The news arrived in Berlin like a bolt from the blue. The Pentagon has officially announced the transfer of five thousand US soldiers currently stationed in Germany: out within the next six to twelve months. The order was signed by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, following what Washington spokespeople described as “a review of the American military presence in Europe.”
The German capital takes the blow at a moment already marked by tensions with the Trump administration and is questioning the repercussions – military, strategic, economic – of a decision that risks reshaping, at least in part, the map of American presence on European soil.
BACKGROUND OF AN ANNOUNCED DECISION
The spark should be sought in a statement by Chancellor Friedrich Merz, who publicly claimed, in front of a group of students, that the United States had found itself in a position of weakness vis-à-vis Iran during peace negotiations, operating “without a clear strategic vision in the conflict with Tehran.” Merz’s words deeply irritated Donald Trump, who responded on his social channels with harsh tones, accusing the chancellor of being “completely ineffective” on the Ukraine dossier and of needing to think first about “putting his own country in order.” According to sources close to the Pentagon, cited by some German newspapers, the proposal to reposition the troops surprised even senior American Defense officials, who were not informed in advance. But from Washington, some Trump administration officials described Berlin’s rhetoric as “inappropriate and counterproductive.”
However, the decision fits into a longer-term orientation. The United States has pursued for years the goal of lightening its military commitment in Europe to concentrate resources in the Indo-Pacific area. Already in 2020, during Trump’s first term, a withdrawal of twelve thousand soldiers from Germany was floated, later averted by Biden’s arrival at the White House.
According to some defense experts, in fact, the plan to empty American bases in Europe (thus not only in Germany) is by no means a last-minute improvisation. Everything would date back to the Global Posture Review (GPR), a strategic document ratified some time ago but kept in the shadows, which already put in black and white a massive repositioning of forces. The threat to cut contingents in Germany, but also in Italy and Spain, was decided long ago; the lack of support against Iran is just a pretext. Just as the simultaneous reopening of the tariff front is a complementary card of pressure and blackmail. Everything fits perfectly into Trump’s negotiation style.
THE BASES AT STAKE: A DIFFICULT ASSET TO DISMANTLE
According to data released by the American army in April, about 86 thousand US soldiers are currently deployed in Europe, nearly 39 thousand of whom in Germany. The units transferable most quickly are some rotational formations sent after the start of the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022: the Wall Street Journal indicates precisely the level of presence prior to that date as the target of the repositioning.
The situation of the large infrastructures is much more complex. The Ramstein Air Base, in Rhineland-Palatinate, is the fulcrum of American power projection between Europe, Africa, and the Middle East: it hosts about 9 thousand soldiers, manages transport, supplies, evacuations, and data flows for drone operations in the Middle East. Next to it stands the Landstuhl Regional Medical Center, the largest American military hospital outside national borders, which assists 50 thousand people including soldiers and families. A few kilometers away, in Weilerbach, a one and a half billion dollar healthcare facility is under construction, expected to open in 2029 and serve two hundred thousand soldiers engaged in the European, Middle Eastern, and African theaters.
Stuttgart hosts EUCOM and AFRICOM. Wiesbaden is home to the American army headquarters for the two regions, as well as the 2nd Multi-Domain Task Force, a unit born just in 2021 that integrates cyber operations, space reconnaissance, electronic warfare, and long-range precision weapons.
Dismantling all this would require years, billion-dollar investments, and replacement structures elsewhere. In the short term – German military analysts observe – it is an unrealistic scenario.
THE SPECTER OF CANCELED MISSILES
Among the most discussed consequences in Berlin is the suspension of the agreement signed in 2024 between Washington and the then German government led by Olaf Scholz for the deployment of American medium-range missiles. From 2026, Tomahawk cruise missiles, versatile SM-6 missiles, and the new hypersonic Dark Eagle carriers were to be deployed in Mainz-Kastel, also in Rhineland-Palatinate: it would have been the first return of long-range American armaments in Germany since the end of the Cold War. The related battalion was ninety percent operational as of February. According to the latest rumors from American circles, that deployment is now shelved.
ECONOMIC REPERCUSSIONS FOR THE REGIONS INVOLVED
The American military presence is not only a security issue: it is also an economic engine. According to estimates by the German economic press, in the Ramstein area the annual business volume generated exceeds two billion dollars, including salaries to local employees, rents, and contracts to companies in the area. The mayor of Ramstein, Ralf Hechler, quantified the overall weight of the American presence at over two billion dollars annually.
In Bavaria – where bases such as Grafenwöhr and Vilseck are located – the mere presence of US forces generated, six years ago, almost 672 million euros of annual economic output. For now, these figures worry the local German administrations. But it is not excluded, according to Trump himself, that similar reductions may be ordered also in Italy and Spain, should European support for the American strategy in the Middle East not increase.
THE DEBATE IN THE GERMAN PRESS
The topic has been central in the German media debate since yesterday. The main newspapers have addressed the issue with different tones. The Süddeutsche Zeitung reconstructed the deterioration of the personal relationship between Trump and Merz, speculating that even a phone call between the American president and Vladimir Putin played a role: Trump described it as “long and good,” said he suggested to the Russian president a ceasefire, “and I believe he could do it,” he stated. The Munich daily emphasizes: “It cannot be excluded that Putin, as a price for this ceasefire, asked, among other things, for what Trump had already threatened: the reduction of the number of American soldiers in Europe.” The newspaper linked the withdrawal announcement to the escalation of tariffs on European cars, reading them as part of retaliation against Berlin.
The Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung highlighted that the partial withdrawal “would have no immediate consequences on the country’s security,” but raised deeper questions “about the reliability of American guarantees within NATO.” And it put forward a hypothesis, perhaps more a hope: that the announcement could be “a pressure tool, destined to be reversed.”
The Neue Zürcher Zeitung, after recounting the dynamics of the Merz-Trump clash, focused on the more technical issues, distinguishing between units transferable in the short term and structures effectively immovable in the short term, and recalling that Trump had already threatened a similar operation in 2020 without then following through.
Die Welt gave voice to military expert Carlo Masala, for whom the truly worrying element is not the troop withdrawal itself, but the cancellation of the deployment of Tomahawk and Dark Eagle missiles. “A gap is created in deterrence capability against Russia,” Masala said, “which can only be filled when European forces have developed equivalent systems, and that will take time.” A time that Moscow could use for an aggression against a NATO country, perhaps in the Baltic area.
The economic daily Handelsblatt framed Washington’s decision as a return to the logic of the first term: the American military presence in Europe used as a bargaining chip. With a note not without irony: “The Pentagon, just weeks ago, had praised Germany’s commitment to increasing defense spending.” Evidently, it was not enough.
The Bild instead revealed that Pentagon officials were caught by surprise by the presidential announcement: no one had warned them. And it reported the position of former Republican adviser Brad Bowman: reducing the American presence in Europe would favor Russia and weaken the United States’ ability to project power in the Mediterranean.
A PARLIAMENTARY CONSTRAINT
On this aspect, the German press recalls that Trump could not act alone. Congress, including several Republican senators, has recently introduced minimum thresholds and reporting obligations to limit the executive’s ability to reduce forces in Europe.
But beyond the political contingencies of the moment, the direction of travel now appears clear: a progressive reduction of the American military apparatus in the Old Continent seems destined to materialize, with or without the turbulences in the relationship between Washington and Berlin.
