NATO allies are taking steps to cover the loss of approximately $50 billion in U.S. aircraft, ships, and drones that are being removed from NATO’s crisis response framework, according to reports from unnamed military sources.
During a press conference in Brussels, NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte discussed the allies’ plans. As per reports, the U.S. is set to withdraw various military assets from its crisis response commitments. Rutte assured that most of these losses would be compensated by NATO allies, though current estimates suggest total losses could range between $40 billion and $50 billion.
“There are capabilities that the U.S. won’t be committing to in the future, but other allies have or will have those capabilities soon,” Rutte stated. He added that despite the U.S. reducing its contributions, other allies have been stepping up, sometimes fully or nearly matching the required support.
NATO and the White House have yet to provide comments regarding these updates.
The U.S. troop withdrawal has been long anticipated, reflecting a shift in its military posture in Europe. Reports indicate significant reductions in military equipment, including one-third of the F-15 and F-15E fighters, one-fifth of the KC-135 and KC-46 tankers, and about half of the MQ-4 and MQ-9 Reaper drones, along with a substantial portion of strategic bombers and aircraft carriers.
Naval assets will also face cuts, with nearly half of the maritime patrol aircraft and destroyers, as well as the sole submarine equipped with cruise missiles, likely being withdrawn.
Reactions
Some analysts are skeptical about these reductions. Stephen Bucci, a visiting fellow at the Heritage Foundation, expressed doubts, stating, “This level of reduction is not going to happen. This report raises worries and should be viewed cautiously. It seems illogical given President Trump’s focus on the Russia-Ukraine conflict.” He emphasized that NATO allies might not realistically be able to fill these gaps.
Yet, not everyone shares this concern. Wilson Beaver from the Heritage Foundation noted that European governments could likely compensate for U.S. withdrawal in most scenarios without completely overhauling NATO plans.
The U.S. European Command and the Department of Defense referred to a previous statement regarding a shift in troop levels, which they are calling the “NATO 3.0” initiative. Beaver pointed out that NATO currently holds superiority over Russian forces in both air and sea realms, noting that the real worry lies with the risk of Russian ground forces attacking the Baltic states.
Military Reductions
In conjunction with this, the Army recently announced a reduction of brigade combat teams stationed in Europe from four to three. Each team comprises over 4,000 soldiers along with substantial heavy artillery.
A defense analyst previously suggested that the troop withdrawal could be a response to how European leaders have treated the U.S. administration. Michael O’Hanlon, from Brookings University, commented that it serves as a warning to countries that might risk alienating U.S. support.
Following the announcement of troop reductions, President Trump stated he would be deploying an additional 5,000 troops to Poland, citing the successful election of the Polish president, which he supported.
As of 2025, the U.S. remains the largest defense spender in NATO by a significant margin, with nearly $980 billion allocated, in contrast to the UK and France, which spend considerably less.
Meanwhile, the U.S. has committed substantial funding to Ukraine’s defense efforts, exceeding $133.9 billion since fiscal year 2022.
Bucci noted that if these reductions were to occur as reported, it would signify a notable shift in U.S.-NATO relations. Although some reductions may be on the table, he believes changes of this scale are unlikely.
The U.S. Army Secretary is slated to discuss changes in U.S. military stance in Brussels, further highlighting the ongoing evolution within NATO. Beaver highlighted the importance of focusing U.S. military efforts on countering the more significant threat posed by China in the Pacific.
