member would risk deepening the alliance fracture that the statement is designed to contain. But the statement’s confidence language — “we remain confident in our ability to provide for our deterrence and defence” — also serves as a deterrence signal directed at Russia, which has watched U.S.-European tensions closely throughout the Iran conflict.
Congressional Reaction
The announcement drew immediate bipartisan pushback on Capitol Hill. Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI), ranking Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said the withdrawal “suggests American commitments to our allies are dependent on the president’s mood” and called on Trump to “immediately cease this reckless action before he causes irreversible consequences for our alliances and long-term national security.”
Bradley Bowman at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies warned that the U.S. presence in Germany “not only strengthens deterrence against additional Kremlin aggression but also facilitates the projection of American military power into the Mediterranean, the Middle East, and Africa” — arguing that the withdrawal reduces not just NATO’s European posture but the United States’ own global power projection capability.
Rep. Don Bacon (R-NE), a retired Air Force brigadier general and member of the House Armed Services Committee, took the rare step of publicly endorsing Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk’s characterization of the situation. Tusk wrote that “the greatest threat to the transatlantic community are not its external enemies, but the ongoing disintegration of our alliance.” Bacon responded: “Our Polish ally speaks the truth” — a direct rebuke of the withdrawal from within Trump’s own party.
What Comes Next
NATO’s trajectory and spending balance under The Hague plan is scheduled for formal review in 2029, in light of the strategic environment and updated Capability Targets, according to the Hague Summit Declaration. The alliance’s next summit is scheduled for Turkey in 2026, followed by Albania — meaning Trump will have at least one more opportunity to shape the alliance’s direction before European capitals have fully digested the implications of the Germany withdrawal.
The central question the withdrawal leaves unanswered is whether the pace of American force reductions will outrun the pace of European capability growth. The collective European and Canadian defence spending average stood at 2.3 percent of GDP in 2025 — less than half the 5 percent Hague commitment — and building the forces, logistics networks, and command infrastructure to compensate for reduced U.S. presence takes years, not months. NATO’s statement expresses confidence. Whether that confidence is warranted depends on decisions that have not yet been made, by governments that have not yet been tested.