In a move that has sparked intense debate across transatlantic security circles, U.S. President Donald Trump is urging European allies—particularly Germany—to assume far greater responsibility within NATO, including taking over the role of Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR).
The proposal, publicly advanced by U.S. Ambassador to NATO Matthew Whitaker at the Berlin Security Conference on November 19, 2025, challenges decades of American leadership in the alliance and signals a profound redirection of U.S. strategic priorities.
Since NATO’s founding in 1949, the position of SACEUR has been held exclusively by American generals—a symbol of Washington’s commitment to European security. Whitaker’s remarks suggest that Trump is preparing for a fundamental shift: a gradual American withdrawal from primary leadership in Europe as Washington pivots toward the Indo-Pacific to confront China’s military, economic, and strategic rise.
A Berlin Bombshell: Whitaker Calls for German Command of NATO
Speaking at the Berlin Security Conference, Whitaker stunned officials by declaring he “looked forward” to the day when Germany would take over NATO’s top military command.
While he acknowledged the transition would take time, Whitaker praised Berlin’s “impressive” increase in defense spending and insisted that European capabilities must eventually match those of the United States.
His comments triggered an immediate response from Germany’s Lt. Gen. Wolfgang Wien, who emphasized that the SACEUR role remains a “key U.S. responsibility” and pushed back against the suggestion that Germany could or should replace the United States in the near future.
Despite the diplomatic restraint, the exchange revealed widening differences within the alliance—differences sharpened by Washington’s growing insistence that Europe must step up militarily as America turns toward Asia.
The Trump Doctrine: NATO as a Burden, Not a Priority
Trump’s skepticism of NATO is longstanding. He has repeatedly described the alliance as “unfair,” “imbalanced,” and “a liability” for the United States. The administration argues that Washington covers nearly 68% of NATO’s total defense expenditure while allies, especially in Western Europe, continue to lag on their defense commitments.
Under Trump’s second term, the White House has intensified pressure on NATO members to meet not just the 2% GDP defense target agreed in 2014, but a significantly higher level: 5% of national GDP. This dramatic escalation is intended to force Europe to take financial and operational responsibility for its security.
In Trump’s strategic worldview, Russia is a regional threat, but China is a global challenger capable of undermining U.S. dominance. This shift—popular among Trump-aligned strategists—places the Indo-Pacific at the center of U.S. foreign and defense policy.
As a result, NATO’s traditional transatlantic role is being redefined.
Why Germany, Not France? The European Leadership Puzzle
Whitaker’s push for German leadership is deliberate. Germany is Europe’s largest economy, a central hub for U.S. forces in Europe, and under Chancellor Friedrich Merz has embarked on an ambitious rearmament program to build the continent’s “strongest conventional army.”
However, critics note that Germany—due to its post-World War II political culture—has long been reluctant to lead militarily.
France, by contrast, possesses Europe’s most capable armed forces, nuclear deterrent, and a tradition of strategic autonomy. But Paris refuses to follow Washington’s lead blindly. President Emmanuel Macron has repeatedly argued for a European defense identity independent of the United States, frustrating U.S. policymakers.
For Washington, Germany is more predictable, more aligned with American priorities, and more willing to compromise—making it the preferred candidate for a future European-led NATO command.
U.S. Drawdowns in Europe and the Indo-Pacific Pivot
The Trump administration has already begun shifting U.S. military assets away from Europe. In October 2025, the Pentagon quietly withdrew 700 troops from NATO’s eastern flank, reallocating them to Indo-Pacific theaters.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has publicly stated that Europe is no longer the “primary focus” of U.S. global strategy.
Intelligence, logistics, missile defense, and naval assets are also being redirected toward potential flashpoints such as the Taiwan Strait, the South China Sea, and the northern Pacific.
Allies in Asia—Japan, Australia, and South Korea—have been reassured of America’s continued engagement, while European leaders have been urged to prepare for a future with reduced American military presence on the continent.
Europe’s Uneasy Response: Division, Doubt, and Urgency
Reactions across Europe have been mixed:
Germany is cautiously supportive but rejects immediate command transfer.
France views the U.S. proposal as a challenge to its own leadership ambitions.
Eastern European states fear that reduced U.S. involvement could embolden Russia.
The UK supports burden-sharing but is wary of a German-centric command structure.
Public trust in Washington has declined sharply. Surveys show many Europeans now view U.S. policy as unpredictable and worry that NATO could weaken if the U.S. retreats too far.
The Hague Summit in June 2025, where allies committed to gradually reaching 5% defense spending by 2035, was widely seen as a concession to Trump—but implementation remains uncertain.
Ukraine: A War Caught Between Shifting Powers
For Ukraine, Trump’s proposal raises serious concerns. U.S. policy increasingly conditions its support on Europe’s commitment to funding and arming Kyiv.
With Russia still entrenched in occupied territories, a weakened or divided NATO could leave Ukraine isolated. Whitaker’s refusal to outline clear U.S. support plans has heightened anxiety among European and Ukrainian officials.
A German-led NATO could, in theory, unify Europe’s approach to the war—but only if France, the UK, Poland, and Baltic states align with Berlin’s leadership.
A Historic Crossroads: Reinvention or Fragmentation?
Trump’s push for a European-led NATO is not a withdrawal but a strategic recalibration. The United States is redefining its global priorities, and Europe is being forced to confront its dependence on American power.
If implemented, Germany’s assumption of NATO’s top military role would mark the biggest shift in the alliance’s history.
Supporters argue the move could strengthen Europe’s autonomy and reduce friction with Washington.
Critics warn it risks fracturing the alliance, emboldening adversaries, and weakening Western unity.
What is clear is that NATO is entering a transformative phase. With China rising, Russia entrenched, and the U.S. pivoting to a new global strategy, Europe faces a moment of reckoning.
The future of NATO—its leadership, identity, and purpose—may depend on how Europe responds to the challenge of stepping into a role long dominated by the United States.
