Trump Weighs Withdrawing US Troops from Germany Amid Clash Over Iran War

President Donald Trump on April 29 announced that the United States is "studying and reviewing the possible reduction of Troops in Germany, with a determination to be made over the next short period of time" [1]. The threat came after days of escalating public exchanges with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz over the conduct and strategic logic of the US-Israeli war against Iran — a conflict that has already closed the Strait of Hormuz, sent oil prices above $100 per barrel, and strained NATO alliances in ways not seen since the 2003 Iraq War.

The Diplomatic Rupture

The current crisis traces a clear sequence. On April 27, Merz broke with his typically restrained tone to offer a blunt assessment of the two-month-old Iran war. "The Americans clearly don't have a strategy for exiting the conflict," Merz said, adding that the US was being "humiliated" by Iran's negotiating posture [2]. He drew explicit parallels to past American quagmires: "The problem with conflicts like this is always you don't just have to get in — you have to get out again. We saw that very painfully in Afghanistan for 20 years. We saw it in Iraq" [3].

Trump responded the following day with characteristic directness. "The Chancellor of Germany, Friedrich Merz, thinks it's OK for Iran to have a Nuclear Weapon. He doesn't know what he's talking about!" he posted on Truth Social [3]. He added: "If Iran had a Nuclear Weapon, the whole World would be held hostage" and "No wonder Germany is doing so poorly, both Economically, and otherwise!" [3].

By April 29, the rhetoric had escalated to the troop withdrawal threat — a step that, if carried out, would reshape Europe's security architecture [1].

The friction is notable because Merz had, until recently, been among the most pro-American leaders in Europe. During a March 3 White House visit, both leaders said they were "on the same page" on Iran [4]. Germany initially maintained a posture sympathetic to US and Israeli objectives, with Merz describing Iran as a major security threat and arguing that decades of sanctions and diplomacy had failed [5]. But as the war dragged past its initial 40-day combat phase and a ceasefire on April 8 failed to produce a clear resolution, Merz's patience broke [6].

The Iran War: Context and Consequences

The conflict began on February 28, 2026, when US and Israeli forces launched nearly 900 strikes in 12 hours — codenamed Operation Epic Fury by the Pentagon and Operation Roaring Lion by Israel — targeting Iranian missiles, air defenses, military infrastructure, and leadership [7]. The initial wave killed Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and dozens of officials, though it also killed approximately 170 civilians when a missile struck a girls' school near a naval base in Minab [7].

The strikes came just two days after US-Iran nuclear negotiations in Geneva, mediated by Oman, ended without a breakthrough — and one day after Iran offered to degrade its nuclear stockpiles to "the lowest level possible" [7]. US Intelligence Chief Tulsi Gabbard later stated that Tehran had not been rebuilding enrichment capabilities before hostilities resumed, raising questions about the stated rationale for military action [3].

The closure of the Strait of Hormuz — through which roughly 20% of global oil trade had flowed — produced immediate economic shocks [8]. Brent crude surged from $75 per barrel in mid-February to a peak of $126 per barrel by late March [8]. The World Bank projected a 24% surge in energy prices for 2026, while the IMF cut its global growth forecast to 3.1% and reduced its eurozone projection from 1.4% to 1.1% [9].

Source: Bloomberg / EIA

Data as of Apr 28, 2026CSV

Europe faces particular exposure. Between 12% and 14% of Europe's liquefied natural gas comes from Qatar through the strait, and Shell's CEO warned of fuel shortages on the continent [8]. For Merz, this economic dimension — with German industry already under pressure — is central to his criticism.

36,000 Troops and the Largest US Footprint in Europe

The United States maintains approximately 36,000 active-duty military personnel across 20 bases in Germany, the largest such contingent anywhere in Europe [1]. These installations are not simply troop housing — they form the operational backbone of American power projection across two continents.

Source: US European Command / Defense Manpower Data Center

Data as of Dec 1, 2025CSV

Ramstein Air Base in Rhineland-Palatinate hosts over 16,200 military personnel, civilians, and contractors and serves as headquarters for US Air Forces in Europe – Air Forces Africa (USAFE-AFAFRICA) and NATO Allied Air Command [10]. It is the primary airlift hub for operations across Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. US European Command (EUCOM) and US Africa Command (AFRICOM) are both headquartered in the Stuttgart area [1]. Landstuhl Regional Medical Center, adjacent to Ramstein, is the largest American hospital outside the United States [1]. The Grafenwöhr and Hohenfels training areas in Bavaria have been described as "the crown jewel of the Army's presence in Europe" [11].

Germany contributes to the costs of hosting these forces. In 2019, Germany spent over $1 billion covering costs linked to US troops, though this was lower per capita than contributions by Japan or South Korea for hosting American forces [12].

A Pattern With Deep Roots

Trump's threat is not without precedent, but its context is unique. American presidents have been pressuring Germany over defense burden-sharing since the 1950s [13].

President Eisenhower, who had served as NATO's first Supreme Allied Commander, believed European allies should carry more of their own defense burden and viewed the troop presence as "an emergency measure not intended to" become permanent [13]. Presidents Kennedy and Johnson made similar complaints, with Kennedy describing NATO states as living off "the fat of the land" without paying their share [13]. Johnson applied pressure so aggressively that it contributed to Chancellor Ludwig Erhard's political downfall in 1966 [13].

In every Cold War case, the threats remained rhetorical. The imperative of deterring the Soviet Union prevented follow-through [13].

Trump came closer to action than any predecessor. In 2020, he ordered the withdrawal of roughly 9,500 of the 34,500 US troops then in Germany, accusing Berlin of being "delinquent" in military spending [14]. The Pentagon estimated the relocation would cost "several billion dollars" and take years to execute [15]. RAND Corporation estimated the military construction costs alone at $8 to $10 billion [15]. The process never began before Trump left office, and President Biden reversed the order upon taking office in January 2021 [14].

The Burden-Sharing Argument

The strongest version of Trump's position is that Germany freeloaded on American security guarantees for decades while underspending on its own defense, and that coercive leverage — including troop withdrawal threats — is the only tool that has historically moved Berlin toward adequate contributions.

The data partially supports this. Germany did not meet NATO's 2% of GDP defense spending target from 1991 until 2024, when it finally hit the threshold for the first time in over three decades [16]. By contrast, the United States spent approximately 3.4% of GDP on defense in 2025, while Poland spent 3.9% and the Baltic states between 3.2% and 3.5% [16].

Source: NATO

Data as of Aug 29, 2025CSV

However, the picture has shifted substantially. Germany's defense spending reached an estimated 2.4% of GDP in 2025, and Berlin has committed to a record €108.2 billion defense budget for 2026 [17]. Germany has pledged to spend nearly €650 billion over five years to meet NATO's new target of 3.5% of GDP on core defense by 2035 [17]. At the 2025 NATO Summit in The Hague, all allies met or exceeded the 2% threshold for the first time — a development that undercuts the argument that allies remain delinquent [16].

Critics of the withdrawal threat argue that it punishes Germany precisely as it is delivering on the spending commitments Washington demanded. "The irony is that Germany is doing more on defense now than at any point since reunification," noted analysis from the Atlantic Council [17].

What Relocation Would Actually Cost

Moving 36,000 troops and their associated command infrastructure out of Germany would be an operation measured in years and billions of dollars. The 2020 relocation plan — which covered only 12,000 of the 36,000 troops — carried a Pentagon estimate of "several billion dollars in single digits" [15]. A full withdrawal would be substantially more expensive.

The practical obstacles are significant. Polish facilities "remain austere compared with those in Germany and are not designed for large numbers of permanently stationed troops and families" [11]. Replicating German-based capabilities elsewhere would require "massive investments in infrastructure" [11]. Poland currently hosts between 10,000 and 12,000 US troops and has invested in expanding facilities at Powidz and Drawsko Pomorskie, but these remain works in progress [18].

Romania hosts about 2,500 US troops, but the Trump administration has already announced a drawdown from Romanian bases [19]. The Baltic states host approximately 2,000 US troops collectively [18]. None of these locations can absorb a force the size of Germany's US presence without years of construction and billions in investment.

An Atlantic Council analysis found that rotating forces through temporary overseas deployments is more expensive than permanently basing them — making a withdrawal counterproductive on pure cost grounds [15].

The Russia Question

A US withdrawal from Germany would directly affect NATO's deterrence posture against Russia. Ramstein Air Base stood up a 24/7 operations center within days of Russia's 2022 full-scale invasion of Ukraine to coordinate defense assistance from dozens of nations [10]. The base has hosted multiple meetings of the Ukraine Defense Contact Group, convened by the Secretary of Defense to synchronize military aid [10].

EUCOM headquarters in Stuttgart coordinates all US military operations across 51 countries in Europe and Eurasia [1]. Displacing this command structure would create a gap in operational continuity that adversaries could exploit during the transition period.

Air and Space Forces Magazine reported in 2024 that Ramstein was "ready for a Russia contingency, but not a worst-case scenario" even with its current capabilities [10]. Reducing those capabilities would move the readiness needle in the wrong direction at a time when Russia maintains large-scale military operations in Ukraine and has expanded its force posture along NATO's eastern border.

The counterargument — advanced by some in the Trump administration — is that moving forces eastward, closer to the actual threat, improves deterrence. Poland, the Baltics, and Romania sit on or near NATO's frontline with Russia. But military analysts note that Germany's central location provides strategic depth and logistics capability that forward-positioned bases cannot replicate [11].

Europe's Fractured Response to the Iran War

Merz's criticism of the Iran war does not represent a unified European position. The continent's response has been disjointed, revealing deep disagreements about the use of force and the limits of alliance solidarity [5].

France took the most legally critical stance, with President Macron warning that "military action conducted outside international law risks undermining global stability" and calling for UN Security Council emergency discussions [5]. The United Kingdom adopted a more balanced posture, combining criticism of Iran with calls for de-escalation, though Prime Minister Starmer said the UK "would not get involved in a war without a sufficient legal basis" [5].

Spain went furthest in opposition: Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez refused US base access, prompting Trump to threaten to "cut off all relations" [5]. Italy's defense minister raised legal concerns, describing the strikes as inconsistent with international law [5].

Eastern European nations — Poland, the Baltics, Czech Republic, and Romania — offered clear political backing for the US, framing the conflict through security and deterrence [5]. This split partly explains why Trump might see eastern Europe as a more hospitable home for US forces.

Economic Stakes for German Communities

A withdrawal would carry direct economic consequences for German communities that have hosted American forces for eight decades. In the Ramstein region alone, the US military injected $1.2 billion into the local economy in 2019 [20]. The US Army in Bavaria contributes nearly $1 billion annually [20]. The bases employ thousands of German civilians in addition to military personnel [20].

Historical precedent suggests the impact would be severe. When Cold War drawdowns reduced the American presence in Hanau — which had hosted up to 45,000 American personnel and families — the US removed about 50% of its military and civilian personnel within five years and laid off 65% of the 2,000 German employees [20]. Academic research from the RWI economic institute has documented significant regional economic effects from base closures in Germany [21].

What Comes Next

Trump's statement that a determination would come "over the next short period of time" leaves the timeline deliberately vague [1]. The 2020 precedent suggests that announcement and execution are different things — the previous withdrawal order produced no actual troop movements before it was rescinded.

Several factors distinguish this moment from 2020. The US is now engaged in an active military conflict in which German bases play operational roles. The transatlantic relationship is strained across multiple dimensions simultaneously — trade, Iran, energy prices, and defense spending. And NATO has set a new, more ambitious spending target of 5% of GDP by 2035, which will produce fresh burden-sharing disputes regardless of this episode [16].

Merz, for his part, has said his personal relationship with Trump remains "good as ever" [1] — a diplomatic signal that he sees the current friction as manageable. Whether Trump shares that assessment remains the central uncertainty.

Source: FRED / EIA

Data as of Apr 27, 2026CSV