A smaller US military footprint in Europe could weaken NATO’s defenses and create risks for Washington itself, according to Foreign Affairs (FA), which examined the Trump administration’s plans to redistribute American forces.

The White House believes European countries are wealthy and capable enough to assume a much larger share of responsibility for defending the continent. That would allow the United States to shift resources toward other strategic priorities, including Asia and the Middle East.

The change is already taking shape. The Pentagon has begun reducing its presence in Europe and is considering further cuts involving aircraft, ships and other units. Some senior NATO command positions could also be transferred from American officers to European counterparts.

Foreign Affairs argues that Europe would struggle to replace key US capabilities in full. Anti-submarine warfare is one area where the impact could be particularly noticeable. Fewer American maritime patrol aircraft would make it harder to track Russian submarines. In early September, the US Navy also stayed out of NATO anti-submarine exercises in the North Atlantic for the first time in decades.

The consequences may extend well beyond Europe. FA notes that Beijing and Pyongyang could interpret a reduced US commitment to European allies as a reason to question Washington’s security guarantees elsewhere, including those involving Taiwan and South Korea. In the magazine’s assessment, perceptions of American credibility are interconnected across regions, meaning a retreat in one theater can affect how US commitments are viewed in another.

Relying more heavily on nuclear forces would not fully offset the loss of conventional military power, the article argues. Even a stronger American nuclear presence in Europe would not replace substantial conventional forces or remove doubts over the effectiveness of deterrence.

Foreign Affairs reinforces this point with the views of British nuclear policy specialist Michael Quinlan. He regarded a major conventional war as the most likely route toward nuclear escalation. The magazine therefore argues that conventional and nuclear deterrence are closely linked: reducing US forces in Europe could weaken NATO’s day-to-day military capabilities while also undermining the credibility of its nuclear deterrent.