IRIA News

7 minute read

U.S. Under Secretary of War for Policy Elbridge Colby visited NATO headquarters in Brussels on August 27, 2026. The visit comes as the United States continues a major review of its military force posture and basing arrangements in Europe.

Colby met with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte and the North Atlantic Council, NATO’s main political decision-making body, to discuss the alliance’s defense priorities and the ongoing U.S. review.

The review, launched at the direction of U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth earlier this year, is examining how American forces are positioned in Europe and how the United States can better align its military presence with its wider global priorities.

The review has raised concerns among some NATO members that the United States could reduce or change parts of its military presence in Europe.

Colby has stressed that the process is not focused simply on deciding which bases or forces should remain. Instead, Washington is assessing its broader strategic posture in Europe and how it fits with U.S. global priorities.

The review is also intended to accelerate what Washington calls “NATO 3.0,” a model in which European allies take greater responsibility for the continent’s conventional defense while the United States maintains an important role in European and Atlantic security.

I had an exceedingly productive visit to Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe on Wednesday. During the visit, I had the chance to hear directly from General Grynkewich and his alliance-wide staff on their perception of how to chart the transition to NATO 3.0. I came away… pic.twitter.com/szf9lVFo3w

— Under Secretary of War Elbridge Colby (@USWPColby) August 27, 2026

Washington Pushes for Stronger European Role

Colby told NATO allies that the alliance’s traditional model no longer suits the current strategic environment. “We term this NATO 3.0,” he said, describing an alliance focused on warfighting readiness, deterrence and defense, with European allies taking primary responsibility for conventional defense in Europe.

The approach reflects a broader push by the Trump administration for European countries to spend more on their own defense and assume a larger share of the burden inside NATO.

NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte said Colby’s visit provided an opportunity for allies to discuss the U.S. force posture review directly with Washington. NATO said allies welcomed the engagement and emphasized the importance of continued cooperation.

The alliance also pointed to progress made at the recent NATO Summit in Ankara, including a $139 billion increase in defense spending by European allies and Canada in 2025. The increase is part of a wider effort by NATO members to strengthen their military capabilities and meet the alliance’s new defense-spending commitments.

Colby said European allies had made “historic commitments” to increase military spending and that these investments could allow Europe to defend itself more effectively while the United States addresses military requirements elsewhere.

US Review Could Reshape Military Presence

The six-month review is examining more than troop numbers. According to Colby, Washington is assessing its overall strategic posture, including access, basing and overflight arrangements, as well as how American forces in Europe support U.S. military operations both in Europe and beyond.

“This is not a narrow review about places and bases alone,” Colby said, explaining that the process would examine the broader U.S. strategic posture and its ability to meet the priorities set out in the National Security Strategy and National Defense Strategy.

He also pointed to the changing strategic priorities of the United States, saying Washington’s strategies place particular emphasis on the Western Hemisphere and the First Island Chain, while Europe remains an important area for U.S. security and a key part of the NATO alliance.

At the same time, Colby acknowledged that Europe remains an important platform for projecting U.S. military power. He said the continent provides a critical node for American operations in Europe and beyond and can also contribute to the defense of the U.S. homeland.

A significant portion of the current U.S. force posture in Europe dates back to the Cold War, meaning the review could examine whether existing forces and infrastructure remain suited to Washington’s future military strategy.

The outcome could therefore involve changes in the location, size or mission of some U.S. forces rather than a simple withdrawal from Europe.

Allies Face Questions over US Military Access

The review comes after disagreements between Washington and several European allies over access to airspace and military bases.

France, Italy and Spain had imposed restrictions connected to the use of their airspace and bases during the U.S.-Israeli war on Iran. Those disagreements became part of the background to Washington’s decision to examine its military posture in Europe.

Colby made clear that reliable military access is an important consideration for Washington. “We need to be able to have the ability to operate effectively; we need predictability,” he said, according to his prepared remarks.

Washington has also asked NATO allies to provide their views on the future of the alliance and the transition toward NATO 3.0.

Colby said the United States had sent a detailed questionnaire to its allies earlier in August to gather formal responses about how they could contribute to the alliance’s future structure. He said the responses would be incorporated into the review.

The questionnaire has caused concern among some European officials. Media outlets reported that one NATO diplomat described the exercise as a “scary” process, while some allies worried that Washington was testing their political alignment as well as their military commitments.

Colby rejected the idea that Washington was seeking unlimited authority from allies, while emphasizing the importance of predictable access to military facilities.

Europe Prepares for Possible Changes

The uncertainty surrounding the review has encouraged some NATO members to demonstrate that they are prepared to take on greater military responsibilities.

During Colby’s meeting with NATO representatives, allies highlighted progress toward NATO capability targets, increased defense spending and plans to substitute European forces for U.S. forces in some alliance war plans. The meeting was described by one NATO diplomat as “very constructive.”

Poland has gone further by signaling that it is prepared to offer locations, financing and logistical support for a permanent U.S. troop presence on its territory.

Polish Deputy Defense Minister Pawel Zalewski said Warsaw was ready to make proposals for permanently stationing U.S. troops in Poland, while stressing that the decision should be based on common interests rather than competition among allies.

The reactions illustrate the uncertainty surrounding the U.S. review. While some European governments are preparing for the possibility of a smaller or differently structured American presence, others are seeking to strengthen their countries’ importance to Washington by offering additional military infrastructure and support.

The review remains underway, and Washington has not announced a final decision on the future size or structure of U.S. forces in Europe.

U.S. Gen. Alexus Grynkewich, who commands American forces in Europe, is expected to present military recommendations to Colby next month. A more formal decision on the review’s outcome is expected from Hegseth in November, according to a person familiar with the process cited by POLITICO.

The review comes as European allies increase defense spending and expand their military capabilities while Washington pushes them to assume greater responsibility for conventional defense on the continent.

The outcome could reshape the long-standing division of military responsibilities within NATO. Colby said the objective was not to abandon Europe but to create a more balanced alliance in which European countries are “partners, not dependencies.”

The coming months will show whether that vision results in a significant restructuring of the U.S. military presence in Europe or primarily shifts more responsibility and resources toward European allies.