Hegseth NATO – Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has floated a “NATO 3.0” built around faster, more irreversible European responsibility for defending Europe, while the Pentagon begins a six-month review of U.S. forces in Europe. His push comes amid recent U.S. moves to reduce
Pete Hegseth did not sound like a man asking permission.
At a NATO conference on Thursday. the Defense Secretary used sharp language for what he described as a shameful reaction by European member nations to America’s war in Iran. From there. he laid out what he called the start of a reset—one he expects to change how the alliance organizes itself and how quickly it can act.
Hegseth said the Pentagon will conduct a six-month review of American forces in Europe. “This will be a real review. ” he said. adding that it would be designed to ensure NATO is moving “fast and irreversibly toward Europe leading. stepping up to take primary responsibility for the defense of Europe.” He also warned that “some countries will fail and others will pass with flying colors.”.
To European leaders—who have relied for decades on the U.S. military footprint in Europe—that kind of timeline and phrasing landed like a jolt. The relationship has historically been strong. and Hegseth’s comments came with the implication that Washington is prepared to tighten the alliance’s definition of who does what.
The Pentagon review is not happening in a vacuum. In recent months, the U.S. has already begun drawing down and reshaping its presence. The Pentagon has pulled thousands of troops from Germany and Poland. and it has also quietly cut warships. refueling planes. and surveillance aircraft that it had pledged to NATO in a crisis. What remains unsettled is how far the Defense Department will go during the six-month process.
Hegseth’s pitch for a “NATO 3.0” is tied to two themes: access and priorities. In his speech, he criticized European allies for not providing the U.S. with access to bases in Europe to launch attacks on Iran. He said those allies “put America’s sons and daughters. our sons and daughters. at risk by denying them the predictable access. basing and overflight that never should have been in question at all.” The review. he said. would also assess whether the U.S. has full access and overflight “when we need it.”.
He also argued that European leaders prioritize social issues over security. “Instead of tanks and fighters and air defenses. the focus has been on gender equity and climate change and defense austerity. ” he said. He then claimed that “Europe’s borders flew wide open. welfare states expanded. defense budgets cratered. along with Europe’s belief in itself and its civilization.”.
The counterpoint is that parts of Europe’s defense posture have been moving in the opposite direction. European and Canadian leaders have launched efforts to boost defense spending and expand their armed forces. NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte told the alliance this week that NATO spent $90 billion more on defense in 2025 than in 2024. a 20% increase.
That clash between rhetoric and the latest budget figures is where the political pressure is likely to intensify.
The six-month review sits alongside broader changes the Trump administration has already set in motion for NATO planning. Weeks before Hegseth’s speech, the U.S. said it would no longer provide as much military support if any NATO member came under attack. The exact plans remained classified. but the shift is centered on the NATO Force Model—an effort that lists the forces allies could activate during a war or other major crisis.
Rutte, at the time, declined to comment on the U.S. drawdown. He characterized the change as a logical progression intended to diminish NATO’s reliance on U.S. military power. “We know that adjustments will take place, the U.S. has to pivot toward, for example, Asia,” Rutte said. “This will take place over time, in a structured way.”.
Those decisions are already showing up on the ground. In early May, the White House announced it would pull 5,000 service members from Germany. Weeks later, it said it would remove 4,000 troops from Poland.
For European countries, the concern is not only the numbers. The removal of a specialized long-range missile contingent from bases in Germany has caused significant concern because European militaries do not currently possess comparable capabilities. The withdrawal would include a reduction of F-16 and F-15E fighter jets. a reduction of P-8 Poseidon reconnaissance aircraft. and warships provided for NATO operations. according to The Hill. European leaders have raised additional concerns about air mobility and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, or ISR.
One element, however, is not changing: America’s European nuclear arsenal. The AP reported that Hegseth said he had no plans of withdrawing America’s nuclear weapons. which he described as a critical NATO deterrence. After Hegseth’s comments, NATO’s Nuclear Planning Group issued its first statement in nearly two decades. It said that it “recalled that the strategic nuclear forces of the Alliance remain the supreme guarantee of Allied security and underpin NATO’s extended deterrence architecture.” The group said it would continue to enhance NATO’s nuclear deterrence mission by “modernizing NATO’s nuclear capabilities. strengthening its nuclear planning capacity. and adapting to achieve its security interests.”.
Hegseth’s remarks drew negative reactions from NATO officials, but Rutte downplayed the impact of the U.S. decision. He said the NATO Force Model is just “a planning tool” and not a reflection of what would happen if a NATO country were attacked. “If war breaks out. we will all max out what we need to do to make sure we can fight the war. ” Rutte said. “In the planning phase, it is important to know what we can count on. What is in theory there.”.
The immediate tension is over what “in theory” becomes once a crisis arrives.
There is also a strategic motivation that goes beyond Europe. The Trump administration said it needs to be able to plan for two simultaneous conflicts and wants more military resources available to combat China. if necessary. That reorientation has been discussed inside NATO circles as well. In February, Pentagon official Elbridge Colby spoke to NATO about reprioritization, saying the U.S. had to focus on China and could no longer support additional forces in Europe. He said scaling back conventional forces in Europe would allow Washington to redeploy high-end naval and air forces to the Indo-Pacific.
Colby described the Indo-Pacific as “a central arena of geopolitics,” with “fundamental implications for American security, economic vitality, and technological leadership.”
Put together, these steps form a picture that European governments are being asked to live with: a U.S. presence in Europe that can be reduced, a planning model that can be rewritten, and a push for NATO’s next phase to be led—and judged—by outcomes rather than past commitments.
For now, the six-month review is the pivot point. It is scheduled to determine how far the Defense Department will go in redesigning U.S. forces in Europe—exactly the kind of question that makes allies anxious when the alliance is already being asked to adapt on multiple fronts. from defense budgets and border policies to who gets access and who carries the primary responsibility.
Pete Hegseth NATO 3.0 Pentagon review forces in Europe Germany Poland NATO Force Model Mark Rutte Elbridge Colby Iran F-16 F-15E P-8 Poseidon ISR NATO nuclear deterrence Nuclear Planning Group