A plan is being formulated by some of Europe’s major military powers to assume greater responsibility for the continent’s defense from the United States. This initiative involves proposing a managed transition to the Trump administration over a period of five to ten years. This strategic move aims to prevent the possible disruption of a sudden U.S. withdrawal from NATO, a concern that has grown due to President Donald Trump’s recurring threats to diminish or abandon the transatlantic alliance that has safeguarded Europe for nearly 80 years.
The United Kingdom, France, Germany, and Nordic countries are engaged in informal yet organized discussions to craft a plan to reallocate the financial and military burdens to European capitals. This plan is intended to be presented to the United States before NATO’s annual leaders’ summit in The Hague in June. The proposal seeks to secure firm commitments to increase European defense spending and enhance military capabilities, aiming to persuade Trump to consent to a gradual transition, allowing the U.S. to concentrate more on Asia.
The U.S., contributing more to defense than all other NATO allies together, plays a crucial role in European security. Besides its nuclear deterrent, which is committed to Europe’s defense and includes several European air forces carrying U.S. nuclear weapons, it provides capabilities, runs air, naval, and troop bases, and stations 80,000 troops across Europe.
Since Trump’s election, nations such as Germany, France, and the UK have either increased their defense budgets or expedited planned increases, while the EU has introduced initiatives for member states to accelerate their military investments. European officials estimate that it would take five to ten years of increased spending to elevate European capabilities to a point where they could substitute most U.S. competences, excluding the U.S. nuclear deterrent.
“Increasing spending is the only strategy available: sharing the burden and shifting reliance away from the U.S.,” one official noted. They emphasized that while talks have commenced, many are daunted by the magnitude of the task. Despite assurances from U.S. diplomats that Trump remains committed to NATO membership and its Article 5 mutual defense clause, European capitals are apprehensive about a possible swift reduction in U.S. troop or equipment deployments or withdrawal from shared NATO tasks.
Certain capitals are hesitant to partake in discussions about shifting the burden, fearing this might hasten U.S. retreat, while others doubt Trump’s administration would agree to a structured process, given its unpredictability. “You need a deal with the Americans, and it’s uncertain if they’d be willing to make one,” commented another official, who questioned the reliability of such an agreement.
Regular discussions continue, led by France and the UK, about establishing a “coalition of the willing” to support Ukraine in its conflict with Russia and boost European defense, indicating a possible future direction. These discussions do not include the U.S.
A senior western official described a nascent European pillar within NATO as tangible, evidenced by the UK and France initiating efforts, such as a reassurance force for Ukraine, independently of American involvement. NATO officials emphasize that maintaining the alliance with reduced U.S. participation would be easier than constructing a new framework, given the complexity of duplicating or renegotiating its current military plans, capability targets, command structure, and Article 5. The basic defense of Europe would always involve the UK and Atlantic naval powers, the Nordics in the north, and Turkey in the southeast, reflecting NATO’s current membership.
Marion Messmer, a senior research fellow at Chatham House, highlighted that even without the U.S., NATO provides a vital structure for security cooperation in Europe. She noted that while some aspects would need replacement if the U.S. disengaged, NATO offers a familiar structural and infrastructural framework, reducing the groundwork required should a new system need to be established solely for European members.
