Concerns Over U.S. Troop Withdrawal from Romania

In Washington, Republican leaders from the House and Senate Armed Services Committees voiced strong disapproval on Wednesday regarding the Pentagon’s choice to pull back hundreds of U.S. troops from Romania, a country neighboring Ukraine. They believe this move contradicts the administration’s ongoing efforts to apply pressure on Russia.

Senator Roger Wicker of Mississippi and Representative Mike Rogers from Alabama issued a joint statement emphasizing that, “This decision sends the wrong signal to Russia at a critical moment when President Trump is urging President Putin to negotiate for a long-term resolution in Ukraine.”

They added, “The President is right; it’s crucial for the U.S. to show its commitment to resisting Russian aggression. Sadly, the Pentagon’s actions seem disjointed and at odds with the President’s strategy.”

This isn’t the first instance of the Pentagon taking steps that seem to counter President Trump’s approach to resolving the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. In previous cases, U.S. defense officials attempted to stop arms shipments to Ukraine but had to reverse that decision after the President became aware.

The Republican criticism arose after the Army declared that it wouldn’t replace the 101st Airborne Division’s 2nd Infantry Brigade Combat Team if it moves back to its home station in Kentucky as scheduled.

Though the Pentagon did not specify the number of troops involved, Romania’s Defense Ministry anticipates that around 700 to 800 U.S. soldiers will depart from Bucharest, with a remaining force of about 900 to 1,000.

In its defense, the Pentagon stated that this withdrawal would not alter the security situation in Europe, arguing that it was reasonable because, as a result of President Trump’s actions, NATO allies are now more capable of assuming the role traditionally held by U.S. forces in European defense.

According to the U.S. Army Europe-Africa Command (USAREUR-AF), “This does not signify a U.S. retreat from Europe nor a reduction in our commitment to NATO or Article V. It reflects a positive trend in the development of European defense capacity.”

While Rogers and Wicker recognized that, “Thanks to President Trump’s leadership, European allies are now taking on a historic level of responsibility for collective defense,” they cautioned that prematurely reducing U.S. forces could jeopardize the progress made thus far.

They pointed out that “Europe’s rearmament will take time,” warning that pulling back U.S. forces from NATO’s eastern front too soon—especially following breaches of Romanian airspace by Russian drones—might weaken deterrence and provoke further Russian hostility.

The two Republican leaders also noted that the Pentagon made this decision without prior consultation with Congress. They expressed apprehensions about this, especially given the evident bipartisan and bicameral support for a robust U.S. stance in Europe, as reflected in the FY26 National Defense Authorization Act.

“This bill clarifies Congress’s intent that any changes to the U.S. position in Europe should undergo a thorough review process,” they stated.

The Army is currently reviewing its force posture, looking into the U.S. troop presence in Europe, which is estimated to be between 80,000 and 100,000. Officials have hinted that reductions in U.S. forces in Europe might be on the table, but results from this review are not expected until early next year.