For nearly 75 years, a four-star U.S. general has traditionally led all NATO military operations in Europe, a role that began with Dwight D. Eisenhower, a World War II hero and future president. However, the Trump administration is contemplating a shift in this long-standing arrangement, as revealed by two defense officials and a Pentagon briefing.
The Pentagon is considering a major overhaul of the U.S. military’s combatant commands and headquarters. One proposal under review involves the U.S. relinquishing the position of NATO's Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR). The current holder of this position also leads the U.S. European Command and has been pivotal in supporting Ukraine against Russia. The timeline for this potential change is unclear, and Congress might intervene if there is opposition.
Abandoning the SACEUR role would mark a significant symbolic change in NATO's power dynamics, an alliance that has been central to European security since World War II. Retired Adm. James Stavridis, a former SACEUR, expressed that such a move would signal a retreat from the alliance and result in a loss of U.S. influence within NATO.
Since Eisenhower, the SACEUR role has been held by notable U.S. military leaders, including Alexander Haig, John Shalikashvili, and Wesley Clark. The proposed restructuring aligns with the Trump administration's broader efforts to reduce spending and encourage European allies to take more responsibility for their defense. If the U.S. steps down from the SACEUR role, other NATO countries would need to select a new leader.
President Trump has criticized NATO members for not meeting defense spending targets and is considering a policy shift where the U.S. might not defend NATO members who fail to meet these thresholds. The timeline for the SACEUR transition remains uncertain, with Army Gen. Chris Cavoli's current term ending this summer.
The restructuring plan could consolidate five of the military’s 11 combatant commands, potentially merging U.S. European Command and U.S. Africa Command into a single entity in Germany and combining U.S. Southern Command with U.S. Northern Command. These changes aim to cut costs by reducing overlapping staff, potentially saving up to $270 million in the first year.
Retired Army Gen. Ben Hodges suggests the restructuring appears driven by cost-cutting rather than strategic analysis, which could diminish U.S. influence in Europe by reducing access to key military bases. Stavridis warns that merging European and African commands would create an unmanageable mega-command, while combining Southern and Northern Commands could be beneficial.
If the Pentagon proceeds with merging AFRICOM and EUCOM, it would justify eliminating the SACEUR role, as managing such a vast area is already challenging. Closing geographic commands could lead to political risks, as some nations might feel deprioritized by the U.S.
The cost-saving measures also propose relocating hundreds of Pentagon-based Joint Staff employees to Virginia, potentially eliminating the J7 Directorate responsible for joint force training. This move could result in the dismissal of approximately 375 civilians and reassignment of military personnel.
Additionally, U.S. Space Command might see its missile defense component command eliminated, as the mission is already covered by other services. The restructuring could also halt a planned expansion of U.S. Forces Japan, saving about $1.18 billion but risking reduced command capabilities in the region.