To ensure Europe rearms, bring the troops home

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Anthony J. Constantini is a Contributing Fellow at Defense Priorities.

The Trump administration is pushing NATO allies to embrace “NATO 3.0,” which would see European member states take more responsibility for their own defense. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth and Secretary of State Marco Rubio have both skipped multiple high-level NATO meetings. In their stead, high-ranking officials such as Undersecretary of War for Policy Elbridge Colby have urged faster rearmament, telling Europeans “time is of the essence.”

One person who clearly does not believe our European allies are moving quickly enough is President Donald Trump. Out of frustration with the slow pace, the president recently ordered 5,000 troops out of Germany and threatened more could follow. Where they are going, however, remains uncertain. After giving the removal order, Trump announced he was sending 4,000 to Poland, though it was unclear whether these were the troops removed from Germany or a new group.

The thinking is straightforward: Poland spends more on defense as a percentage of GDP than any NATO member, and therefore will be rewarded. Germany, which is refusing to spend money and is unlikely to do so in the future, will likewise be punished.

While this logic is understandable, it will not achieve the goal of European rearmament. Painful as it may be for countries on NATO’s eastern front — which have rearmed — Europe as a whole will never move to rearm if America does not start bringing her troops home.

Germany, and most European NATO members, have already been extremely reticent to make meaningful increases in defense spending, though they have made it sound like they are rearming. Last June, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s government promised it would reach 3.5% of GDP on defense by 2029 — an admirable goal, though one that coincidentally comes after Trump leaves office. But that was quietly walked back, when the country’s defense minister later announced it would only reach 3.05%. Germany also promised to become the most powerful army in Europe by 2039, an unnecessarily long time from now on even the longest rearmament schedules.

Other European governments have been similarly unwilling to commit to real increases in military expenditures. Italy — which frustrated Trump by refusing the use of a base for Operation Epic Fury — argued a nonexistent bridge to Sicily should count as military-adjacent, only backing down after pressure from Washington. Spain refused to increase defense spending to 5% of GDP by 2035, and the Czech Republic cut spending below 2%.

SAFE, the crown jewel of the European Union’s rearmament plan — a roughly $175 billion pot that member states can use to rearm — will be spread across at least 28 countries. That amount of money for that many countries is less of a lightning bolt than it is a static shock. Plus almost one-third of it will go to Poland, a country that already rearmed.

Which isn’t an accident: Most of Europe simply does not want to rearm, as they do not have the economic or political capacity. Germany, for example, has been forced to cut billions from health care — and that’s before necessary reductions for military spending. These cuts have been incredibly unpopular. A recent poll pegged Merz’s government’s approval at an anemic 11%; another found the nationalist Alternative for Germany party in a clear first place nationally.

European leaders across the Continent, already facing populist headwinds, do not want to risk the wrath of a public long accustomed to strong safety nets. Especially when it is not all that clear to the public why they need to rearm. Recent polling has shown only 13% of Germans think the threat from Russia is “significant,” far from enough to get them to accept any sort of austerity.

But Poland, which possesses both one of the world’s largest economies and a population that expects their leaders to protect them from Russian aggression, has the capacity to rearm without cutting its welfare state.

Most of NATO, therefore, is tacitly hoping that Russia-bordering Poland and the Baltics will take on the brunt of rearmament duty. By playing along and moving more troops to the frontline there, America will effectively be guaranteeing most of NATO never seeks to truly rearm — and American taxpayers will continue to subsidize European welfare states.

Which is why Trump was right to start the process of troop removal. But he should bring them home and increase the number of departees until European leaders take real steps in the present, not the end of the 2020s or the 2030s, to demonstrate they are serious about embracing NATO 3.0 and taking on more responsibility for their own defense.