Leadership1 publisher2 min readPublished
Pentagon tells allies it will pull every aerial refueling tanker out of Europe
An essay in Foreign Affairs dates each step of the American pullback from Europe. The cuts described so far land on refueling tankers, maritime patrol aircraft and the command structure, and only some of that can be bought back.
The Board Room · Leadership desk
What happened
- The Trump administration's 2025 National Security Strategy told Europe to stand on its own feet and take primary responsibility for its own conventional defense.
- The administration then sent a questionnaire to all NATO allies asking whether they were aligned with President Trump's policies and priorities, with reduced U.S. support the unstated penalty.
- Washington permanently removed about 1,000 troops from Romania in October 2025, then in May 2026 canceled a Dark Eagle hypersonic task force and an armored brigade rotation, leaving Europe roughly 5,000 troops shorter.
- June 2026 reporting by The New York Times said the Pentagon told allies to expect a third fewer F-15E and F-16 fighters in Europe, no aerial refueling tankers, fewer patrol aircraft and a withdrawn carrier group.
Compiled by The Board RoomSomething wrong?How this is made
Why it matters
- decision The questionnaire converts alliance management into separate bilateral conversations, so each capital now weighs protecting its own access to Washington against funding capabilities only the alliance as a whole uses.
- constraint With no American tankers left in Europe, European air forces have to buy or lease refueling capacity themselves, and that is a procurement programme with a delivery date attached, not a spending pledge.
- precedent A non-American supreme allied commander would retire a principle in place since NATO's founding, and leave the next U.S. administration an alliance whose top military post it no longer holds.
Two kinds of item sit on the Pentagon's list, and they have different lead times. In my view the ordering matters more than the totals: an ally can vote money for personnel in a single budget round, while airframes arrive when a production line says they arrive. Romania's rotation plus the two May cancellations come to roughly 6,000 troops gone or never sent [2]. Removing all eight aerial refueling tankers leaves none in Europe [11]. Of the 26 maritime patrol aircraft stationed on the continent, 15 go and 11 stay [1], and one of the two bomber groups assigned to Europe is being reassigned [12].
The command changes would be the hardest for a later administration to reverse. In July, Hegseth cut the U.S. Army Europe post from four stars to three and forced the retirement of General Chris Donahue [15]. Foreign Affairs reports that he also intends to hand many senior American command positions to European officers [16], and that the White House is weighing a non-American as NATO's supreme allied commander, a job an American has held since the alliance was formed [17]. Europe has talented commanders who will take those posts, the essay says [20].
A skeptic would point at the study. The Pentagon is reportedly working out the optimal level of U.S. forces in NATO, which leaves room to read the numbers above as proposals [5]. Hegseth's own language answers that. At June's meeting of NATO defense ministers he said the Pentagon was "moving fast and irreversibly toward Europe stepping up to take primary responsibility for the defense of Europe" [2]. Two months later, Undersecretary of Defense Elbridge Colby said NATO would transition to "a stronger, more equitable and sustainable alliance" [3]. Foreign Affairs argues the study's task is merely to provide a cover story for the course Trump, Hegseth and Colby have already chosen [5].
The administration's case, as the essay summarizes it, is that Europe is rich and powerful enough to defend itself and that Washington must spend its military resources on Asia and the Middle East [19]. Foreign Affairs rejects that reasoning, calling the pullback the product of bias against Europe and arguing it will weaken all of the United States' partnerships and could even threaten the American homeland [18]. That judgement is one essay's, and it is contested. The documentation under it comes from June 2026 reporting by The New York Times, cited in the piece, that the Pentagon's policy office has told allies deeper cuts are coming [9].
What to watch
- Whether the Pentagon publishes its force-level study, and whether the number it recommends differs from the cuts already described to allies.
- Who is named the next supreme allied commander, and whether the post stays American.
- Whether any ally's answer to the alignment questionnaire becomes public, and whether U.S. support tracks it.