The United States is proposing cuts to the number of strategic bombers, fighter jets, warships and support aircraft available to NATO, shifting greater responsibility to European allies
The United States has informed NATO officials of a planned reduction in the military capabilities it will make available to the alliance during a crisis. According to reporting by Der Spiegel and subsequent coverage, an envoy representing US defence secretary Pete Hegseth briefed senior officials at NATO headquarters, outlining changes to the NATO Force Model, the framework that describes how national forces are assigned to collective defence tasks.
Those briefings reportedly conveyed specific cuts across air and maritime categories: the number of American fighter jets earmarked for alliance operations would be reduced by around a third, and the pool of strategic bombers is expected to be halved. The United States would also offer fewer destroyers and, notably, would no longer make submarines available to NATO in crisis scenarios.
Support platforms such as aerial refuelling aircraft and armed reconnaissance drones are also part of the proposed retrenchment.
What the changes mean for NATO’s force planning
At the heart of the shift is a reassessment of how much the alliance can depend on American assets.
The NATO Force Model exists to guarantee a set of ready capabilities for rapid response; reducing the US contribution alters that baseline. Alliance planners will have to recalculate readiness expectations, reassign roles to member states, and potentially revise contingency plans for deterrence and reinforcement. A NATO spokesperson has acknowledged an over-reliance on US-provided capabilities and suggested that evolving spending by Europe and Canada opens the door to a reorganisation of responsibilities.
Reasons given by Washington and the political backdrop
US officials frame the move as part of a broader demand for burden-sharing: Washington has repeatedly urged European partners to invest more in their own defence and to provide capabilities previously supplied by the United States. The retrenchment follows a period of heightened diplomatic tension between the US administration and some allies, including public criticisms of European contributions and repeated warnings from the White House that American forces cannot be everywhere at once. In Brussels, US envoy Alexander Velez-Green reportedly delivered the classified briefing, signalling a policy that prioritises US strategic flexibility.
How political friction affects military commitments
Political disputes—over regional operations, troop stationing, and differing strategic priorities—have compounded technical decisions about force availability. Statements from senior figures in Washington have at times questioned the automaticity of US support, and announcements about possible troop redeployments and changes to overseas posture have added urgency to alliance debates. European capitals must now weigh the diplomatic consequence of pushing back against these adjustments while accelerating national procurement plans if they wish to preserve current levels of collective capability.
Operational and strategic consequences for Europe
The practical result of fewer US platforms will be gaps that European militaries may need to fill quickly. Reduced access to strategic bombers and fewer air refuelling assets would limit long-range strike and sustainment options, while the absence of US submarines constrains anti-submarine warfare and undersea deterrence in several theatres. European states could be asked to provide their own reconnaissance drones and to expand fleets of surface combatants and aerial refuellers, which requires both time and significant budgetary outlays.
Force generation and the next steps
Officials expect more detailed guidance at a forthcoming force generation conference, where allies will be asked to describe how they will close capability shortfalls. NATO ministers and planners will assess which roles can be reassigned and what timelines are realistic for capacity build-up. The alliance will also have to revisit assumptions about deterrence, reinforcement and the distribution of high-end enablers across multiple potential crises.
In public comments, Dutch prime minister Mark Rutte acknowledged the sensitivity of the talks and described the process as highly classified and ongoing. European intelligence assessments that flag elevated threats from Russia add pressure to reach workable solutions quickly, even as Moscow dismisses such reporting. The coming weeks of consultation and planning will determine whether NATO can adapt smoothly to a new equilibrium in which Europe absorbs a larger share of conventional military responsibilities.
