U.S. to cut roughly 200 positions from key NATO command centers

U.S. officials said the United States plans to eliminate roughly 200 American positions across several NATO command, planning and intelligence bodies, reducing U.S. personnel at those entities by about half and marking a notable shift in Washington’s posture toward the alliance. The reductions, communicated to some European capitals, are expected to be implemented largely through attrition rather than immediate recalls.

Three officials familiar with the matter identified specific NATO entities that will see cuts, including the NATO Intelligence Fusion Centre in the United Kingdom, the Allied Special Operations Forces Command in Brussels, and STRIKFORNATO in Portugal, which oversees aspects of maritime operations. Officials said the roughly 200 roles come from a current complement of about 400 U.S. personnel serving at the affected bodies. Additional similar planning, intelligence and special operations elements will also be affected, though no full list has been provided.

Sources described the decision as conveyed to allied capitals by the Trump administration. Officials who discussed the matter requested anonymity because they were describing private diplomatic conversations. They did not provide a complete timeline, an exhaustive rationale, or a definitive roll call of every affected post. There has been no formal public statement from the U.S. administration or from NATO confirming the changes.

The announced approach to implementation is largely administrative and gradual: the United States plans to decline to backfill positions as personnel rotate out, rather than immediately recalling large numbers of servicemembers from their current assignments. Officials did not outline force-structure or budgetary details, nor did they offer a concrete assessment of how the pared contingents would affect day-to-day operations at the named NATO centers.

Sources framed the shift as broadly consistent with a U.S. policy orientation that directs more resources toward the Western Hemisphere. Beyond that general alignment, officials did not cite further operational or fiscal rationales in the accounts provided. The decision comes against the backdrop of a substantial American military footprint in Europe—roughly 80,000 personnel overall—and at a period described by officials as one of heightened diplomatic sensitivity for the alliance.

Military analysts and allied officials will interpret the reductions on two registers: practical and symbolic. Practically, U.S. departures from specialized planning and intelligence posts could complicate coordination on joint operations, intelligence fusion and special-operations planning, particularly in theaters where NATO activity is highly integrated. Symbolically, even a small numerical reduction risks amplifying European concerns about Washington’s long-term commitment to NATO, a point likely to resonate in capitals already attentive to burden-sharing and alliance cohesion.

The current account rests on limited, anonymous sourcing and leaves significant information gaps. Key outstanding questions for policymakers and officials include a full inventory of affected billets, a clear timeline for attrition, assessments of operational impacts, and whether additional reductions might follow. Given the political sensitivity, allied governments will be watching for rapid, transparent answers from Washington and from NATO headquarters on how the alliance will preserve collective capabilities and coordination.