Katherine Thompson
Nestled within this year’s National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) is an attempt to severely constrain President Trump’s ability to decrease US posture, basing, and role as security guarantor in Europe. Congressional leadership, in closed-door negotiations, maintained the controversial provision opposed by the administration—a rebuke to the president’s push for Europe to own the responsibility for European security.
The committee chairs of both the House and Senate Armed Services Committees, in a recent public statement, pleaded that Europe needs more time to rearm and argued that European NATO allies have a right to be consulted before the US takes any major decisions on force posture and basing.
European NATO allies have received plenty of “deadline extensions,” over a decade to be exact, since the Wales Pledge, in which allies committed to spending a mere 2 percent of GDP on defense, was signed. The message to European NATO allies from the Trump administration was clear from day one: the US blank check ends now, and 5 percent is the new expectation.
Despite all the fearmongering early on in his second term, President Trump did not immediately withdraw the US from NATO or initiate a massive drawdown in forces. By all accounts, his tactics have been diplomatically firm but fair, encouraging European allies to get on board willingly. But for commitments and pledges to yield tangible results, one needs leverage. Blocking the president’s ability to withdraw and reprioritize scarce US personnel and assets foolishly takes a major chip off the table to the detriment of US interests.
The committee chairs also made the bold assertion that there is “clear, bipartisan, and bicameral support for a robust US posture in Europe.” This is an easy claim to make when the final version of the bill is crafted exclusively by congressional leadership behind closed doors, with no opportunity for dissenting members to offer amendments or debate the matter under an open process.
Such antiquated arguments, which excuse the willful neglect of national defense by wealthy European nations and the blocking of open debate, are understandably sowing division within the Republican Party on this topic. And frankly, for those in leadership who want to keep the US entangled in Europe, the petulance is only emboldening and intensifying the appetite from dissenting members to fully abandon Europe.
The president’s own patience with Europe’s ineptitude is wearing thin. In his recent interview with Politico, President Trump didn’t hold back, saying, “Europe is not doing a good job in many ways…I don’t want to run Europe.”
Dissenting members in Congress are also throwing down the most severe gauntlet. Senator Mike Lee (R‑UT) introduced a bill to fully withdraw the United States from NATO, saying the legislation would “put America first by withdrawing us from the raw deal NATO has become.” Rep. Thomas Massie (R‑KY) recently followed suit with a companion measure in the House.
The Europe hawks in Congress certainly hip-checked the president in this year’s NDAA, but the broader fight to devolve the security responsibility for Europe back to European powers is far from over. The Trump administration and dissenting members of Congress cut out of the debate still have cards to play. The president signed this year’s NDAA but rightly included a signing statement challenging the bill’s constraint of the president’s ability to operate as commander-in-chief in adjusting force posture and basing. The president is wise to assert such a prerogative.
Dissenting members of Congress, for their part, should begin preparing amendments to repeal or significantly lessen the restrictions going into the 2027 NDAA cycle. Such amendments could include:
- Repeal the provision entirely;
- Restore appropriate civilian control by removing the requirement for the Commander of US European Command to submit an independent assessment equal in weight and authority to the Secretary of Defense; and
- Lower the threshold of US forces required in Europe to below 76,000.
Dissenting members should also not waste a single opportunity to force this debate onto the floor in both chambers and into public conversation, negotiating with leadership for votes on applicable amendments and measures, such as the Lee-Massie NATO withdrawal.
The preservation of the US Cold War legacy posture, basing, and role in Europe in this year’s NDAA is a setback for burden shifting, but it does not have to be decisive. President Trump, his administration, and a growing coalition in Congress hold the upper hand rhetorically, articulating a commonsense case that freeriding off American taxpayers by capable and wealthy allies is unacceptable.
An American nanny state for Europe doesn’t win the hearts, minds, or pocketbooks of voters. The President and his coalition, however, must leverage the tools at their disposal to play defense and prevent the FY26 NDAA from having the last word.