Several major German political factions, including the CDU/Christian Democratic Union and the SPD (Social Democrat Party), have strongly criticized U.S. President Donald Trump’s announcement regarding the planned withdrawal of U.S. troops from Germany. Critics point to the strain this puts on transatlantic relations.
Jürgen Hardt, CDU spokesperson for foreign policy, stated that the relationship is under stress due to the President’s perceived one-sided agenda, suggesting he tends to attribute local issues in the U.S. to external influences, often scapegoating Europe. Hardt proposed countering this with a “positive Transatlantic Agenda” that emphasizes mutual benefits. He listed shared U.S. and German interests, such as cooperation in Latin America, the Pacific, the Arctic, cybersecurity, and fighting international crime. According to the CDU, Europe must gradually and clearly reduce the U.S. burden regarding conventional defense duties on its own continent, taking care not to appear arbitrary in the process.
Thomas Erndl, CDU defense policy spokesperson, added that European NATO states must now assess the impact of the troop reduction and draw necessary conclusions. He stressed that Germany has a unique responsibility to become Europe’s most powerful conventional army, a goal that requires rapid personnel growth and the expansion of critical capabilities. Erndl stated that the Ministry of Defence must prepare an “Action Plan 2029” for the Bundeswehr, specifically addressing the capability to deploy long-range weaponry.
The SPD argues that the partnership between the U.S. and Europe has been a fundamental prerequisite for prosperity and security since World War II, maintaining a firm commitment to this relationship. However, party vice-chair Siemtje Möller expressed concern that the President’s erratic policies treat the security of hundreds of millions of people as subject to his whims. She asserted that Europe must clearly and confidently assert the fact that European security is also in the U.S.’s interest, arguing that one person should not be allowed to endanger the valuable cooperation of so many nations. Möller deemed the planned withdrawal of medium-range missile systems “highly concerning” and suggested that, initially, Germany should quickly meet with France and Britain in an E3 format to discuss how to quickly close the resulting defense policy gap.
The AfD (Alternative for Germany) criticized the U.S. involvement in the Iran conflict, arguing that the closure of the Strait of Hormuz would damage Germany more than the United States. Jan Nolte, AfD defense spokesperson, insisted that any criticism of the blockade must be addressed directly, rather than relying on vague accusations of “humiliation for an entire nation”. Regarding advanced weaponry, Nolte added that Europe will face a capability gap of five to ten years, which must be addressed with the highest priority, regardless of U.S. stationing. He concluded that NATO’s defensive strength relies on the potential of the whole alliance, not just those specific weapons, which would need to be relocated from the U.S. to Europe in an emergency, representing a delay, but not a total abandonment.
Taking a radically different stance, The Left (Die Linke) views Trump’s troop withdrawal announcement as a “clumsy attempt to pressure Europe into yielding on the Iran issue”. Ulrich Thoden, Linke defense spokesperson, stated that the U.S. President is now struggling with the failure of the illegal war he started in Iran, attempting to make the failure a problem for his allies. The party argued that Germany must reorient its foreign policy, ending its “unilateral dependencies” and building up “broad partnerships” with countries in the Global South. Thoden asserted that as long as Trump uses military presence as leverage against Europe, he will abuse it for his own political ends. He concluded that the departure of 5,000 U.S. soldiers represents neither a noticeable reduction in defending capacity for Germany nor for Europe. On the contrary, he argued that Trump’s sudden and contradicting policies make the presence of U.S. military assets on European soil a potential danger, while the absence of missile staging provides an opportunity for disarmament initiatives, bringing less risk than an arms race using comparable weaponry.
