Pentagon Officials Say Hegseth's Troop Withdrawal from Poland Came Without Warning

On May 1, 2026, Maj. Gen. Tom Feltey stood before the soldiers of the 2nd Armored Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division at Fort Hood, Texas, and presided over a color-casing ceremony — a time-honored tradition signaling that a unit is headed to war or deployment. "Make no mistake — our adversaries are paying attention," Feltey told the assembled troops [1]. Twelve days later, those same soldiers learned through text messages to friends and family that their nine-month rotation to Poland had been scrapped [2].

The cancellation — confirmed by Army officials on May 13 and reported widely on May 14 — blindsided commanders, lawmakers, and NATO allies alike. It came with advance echelon personnel already on the ground in Poland and military equipment already in transit across the Atlantic [3]. Neither Army Secretary Dan Driscoll nor Gen. Christopher LaNeve, the Army vice chief of staff, mentioned the cancellation during a congressional hearing on the Army's budget posture held the day before [2].

Defense Department spokesperson Sean Parnell said Secretary Pete Hegseth made the decision after reviewing "theater requirements and conditions on the ground" [4]. No further explanation was offered. The Pentagon press office declined additional comment [3].

What Was Canceled — and What Remains

The scrapped deployment involved roughly 4,200 soldiers from the "Black Jack" brigade, who were slated to replace the 3rd Armored Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division, currently on rotation in Poland as part of Operation Atlantic Resolve [1]. That operation, running continuously since 2017, has kept a rotational Armored Brigade Combat Team (ABCT) in central and eastern Europe as part of the European Deterrence Initiative [5].

Approximately 10,000 U.S. troops are stationed in Poland across several locations, including the permanent headquarters of V Corps in Poznań — established by President Biden at the 2022 Madrid Summit — and rotational forces at bases including Drawsko Pomorskie, Powidz, and Żagań [6]. The cancellation does not immediately remove the 3rd ABCT troops already in Poland, but it eliminates their replacement, meaning U.S. armored presence in Poland will diminish as the current rotation ends.

The Foundation for Defense of Democracies warned that if both this rotational deployment and the separately announced withdrawal of the 2nd Cavalry Regiment from Germany proceed, "America would only retain a single BCT and no large armored or mechanized combat formations on the continent" [7].

The Broader Drawdown

The Poland cancellation did not occur in isolation. On May 1 — the same day as the Fort Hood ceremony — the Department of Defense announced that approximately 5,000 U.S. troops would withdraw from Germany over the next six to twelve months [8]. That decision followed a diplomatic rupture between President Trump and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, after Merz publicly criticized the U.S.-Israeli military campaign in Iran [4]. Trump responded by attacking Merz personally and threatening broader consequences for European allies.

President Trump told reporters that additional withdrawals could follow [7]. Time magazine reported in early May that "the U.S. military drawdown in Europe has only just begun," citing European officials who believe Trump may agree to remove forces from the Baltic states and potentially farther west [9].

Source: Congressional Research Service / DoD

Data as of May 14, 2026CSV

U.S. troop levels in Europe surged from roughly 64,000 before 2022 to approximately 100,000 at peak following Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine, when President Biden ordered 20,000 additional troops to the continent [10]. By April 2025, that figure had declined to roughly 80,000 [10]. The current trajectory suggests continued decline.

The Legal Guardrails — and Whether They Were Followed

Congress anticipated the possibility of significant European drawdowns. The 2026 National Defense Authorization Act includes a provision — championed by a bipartisan coalition — that prohibits U.S. force levels in Europe from dropping below 76,000 for more than 45 days unless the Secretary of Defense and the commander of U.S. European Command certify to Congress that the reductions serve U.S. national security interests and that NATO allies were consulted [11].

The law requires the Pentagon to provide Congress with an independent assessment of how any reduction would affect NATO warfighting plans, alliance readiness, and deterrence of Russian aggression. It also mandates coordination with all 32 NATO member states to ensure that allies can assume roles vacated by departing U.S. forces [11].

Senator Jeanne Shaheen, a Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, told reporters the Poland decision "appeared to be a surprise," adding: "As far as I know, we weren't notified about it" [4]. Multiple senators have since requested a formal briefing from the Pentagon [12].

Whether the NDAA's 76,000-troop floor has been breached remains unclear. The current total depends on how rotational forces, temporary deployments, and naval personnel are counted — a question the Pentagon has not publicly addressed. The German Marshall Fund noted that the NDAA provisions represent "the most significant congressional guardrail on European force posture in decades" and that circumventing them would raise serious legal questions [11].

Chain of Command: Who Decided, and Who Was Left Out

The formal chain of command for U.S. military operations runs from the President to the Secretary of Defense to combatant commanders — in this case, the commander of U.S. European Command (EUCOM) [13]. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff serves in an advisory capacity.

Reporting from multiple outlets suggests the cancellation decision originated with Hegseth's office and was communicated downward through a Defense Department memo dated May 1 [3]. What remains unclear is whether EUCOM Commander Gen. Christopher Cavoli, NATO's Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR), or the Joint Chiefs were consulted before the decision was finalized.

The fact that Army Secretary Driscoll and Gen. LaNeve did not reference the cancellation during their congressional testimony on May 12 — even as word was already spreading among affected soldiers — suggests either that senior Army leaders were not informed in advance or that they were instructed not to discuss the decision publicly [2]. Neither explanation is reassuring.

This pattern mirrors earlier decisions under Hegseth's tenure. NBC News reported in early 2026 that the administration had considered relinquishing the SACEUR position — a command held exclusively by an American general since Dwight Eisenhower — without consulting senior military leaders [14].

Poland's Careful Diplomacy

Warsaw's public response has been a study in managed messaging. Polish Defense Minister Władysław Kosiniak-Kamysz moved quickly to downplay the cancellation, writing on X that "this matter does not concern Poland — it is related to the previously announced change in the deployment of US Armed Forces units in Europe" [15]. A separate Polish official insisted: "This message concerns Germany. It does not concern Poland. Poland is consistently seeking to increase the presence of U.S. troops" [15].

Polish President Karol Nawrocki struck a more forward-leaning posture, declaring Poland "ready" to receive any U.S. troops relocated from Germany [4]. But behind the public optimism, a Polish official told Euronews that the cancellation came as "a surprise" and that the government was informed only on the evening of May 14 — after the news had already broken in U.S. media [8].

Poland has invested heavily in the U.S. defense relationship. The State Department delivered a $4 billion Foreign Military Financing loan guarantee to Poland in 2025, bringing total U.S. loan support to over $11 billion [16]. Poland has signed approximately $60 billion in U.S. defense contracts, including purchases of Apache helicopters, HIMARS rocket systems, Patriot missile batteries, and a $2.5 billion air defense system deal [16][17]. The U.S. has committed over $500 million to military infrastructure at Polish bases including Powidz, Drawsko Pomorskie, Wrocław, and Łask [18].

Source: NATO / Polish Ministry of Defence

Data as of May 14, 2026CSV

Poland now spends approximately 4.7% of GDP on defense — more than double the NATO 2% guideline and the highest rate in the alliance [19]. This spending has been predicated in part on the assumption of sustained U.S. military partnership and forward presence.

The Deterrence Debate

Critics of the withdrawal argue that the cancellation weakens the "tripwire" function of U.S. forces in Poland — the principle that an attack on American soldiers stationed alongside allies would guarantee a full U.S. military response. The Atlantic Council assessed in a detailed 2023 report that forward-stationed U.S. units in Poland "facilitate the speed of assembly and movement for U.S. operations in Europe" and provide "a combat-credible ABCT force to quickly counter Russian aggression, particularly in deterring or responding to a contingency in the Baltic states" [5].

The Suwalki Gap — a 65-mile stretch of Polish-Lithuanian border sandwiched between Russian-allied Belarus and Russia's Kaliningrad exclave — is the most frequently cited vulnerability. A Russian seizure of this corridor could isolate the Baltic states from the rest of NATO, and U.S. armored forces in Poland are a key element of plans to prevent or reverse such a move [5].

However, some defense analysts have questioned whether the rotational ABCT presence constitutes meaningful deterrence or is primarily symbolic. A 2018 analysis published in War on the Rocks argued that permanently stationing forces in Poland "is a bad idea" that risks escalation without proportionate deterrence benefit, noting that a single brigade cannot defend against a full-scale Russian attack and that its primary value is political rather than military [20]. Under this view, the forces function as a "tripwire" — their deterrent value depends entirely on the credibility of the U.S. commitment to respond, which is precisely what the withdrawal calls into question.

The CSIS assessed that effective deterrence of Russia requires not just forward presence but integrated air defense, pre-positioned equipment, logistics infrastructure, and rapid reinforcement capability [21]. A single brigade, rotational or permanent, does not by itself provide these capabilities. The question, then, is whether the withdrawal signals a broader U.S. disengagement that would undermine the entire deterrence architecture — or whether it is an isolated force-management decision.

Second-Order Effects: The Baltic States and Beyond

The cancellation arrives at a particularly sensitive moment for NATO's eastern flank. At a security conference in Warsaw just days before the news broke, officials from across the alliance were already grappling openly with questions about whether Article 5 commitments remain unconditional [22].

The Baltic states — Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania — are among the most exposed NATO members, and their security guarantees depend heavily on the credibility of U.S. reinforcement plans. European NATO countries are reportedly "preparing for new U.S. troop withdrawals from the continent," according to Bloomberg, with officials fearing that Trump may agree to remove forces from the Baltics as part of broader negotiations with Russia [9].

Reports have surfaced that U.S.-Russia diplomatic discussions have included the possibility of withdrawing NATO troops from Bulgaria and other eastern European states [23]. If confirmed, such moves would represent a fundamental reordering of the post-Cold War European security architecture.

Finland and Sweden, which joined NATO in 2023 and 2024 respectively, made their accession decisions in direct response to Russia's invasion of Ukraine and the subsequent U.S.-led force buildup in Europe. Their integration into NATO planning — including joint exercises and basing agreements — assumed a sustained U.S. commitment to European defense. A perception that this commitment is now conditional could complicate ongoing military integration efforts [9].

European defense spending has been rising — Poland's 4.7% of GDP leads the alliance, and several other nations have moved above the 2% threshold [19]. But the political impetus for these increases has been the U.S. demand for burden-sharing, coupled with the implicit assurance that American forces would remain engaged. If allies conclude that U.S. presence is being withdrawn regardless of their spending levels, the incentive structure shifts in unpredictable ways.

What Comes Next

The immediate question is whether the 3rd ABCT currently in Poland will be replaced at all when its rotation ends, or whether the U.S. armored presence in Poland will simply lapse. The Pentagon has not clarified this point.

The larger question is whether the Poland cancellation is an ad hoc decision driven by the Trump-Merz dispute and budget pressures, or the leading edge of a systematic U.S. withdrawal from European forward defense. The FDD's Bradley Bowman warned that current trends could leave U.S. combat power in Europe at "dangerously low levels" that "erode deterrence and incentivize Russian aggression" [7].

Congress has the legal tools to push back, but enforcement of the NDAA's 76,000-troop floor requires political will and accurate accounting of force levels — neither of which is guaranteed. The bipartisan coalition that wrote the provision will face its first real test in the coming weeks as it seeks answers from a Pentagon that, so far, has offered little more than silence.