![\"US](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/nato\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/Pete-Hegseth-BannerImage-1168x440px.jpg\")
<\/p>\nNATO 3.0: US Conventional Retrenchment and Nuclear Deterrence in Europe<\/p>\n
Washington\u2019s plan to re-evaluate its posture in Europe could further undermine US nuclear deterrence if it strips out conventional presence.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
At last week\u2019s NATO Defence Ministerial, US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth announced<\/a> Washington would be undertaking a six-month review of US posture in Europe. The review, according to Hegseth, will ensure Europe takes primary responsibility for its defence \u2013 including through reductions in US annual NATO dues should European allies fail to meet defence spending targets. The announcement further advances Trump\u2019s clearly stated objective of reducing US contributions to Europe\u2019s conventional defence. At the same time, Washington has been keen to draw a distinction between its conventional and nuclear contributions to European security. Yet, this division is a somewhat artificial one. A reduced US conventional presence, coupled with disparaging \u2013 and, at times, outright belligerent \u2013 US rhetoric is fundamentally at odds with American claims that US extended nuclear deterrence in Europe remains unaffected.<\/p>\n Extended Deterrence as a Consolation for Conventional Retrenchment<\/p>\n Even before Hegseth\u2019s announcement of the \u2018NATO 3.0 review\u2019, the Trump Administration had made clear that the US will play a reduced role in European conventional defence going forward. While highlighting the continued importance of Europe to US security, the 2025 National Security Strategy<\/a> noted that US policy will be to enable \u2018Europe to stand on its own two feet . . . including by taking primary responsibility for its own defense\u2019. The Pentagon had previously reportedly set 2027<\/a> as the deadline for Europe to assume majority responsibility for NATO\u2019s conventional defence. Hegseth\u2019s latest pronouncements of a six-month review appear to align with that timeline.<\/p>\n In early May, the US announced<\/a> the planned withdrawal of 5,000 American troops from Germany and the cancellation<\/a> of the expected deployment of a Multi-Domain Task Force (MDTF) long-range fires battalion, apparently in response to German criticism of Trump\u2019s policy towards Iran. A few weeks later, the Pentagon confirmed<\/a> it would be cancelling the rotational deployment of 4,000 US military personnel to Eastern Europe. Since then, Trump has said<\/a> US personnel deployments to Europe would be reduced further still. More recently, the US told<\/a> European allies it would be significantly reducing the number of fighter jets, maritime surveillance aircraft, aerial refuelling platforms, bombers, submarines and aircraft carriers allocated to NATO. As the Chinese threat to US interests in Asia continues to grow \u2013 and in light of depleting US weapons inventories<\/a> as a result of Trump\u2019s misadventure in the Middle East \u2013 any further US conventional withdrawals from Europe should not come as a surprise.<\/p>\n