How US is changing its approach to NATO – key takeaways from the Alliance meeting

19.06.2026, 14:52 eurointegration.com.ua

The NATO defence ministers' meeting held in Brussels on 18 June 2026 can confidently be considered another turning point in US-NATO relations. This time, it is about fully accepting both a new reality and the fact that it is unlikely to change even after the end of the 47th US president's term.

America is leaving Europe. And that process has begun.

At the same time, the United States' rhetoric towards NATO has improved.

This softening of Washington's position did not happen because American leaders suddenly became more accommodating. Rather, the Trump administration has realised that the Alliance is also important for the US.

Read more in the article by Sergiy Sydorenko, European Pravda's editor, from the sidelines of the NATO ministerial meeting in Brussels: An Alliance in the stage of acceptance: how Europe and US are bringing their positions on NATO's future closer together.

The NATO ministerial meeting in Brussels on 18 June was remarkable for the tone of the statements made there.

NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, known for his ability to defend difficult decisions made by American partners, announced on his own initiative that a major review of the US military presence in Europe was about to begin.

Notably, Rutte made these remarks before the meeting started, despite the strict rule that the Secretary General may only publicly discuss matters on which allies have reached agreement.

Another striking detail was that none of the European defence ministers speaking to the press before the meeting expressed concern or alarm. One might have expected an announcement of a US withdrawal to cause serious anxiety.

However, the US presentation clarified the situation.

The speech by US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, one of the most NATO-sceptical figures in President Trump's administration, was considerably less confrontational than what officials in Brussels had become accustomed to hearing. This time, he criticised not the Alliance as a whole but only those countries that failed to meet NATO defence-spending targets. Countries that had met Trump's goals, and done so ahead of schedule, were praised instead.

Hegseth then moved on to explaining the plans that Rutte had previewed.

He officially announced a reduction of the US military presence, but one that would be controlled and coordinated.

"We will examine America's force posture and basing in Europe. This process will last up to six months... It will include consultations with the US Congress and our allies. It’s a ​review that some countries ‌will ⁠fail, and others will pass with flying colours," Hegseth stated.

In essence, Washington agreed to proceed according to the framework European member states had been requesting. The first condition is a managed rather than chaotic withdrawal (the earlier episode involving an announced and then cancelled troop reduction in Poland serves as a clear example of why this matters). The second condition is that any drawdown plan be coordinated with European governments and implemented in a way that does not undermine Europe's defence capabilities.

"This makes us stronger, and this is what NATO 3.0 is all about," the Secretary General argued in defence of the American decisions.

Both Rutte and Hegseth explained that the United States would gradually reduce its participation in NATO's rapid-reaction forces deployed across Europe. It is also known that Washington will take into account the actions of host countries where Pentagon forces are stationed.

He did not specify the criteria by which countries would be evaluated.

The statements strongly suggested that one of the key criteria would be loyalty to the United States, including during the Iran campaign.

Incidentally, it was at the recent G7 Summit that President Donald Trump reportedly concluded that NATO remains necessary for American interests.

The United States is not capable of securing and clearing the Strait of Hormuz on its own, even if a ceasefire with Iran proves durable. It needs support from NATO member states.