For nearly 75 years, it has been a distinctly American responsibility to have a four-star U.S. general oversee all NATO military operations in Europe — a command that began with then-World War II hero and future president Dwight D. Eisenhower.
But the Trump administration, according to two defense officials familiar with the planning and a Pentagon briefing reviewed by NBC News, is considering changing that.
The Pentagon is undertaking a significant restructuring of the U.S. military’s combatant commands and headquarters. And one of the plans under consideration, the two defense officials said, would involve the U.S. giving up the role of NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander Europe — known within military parlance as the SACEUR. The general now in this role, who also serves as the head of U.S. European Command, has been the primary commander overseeing support to Ukraine in its war against Russia. It is not clear how long such a reorganization could take, and it could by modified by the time it is complete. Congress could also weigh in, using the power of the purse should members oppose any aspect of the initiative.
Giving up SACEUR would, if nothing else, be a major symbolic shift in the balance of power in NATO, the alliance that has defined European security and peace since World War II.
“For the United States to give up the role of supreme allied commander of NATO would be seen in Europe as a significant signal of walking away from the alliance,” retired Adm. James Stavridis, who served as SACEUR and head of European Command from 2009 to 2013, said in an email.
“It would be a political mistake of epic proportion, and once we give it up, they are not going to give it back,” he wrote. “We would lose an enormous amount of influence within NATO, and this would be seen, correctly, as probably the first step toward leaving the Alliance altogether.”
Since Eisenhower inaugurated the position, it has been held by some of the country’s most prominent military leaders. In addition to Stavridis, they include Alexander Haig, who was also chief of staff to two presidents and secretary of state for a third; John Shalikashvili, who became chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; and Wesley Clark, who was a candidate for the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination.
The proposed restructuring comes as the Trump administration has cut spending and staff across the federal government. And President Donald Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth have made clear that the new administration wants European partners to take more responsibility for Europe’s defense. If the U.S. does give up SACEUR, the other NATO nations would likely have to choose among themselves which country would put forward the commander.
Trump has repeatedly criticized NATO members for not meeting a goal the alliance has set for the percentage of GDP each country should spend on defense. As NBC News previously reported, he is also considering a major policy shift under which the U.S. might not defend a fellow NATO member if it is attacked — a core tenet of the alliance — if the country doesn’t meet the defense spending threshold.
The timeline for the SACEUR move, if it does happen, is as yet undetermined. Army Gen. Chris Cavoli, the current SACEUR, is on a three-year tour due to end this summer.
Five of the military’s 11 combatant commands could be consolidated under the plan being discussed, the two defense officials familiar with the planning said.
The Department of Defense did not reply to a request for comment.
The massive restructuring plan under consideration could also include two potential changes previously reported by NBC News: the consolidation of U.S. European Command and U.S. Africa Command into one command based in Stuttgart, Germany, as well as the shuttering of U.S. Southern Command headquarters in Florida in order to combine it with U.S. Northern Command.
Combining the commands would allow the military to save money by reducing staff with overlapping responsibilities, according to officials familiar with the planning. If all of the changes being considered are implemented, up to $270 million could be saved in the first year, according to a Pentagon briefing reviewed by NBC News. That savings would amount to roughly 0.03% of the Defense Department’s $850 billion annual budget.
A potential reorganization of this nature, being considered two months into the administration, appears to be motivated by cost-cutting, not a comprehensive new military strategy, said Ben Hodges, a retired Army three-star general who last served as the Army’s senior commander in Europe.
The contemplated moves in Europe may reduce American influence there, as the U.S. could lose some access to key naval and air bases in Italy, Germany, Poland and Spain — bases that benefit the U.S. by putting them closer to potential missions and giving them more influence with and access to regional military officials, not only its allies, Hodges said.
“When you start reducing capabilities of headquarters that do planning and intelligence — that only hurts us,” Hodges told NBC News. “What strategic analysis led them to want to do this? This has happened so early that this clearly smells like a cost-cutting thing than a strategic analysis.”
Combining the commands in Europe and Africa could be problematic because the regions are too massive and present myriad issues, Stavridis said in an email. They had been combined until Africa Command was created in 2007 under then-President George W. Bush for these reasons.
“Combining US European command and US Africa command into a single unit, creates a mega combatant command that really is too large for any single person to manage realistically,” he wrote. “Too many countries, too many people, too many disparate issues. When they were combined, before I was US European Command, there were two four-stars assigned to the command because of this. We are better off having these two commands separated and having high-quality individual four-star officers focused on leading each of them individually.”
But Stavridis, who is also the former commander of Southern Command, added that he believes combining Southern Command and Northern Command “makes a great deal of sense.”
“The span of control is smaller and the efficiencies gained are greater,” he said.
If the Pentagon does decide to combine AFRICOM and EUCOM into one command, that will be part of the justification for eliminating the SACEUR role, the two defense officials said, because overseeing an area that large is already a big enough job for one person without them also overseeing NATO military operations.
Closing geographic commands introduces political risk, as some nations could feel the U.S. has deprioritized them. It also leaves combatant commanders with large geographic areas of responsibility that could make them more vulnerable, according to the Pentagon briefing that NBC News reviewed.
The cost-saving plans also include potentially moving hundreds of Pentagon-based Joint Staff employees to a military installation in Suffolk, Virginia. The Joint Staff is currently made up of eight directorates, or divisions, each with a different focus area.
J7, a Joint Staff Directorate that oversees Joint Force Development, training and education, could be eliminated entirely. While the military services — the Army, the Navy, the Marines, the Air Force, the Space Force and the Coast Guard — are each responsible for their own training, that directorate is in charge of bringing the services together to train so they will be ready to integrate in a combat situation.
Roughly 375 civilians could be fired, primarily those working in plans, cyber and joint force development, according to the Pentagon briefing. The 350 military personnel working in J-7 would be reassigned.
Roughly half of the staff from five other directorates — manpower and personnel (J1), logistics (J4), strategy, plans and policy (J5), cyber (J6), and force structure, resources and assessment (J8) — would then move from the Pentagon to Suffolk.
The plan acknowledges some potential costs for moving people to a new location but assesses overall long-term savings of about $470 million over the next five years.
U.S. Space Command could also see its missile defense component command eliminated in the restructuring.
The Defense Department briefing argues that the missile defense mission is already fulfilled by the services and other combatant commands, and as a result can be eliminated without affecting operations. But the closures will likely involve a loss of expertise, the briefing warns.
Separate from the $270 million in cost-cutting, the U.S. is also likely to halt a planned expansion of U.S. Forces Japan, which would save about $1.18 billion.
The briefing reviewed by NBC News acknowledges that there is political risk with Japan in reversing that expansion and that it could result in reduced command and control west of the international dateline.
Source link
