Brussels – Concerns are growing among European allies regarding the level of commitment from the United States to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), as evidenced by recent high-level absences from key meetings and a shift in stated U.S. Defense priorities. The evolving dynamic raises questions about the future of transatlantic security cooperation and the distribution of defense burdens within the alliance.
The most recent signal of this shift came during a NATO defense ministers meeting held in Brussels on February 12, 2026, where U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth was not present. This absence follows a similar situation in December 2025, when Secretary of State Marco Rubio did not attend a gathering of NATO foreign ministers, according to reports from the Associated Press and The Hill. Instead of the cabinet-level officials, the U.S. Delegation was led by Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Elbridge Colby.
NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte acknowledged the situation, stating ahead of the February 12th meeting that Europe and Canada would be “stepping up and spending billions more on defense,” even as also praising the U.S. For “leading the peace effort” in Ukraine. This statement, reported by PBS NewsHour, suggests an expectation of increased European responsibility in the face of perceived U.S. Retrenchment.
The absences are particularly noteworthy given the context of the Trump administration’s foreign policy. In January, President Trump reportedly suggested the possibility of seizing Greenland from Denmark, a statement described as “completely unusual” by Danish business publication Borsen. This incident, coupled with past criticisms of European defense spending, has fueled anxieties about the reliability of U.S. Leadership within the alliance.
Elbridge Colby, nicknamed “Bridge,” is a staunch supporter of an isolationist U.S. Foreign policy, advocating for a less active American role globally, particularly militarily. According to Politico, Colby is responsible for drafting plans for a potential drawdown of U.S. Troops from Europe, a plan that has faced repeated delays. He also authored the new American defense strategy, published last week, which prioritizes defending the U.S. Homeland and China over Europe.
The shift in U.S. Defense strategy, as outlined in the recently published document, downgrades the importance of Europe, a move that was reportedly revised by Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent to address concerns related to trade talks with Beijing. This prioritization of other regions reflects a broader re-evaluation of U.S. Strategic interests and resource allocation.
While some allies expressed understanding for the busy schedules of U.S. Officials, others downplayed the significance of the absences. Icelandic Foreign Minister Þorgerður Katrín Gunnarsdóttir told reporters, “Sadly for him, he is missing a fine party,” but added that she did not view it as a “bad signal.” German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius similarly stated, “Each of us has a full agenda. And one time the American defense minister is here, and one time not, so it’s his decision and his duties he has to fulfill.”
The historical context of NATO reveals a changing dynamic. Originally conceived, as stated by its first Secretary-General Lord Hastings Ismay, to “retain the Americans in, the Russians out and the Germans down,” the alliance now sees a more assertive Germany taking on greater responsibility for its own defense and European security. Following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine four years ago, Germany pledged to invest 100 billion euros ($118 billion) in modernizing its armed forces.
The current situation underscores the ongoing debate about burden-sharing within NATO and the future of transatlantic security. As the U.S. Reconsiders its global commitments, European allies are increasingly focused on bolstering their own defense capabilities and assuming a greater role in maintaining regional stability. The next key event will be the ongoing implementation of the new U.S. Defense strategy and the subsequent adjustments to troop deployments and resource allocation.
What remains to be seen is how the Trump administration will balance its stated desire for a more inward-focused foreign policy with the continued need for a strong and unified NATO alliance in the face of evolving security challenges. Share your thoughts in the comments below.
