US could give up role as NATO leader

NATO insiders fear such a move is a signal the US is scaling back its role in the alliance but say it would not advance Washington’s strategic interests.

(Back row L-R) NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte, Netherlands' Prime Minister Dick Schoof, Sweden's Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson, Germany's Chancellor Olaf Scholz, Norway's Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Store, Czech Republic's Prime Minister Petr Fiala, Turkey's Minister of Foreign Affairs Hakan Fidan, (Middle row L-R) Spain's Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez, Denmark's Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, European Council President Antonio Costa, Canada's Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Italy's Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, Romania's Interim President Ilie Bolojan, (Front row L-R) Finland's President Alexander Stubb, France's President Emmanuel Macron, Britain's Prime Minister Keir Starmer, Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky and Poland's Prime Minister Donald Tusk pose for a family photograph during a summit in London. Picture: AFP.

President Trump’s administration is said to be considering giving up America’s military leadership of NATO.

A four-star US general has overseen the alliance’s operations in Europe for 75 years as Supreme Allied Commander Europe (Saceur) but NBC News said the Pentagon was reviewing whether to relinquish the role.

NATO insiders fear that such a move, if confirmed, will lead to the US scaling back its role in the alliance.

Ben Hodges, the former commanding general of US Army Europe, said he understood that the option was being considered “unfortunately, as part of a larger reorganisation and reduction in Europe”. He said he did not see how it would advance America’s strategic interests and that he doubted whether there had been any comprehensive analysis of the implications.

“It smells more like cost-cutting and a lack of appreciation for the influence we will lose in Europe,” he said, adding that NATO would want to keep the US as engaged as possible if it did give up the Saceur role.

General Sir Richard Barrons, the former commander of Joint Forces Command, who has been carrying out the UK’s defence review, told Times Radio that it would be “totemic because that is the clearest possible signal of the US potentially disconnecting from leading European defence and leading NATO. And we should be really concerned about that.”

A restructuring is under way in the Pentagon of the US military’s commands and headquarters as Pete Hegseth, the defence secretary, seeks to save money.

It has been reported that the US might prioritise military exercises with NATO member states that are meeting the target to spend at least 2 per cent of their GDP on defence.

Any decision on the future of Saceur would likely be made at the NATO summit in June, when leaders will gather in the Netherlands.

The current Saceur is General Christopher Cavoli, who also serves as the head of US European Command and has been the primary commander overseeing support to Ukraine in its war against Russia.

The US holds other four-star positions within NATO. The Commander of Allied Joint Force Command Naples (JFC Naples) is a US four-star officer, who traditionally has had the responsibility of NATO’s southern flank.

Allied Air Command in Ramstein, Germany, is also commanded by a US four-star, dual-hatted as commander US Air Forces Europe and Africa.

One NATO official said that a strong NATO “serves US interests and benefits US security”."US officials have made clear their commitment to the alliance and to ensuring that NATO’s deterrence and defence remain robust,” the official said in response to the NBC News report. “In a more dangerous and competitive world, NATO strengthens US security and makes all of us safer.”

Armida van Rij, head of the Europe Programme at the Chatham House think tank, said it was difficult to see who would lead NATO instead of the US because no other ally had the same military strength.

“On the one hand it may allow the European NATO allies to get organised and enable NATO to operate as a functional alliance, as opposed to having a ‘dormant’ NATO with the US blocking everything.

“On the other hand, it’s just the latest signal of the direction of travel of burden shifting from the US to Europe, which the European NATO countries are simply not prepared for,” she said.

For the US, she said it would mean reducing its leverage and influence, which she described as a “shortsighted move”.

The Times