The Pentagon has received its first batch of responses from NATO allies to a sweeping questionnaire probing their willingness to take over Europe’s conventional defense, as a six-month review of the roughly 80,000 US troops on the continent moves toward a critical decision point.
Under Secretary of War for Policy Elbridge Colby traveled to Brussels on August 27 and briefed NATO’s 32 ambassadors on the scope of the review, which Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced at a NATO ministerial in June. The visit marked the first direct engagement with the full alliance since the Pentagon sent a “terms of reference” document to member states earlier this month.
The questionnaire asks allies to detail their defense spending plans, their willingness to grant expanded military access to US forces, and their positions on key US foreign policy objectives, including cooperation during the ongoing Iran war. Several countries, including France, Italy and Spain, curbed access to their airspace and bases during the US-Israeli campaign against Tehran, a move that infuriated Washington.
Allies Compete for Favor
Diplomats described the session as a “beauty contest,” with each nation racing to highlight its compliance with what the US calls “NATO 3.0” – a push for Europe to shoulder the primary burden of its own conventional defense. Poland’s Deputy Defense Minister Pawel Zalewski told Politico that Warsaw was “ready to propose” new locations, financing and logistics for a permanent US military base in the country.
But the review has also generated anxiety. Some allies fear the Pentagon will use the exercise to justify significant troop reductions, effectively forcing European nations to compete against one another for the remaining US presence. “There was clearly at least some demand signal to have options that would show us downgrading our force levels in Europe,” a Pentagon official told reporters, speaking on condition of anonymity.
Colby sought to calm those fears, telling ambassadors the questionnaire was not aimed at “dictating” terms or obtaining “a complete carte blanche” on military access. He praised countries for “rebuilding their military strength for collective defense,” while stressing that Washington needs “predictability” to operate effectively across the continent.
Troop Cuts Already Under Way
Even as the review unfolds, the US military footprint in Europe is already shrinking. The Pentagon is withdrawing up to 5,000 troops from Germany. The Army ended a rotational brigade mission in Romania last October and canceled an armored brigade deployment to Poland in May. President Donald Trump separately ordered 5,000 additional troops to Poland, but that move has not yet been implemented.
NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte pushed back against the narrative of decline during the August 27 meeting, pointing to a $139 billion increase in European and Canadian defense spending in 2025 compared with previous years. “It is a stronger Europe and a stronger Canada in a stronger NATO, and it is happening,” Rutte said.
The review’s military recommendations are expected from General Alexus Grynkewich, who commands US forces in Europe and serves as NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander Europe, next month. Hegseth is expected to make a final decision on the review’s outcome in November.
Moscow Visit Adds Tension
Colby’s Brussels trip coincided with an unannounced visit to Moscow by CIA Director John Ratcliffe, who reportedly warned the Kremlin against escalating tensions with NATO. Baltic officials sought to downplay the visit, but it added another layer of complexity to an already fraught moment in transatlantic relations.
Hegseth first announced the review on June 18 at NATO headquarters, telling allies bluntly that the era of free riding was over. “Some of NATO’s largest economies still think the era of free riding is here. No more,” he declared. He said the assessment would weigh base access and overflight rights, criteria shaped directly by the allies’ refusal to support US operations during the Iran war.
Grynkewich has identified 2027 as a potential window for simultaneous conflicts with Russia and China, saying NATO would need “every bit of kit and equipment and munitions” to meet that scenario. That timeline has added urgency to the review, even as European diplomats worry that a premature US drawdown could leave the alliance exposed at precisely the wrong moment.
The questionnaire responses now sit with Pentagon analysts who will feed them into a broader assessment of which allies are meeting their commitments and which fall short. For many in Brussels, the real question is not whether the review will produce cuts, but how deep they will go and whether the remaining US presence will be concentrated in a handful of favored nations rather than spread across the alliance.
discussion