Hegseth Orders Six-Month Review of US Forces in Europe
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth arrived at NATO headquarters in Brussels on June 18 and announced a six-month Pentagon review of American military forces stationed in Europe.
The outcome of that review, he told allied defense ministers, will depend on how quickly Europeans take primary responsibility for defending their own continent.
What Hegseth Said in Brussels — and What He Left Out
Hegseth called out NATO allies for failing to provide U.S. forces access to European bases during operations against Iran, describing the refusal as "shameful."
"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 told the assembled ministers.
He framed the review as a push toward what the Trump administration calls "NATO 3.0" — a restructured alliance in which Europe takes the lead on its own collective defense.
NBC News reported that NATO's supreme allied commander — an American — is already working on backup plans following the U.S. announcement on June 3 that it would no longer guarantee an aircraft carrier, aerial refueling planes, and dozens of fighter jets if a NATO ally comes under attack.
Hegseth's remarks largely mischaracterised the current state of European defense, and NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte pushed back directly.
📰 Related: Trump Arrives at G7 With Insults Already on the Table
Rutte's Counter — and the Data Behind It
Rutte noted on Thursday that European allies and Canada spent $90 billion more on defense last year — a 20% increase over 2024.
That figure directly contradicts Hegseth's characterisation of European allies as having cratered their defense budgets in favour of welfare spending and social policy.
The Philadelphia Inquirer reported that Hegseth's speech also mischaracterised European migration policies, which most member states have tightened significantly since the peak arrivals period more than a decade ago.
Still, the review is real. The June 3 signal about withdrawing carrier support was real.
And the Trump administration's stated rationale — that the U.S. must be able to fight two simultaneous conflicts and needs more military resources positioned for a potential confrontation with China in the Indo-Pacific — is the strategic context that makes both moves consistent, regardless of the accuracy of the rhetorical framing around them.
📰 Related: Eight Dead After B-52 Bomber Crashes at Edwards AFB
🤖 AI Generated ImageThe Iran Basing Dispute at the Center of the Accusation
The specific grievance Hegseth raised — European allies refusing basing access for U.S. operations against Iran — is the most consequential detail in his speech.
Under Article 5 of NATO's founding treaty, an attack on one member is treated as an attack on all thirty-two.
But that guarantee does not automatically extend to U.S. offensive operations against non-NATO adversaries, and European allies exercised exactly that distinction when Washington sought basing and overflight access for Iran strikes.
The Washington Post confirmed that Hegseth's review will run for six months and that the degree to which the U.S. draws down its European presence depends on how fast allies move on capability commitments.
The review gives Europe a defined window to demonstrate changed behavior, or face real troop reductions.
📰 Related: Trump Says Iran Will Never Get Nuclear Weapon as Deal Enters New Stage
What the Review Changes — and What It Doesn't
European allies and Canada are already working to fill the gaps created by the June 3 asset withdrawal signals.
Whether those efforts move fast enough to satisfy the six-month review — and whether a satisfactory review would actually stay the reduction of U.S. forces in Europe — depends on political variables in Washington that no European capital can fully control.
What Hegseth established in Brussels is a conditional relationship: American military presence in Europe is now explicitly tied to European performance, not to the alliance commitments that have governed the relationship since 1949.
That is a structural change in how the U.S. frames its NATO obligations, and it will shape European defense planning — and spending — for years regardless of how the review itself concludes.
Key Takeaways
- Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced a six-month Pentagon review of U.S. forces in Europe at NATO headquarters in Brussels on June 18.
- Hegseth called allies "shameful" for refusing U.S. forces basing and overflight access for operations against Iran.
- NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte noted that European allies and Canada spent $90 billion more on defense in 2025 — a 20% increase over 2024.
- The U.S. signaled on June 3 it would no longer guarantee an aircraft carrier, aerial refueling planes, and dozens of fighter jets for NATO allies under attack.
- The Trump administration cited the need to plan for two simultaneous conflicts, including a potential confrontation with China in the Indo-Pacific.
- The review outcome is explicitly tied to European performance — creating a conditional framework that replaces the unconditional alliance posture dating to 1949.
Sources
Also Read
Politics & World News Editor
James Mitchell has covered US and UK politics for over a decade, with a focus on elections, foreign policy, and Capitol Hill. He breaks down complex political stories into clear, fast analysis.
