Hegseth reviews US assets in Europe

US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth has ordered a six-month review of every American military asset in Europe, presenting it as "NATO 3.0": Europeans take primary responsibility for defending Europe, while Washington pulls back. The mechanism matters. This is a unilateral American review, grounded in the president's constitutional authority as commander-in-chief. No European capital, and no NATO body, has a veto (CBS, Le Monde). Europe is being asked to adjust to a decision it does not control.

What Washington Actually Provides

The assets reportedly under review include 50 of 150 fighter jets, all eight aerial refuelling tankers, 11 of 26 maritime patrol aircraft, a missile submarine, a carrier strike group and one of two bomber groups (Tagesspiegel). These are not decorative symbols of American power. They are the systems that make NATO's defence plans usable: air cover, surveillance, long-range strike, maritime monitoring and the ability to move reinforcements across the Atlantic (Al Jazeera).

For a Mediterranean island like Malta, outside NATO but inside the EU's security perimeter, the maritime element is not abstract. Patrol aircraft, tankers and carrier groups shape what happens in the sea lanes that connect Europe to North Africa and the Middle East. If tankers go, European jets lose time in the air. If patrol aircraft go, submarine tracking becomes patchier. The review goes after the connective tissue of allied defence, not just the most visible hardware.

NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte tried to limit the political damage, saying the review would proceed "in close consultation with allies" and that NATO's Supreme Allied Commander believes many withdrawn capabilities are already covered or soon will be (NATO). Germany's defence minister Boris Pistorius was more direct: rapid reductions without a clear European replacement plan would create "dangerous capability imbalances" (Der Spiegel, Adevărul). That gap between reassurance and warning is Europe's problem.

Spending Up, Dependence Intact

Washington's burden-sharing argument is not empty. European allies increased core defence spending by more than $90 billion in 2025, almost 20% in one year (NATO). Poland now leads NATO in spending as a share of national output. Romania has earmarked €16.68 billion from SAFE, the EU's new Security Action for Europe loan instrument for military procurement, for combat vehicles, anti-drone systems and ammunition (Mediafax).

But money does not automatically replace capability. Between 2020 and 2024, 64% of arms imports by European NATO states came from the United States (Le Nouvel Économiste). Europe still lacks enough factories, components, powder and skilled workers to scale production quickly. France, Germany and Italy may end up with three separate combat-aircraft programmes after the flagship SCAF project stalled over governance and technology-sharing disputes (Le Monde). Bigger budgets spent through US suppliers can deepen the dependence they are supposed to reduce.

The Eastern Flank Reads It First

Warsaw is using Hegseth's pressure campaign to push for a permanent American base on Polish soil, with Defence Minister Kosiniak-Kamysz claiming an early positive response from the Pentagon (Polsat News). Even the NATO member spending the most by GDP share still wants American forces physically embedded in its defence.

Lithuania sees the danger more sharply. Experts there described a rapid US pullback as a "gift to Russia," warning that the transition period itself creates vulnerability (LRT). Baltic defence planners know which gaps cannot be closed quickly: long-range air defence, electronic warfare, early warning, and the logistics chains that move allied reinforcements into position.

Romania reads the same problem through the Black Sea, where the bases at Deveselu and Mihail Kogălniceanu anchor allied deterrence. Romanian coverage stresses that tankers, ISR drones, fighters and maritime patrol aircraft are precisely the assets Washington may no longer provide automatically (Euronews Romania).

No one outside the Pentagon has seen the actual cut list. Congress requires reporting before US troop levels in Europe fall below 76,000, and House and Senate defence-spending bills are trying to restrict major reductions (NOTUS). But the review is about capabilities, not only headcounts. Until there is a capability-by-capability replacement map showing who fills each gap, when, and with what, NATO's reassurance rests on a transition timetable Washington may choose not to honour.