April 10 (Asia Today) — This commentary is the Asia Today Editor’s Op-Ed.
U.S. President Donald Trump is reportedly considering pulling American troops from NATO countries he sees as uncooperative during the Middle East war. The idea suggests he is again weighing a transactional approach to alliances, using troop deployments as leverage based on each country’s contribution to U.S. interests.
That possibility is drawing concern in South Korea as well as Japan. Trump has publicly criticized the muted response of non-NATO allies, and worries are growing that debate over troop movements in Europe could expand into discussions over U.S. Forces Korea and U.S. forces in Japan.
The Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday that Trump and his aides recently reviewed allied contributions and discussed shifting military assets depending on the level of cooperation. Under that idea, troops could be withdrawn from some NATO countries and moved to nations seen as more supportive of U.S. operations in the Middle East.
That differs from Trump’s earlier talk of fully leaving NATO during the controversy over Greenland. A complete withdrawal would face a far higher political and legal barrier in Washington.
Spain and Germany have been mentioned as possible candidates for a reduced U.S. military presence. Spain is the only NATO member that has not indicated support for defense spending at around 5% of gross domestic product, and it refused to allow U.S. aircraft to cross its airspace during the Middle East war. In Germany, senior officials openly criticized U.S. military action, saying it was not their war.
By contrast, Poland, Romania, Lithuania and Greece have been seen as relatively supportive of operations against Iran. Those countries were among the first to back an international coalition to monitor the Strait of Hormuz. Romania in particular quickly approved the use of its air bases by the U.S. Air Force after the war began.
Still, moving more U.S. troops into Central and Eastern Europe could provoke Russia and create new strategic risks. What may look like a reward for friendly allies could become a double-edged sword.
South Korea cannot assume Trump’s frustration is limited to NATO. During the war, he repeatedly complained about allies that declined U.S. requests involving naval participation tied to the Strait of Hormuz, and he spoke of South Korea and Japan in terms suggesting ingratitude.
He also exaggerated the number of U.S. troops in South Korea while pressing the argument that allies should shoulder more of the burden. That matters because Trump has long viewed alliance commitments through the lens of cost-sharing and direct return.
The United States has already drawn on key air defense assets associated with U.S. Forces Korea, including the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system and Patriot interceptors, for use in the Middle East. Since Washington’s new National Defense Strategy earlier this year highlighted the role of U.S. forces in deterring China, signs of a broader mission shift have become more visible.
If Trump decides to use troop reductions or redeployment as pressure to demand higher defense payments from Seoul, South Korea could face a new round of security bargaining at an especially sensitive moment. The government should prepare accordingly and work to ensure that any review of U.S. force posture does not come at the expense of deterrence on the Korean Peninsula.
— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI
© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.
Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260409010002951