European military powers are developing a 5–10-year plan to gradually take over the U.S. role in NATO, according to the Financial Times and Digi24.
Europe's largest military nations are preparing to assume greater responsibility for the continent's defense, including a proposal to the Trump administration for a phased transfer of leadership over the next five to ten years, Financial Times reports.
The talks are meant to prevent the potential chaos of a sudden U.S. withdrawal from NATO, a scenario feared after Donald Trump's repeated threats to weaken or exit the transatlantic alliance that has safeguarded Europe for nearly eight decades.
Countries such as Britain, France, Germany, and several Nordic nations are taking part in these informal but structured discussions, according to four European officials involved. The goal is to present a comprehensive plan to the U.S. before the NATO summit in The Hague in June, aiming to shift both the financial and military burden to European countries.
The proposal is expected to include concrete commitments to boost defense spending and military capabilities, as part of an effort to persuade Trump to agree to a gradual handover—allowing the U.S. to focus more on the Asia-Pacific region.
Also read
U.S. Military Presence Still Indispensable
The U.S., which spends more on defense than all other NATO allies combined, remains central to European security. Its contribution includes nuclear deterrence, critical military capabilities, air, naval, and troop bases, and around 80,000 soldiers stationed across Europe.
While the U.S. nuclear umbrella is not part of the proposed shift, European countries have been increasing their own military investments. Since Trump’s election, Germany, France, and the UK have either increased defense spending or accelerated already planned rises.
The European Union has also launched efforts to grow joint military capabilities.
Officials say it could take five to ten years of increased spending for Europe to match most of the U.S. military presence—excluding its nuclear arsenal.
“Increasing spending is the only solution we have—sharing the burden and moving away from dependence on the U.S.,” one official said.
“We are starting these discussions, but it’s such a big task that many are overwhelmed by the scale,” the source added.
Though U.S. diplomats have reassured their European counterparts of Trump’s commitment to NATO and Article 5, concerns remain that a future White House could quickly reduce its troop presence or scale back NATO operations.
Some European governments have been hesitant to push for burden-sharing, fearing that it might accelerate a U.S. withdrawal. Others question whether Washington would accept a structured transition, given the unpredictable nature of Trump’s administration.
“You need a deal with the Americans, and it’s not clear they’re willing to make one. Can you trust them to stick to it?” said one official.
Ongoing discussions, led by France and the UK, involve more than a dozen European defense powers and do not include the U.S. One aim is to form a “coalition of the willing” to support Ukraine and strengthen European defense.
When asked whether a “European pillar” within NATO is realistic, a senior Western official responded:
“We’re seeing it already—Britain and France are taking the lead on a reassurance force for Ukraine, without the Americans.”
Can Europe Defend Itself Without the U.S.?
According to NATO officials, keeping the alliance intact—even with reduced or no U.S. involvement—would be far simpler than creating a new defense structure from scratch. NATO already has a military planning framework, command structure, and Article 5 in place.
Experts say Europe’s core defense would still require the UK and other Atlantic naval powers, the Nordic countries for northern Europe, and Turkey for southeastern defense—all of which are already NATO members.
“Even without the United States, NATO provides a structure for security cooperation in Europe,” said Marion Messmer, senior fellow for international security at Chatham House.
“Some aspects would need to be replaced in the event of U.S. disengagement. But there's already a structure and infrastructure that Europeans are familiar with. That does much of the work you'd have to do from scratch if you were to build something new just for European members,” she added.
