The Trump administration intends to halt longtime security assistance programs for Europe, including an initiative to fortify the continent’s eastern flank against a potential attack by Russia, as it endeavors to recast Washington’s role within NATO, according to six people familiar with the matter.
Trump administration to end European security programs focused on Russia
The decision, affecting hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid, has alarmed NATO allies and upset U.S. lawmakers who strongly back the alliance.
September 4, 2025 The Washington Post
“The Russians genuinely only care about American dollars, American troops and the American flag,” said a European official worried what signal a cut in U.S. aid would send to Moscow. Like others, this person spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive matter.
In a statement, the White House said its move to slash security assistance was “coordinated” with the Europeans and is consistent both with Trump’s executive order to reevaluate U.S. foreign aid and his “long-standing emphasis on ensuring Europe takes more responsibility for its own defense.”
“Europe has been stepping up,” the statement says. “ … We are pleased with European allies taking on more defense initiatives.”
A spokesperson for the Pentagon did not respond to a request for comment.
Trump has vacillated in his approach to Europe amid the long-running Ukraine conflict, exhibiting both frustration and warmth toward Putin while endorsing plans to support Kyiv Kyiv through American weapons sales and security guarantees.
The Pentagon under Trump also has sent such mixed signals, multiple people familiar with the matter said. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth in July met with the leaders of the three Baltic nations that border Russia, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, during which he commended their push to raise defense spending. But behind the scenes, the Defense Department policy office has been aggressive in its efforts to end certain support programs.
The Financial Times first reported on the administration’s decision.
In the Republican-led Congress, where bipartisan support for NATO and Ukraine remains strong, aides expressed confusion with the administration’s plan. They said it is unclear precisely how much funding will be affected and whether any of the money being targeted is related to Ukraine. A Senate aide said that the Defense Department has not provided lawmakers with a briefing on the issue, despite requests to do so.
David Baker, the Pentagon’s head of Europe and NATO policy, informed a group of European defense officials of the decision late last week, attributing the change to shifting priorities within the administration, people familiar with the matter said.
Baker is closely aligned with Pentagon policy chief Elbridge Colby, who has long argued that the United States can’t sustain its current level of support for Europe and double down on efforts to deter China in the Pacific, a pressing concern shared across Washington as Beijing leads a rapid military buildup. U.S. officials said the Trump administration’s increased attention on border security and homeland defense, in addition to China, is a primary reason to end the European security funding.
The Defense Department’s policy wing did not respond to a request for comment.
Among the programs to be suspended is the Baltic Security Initiative, an effort to reinforce those three nations with money for military infrastructure and training. Within NATO, Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia spend among the most of their GDP on defense but they have relatively small economies, making U.S. funding highly important to them.
The program began in 2018 and has almost doubled in size each year since then, said Lauren Speranza, a former adviser to Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and now a fellow with the Center for European Policy Analysis. The money is a symbolic show of support for these countries’ defense, she said, while also protecting against the possibility of a Russian attack.
“It’s to prevent the U.S. from ever going there to fight to fulfill its NATO obligations,” Speranza said.
Earlier this summer, the Senate Appropriations Committee passed $225 million for the Baltics initiative in its defense spending bill, though the legislation has yet to come up for a vote before the full chamber.
While the issue of security assistance did not come up in detail during Hegseth’s meeting with the Baltic defense ministers, they sought to make the case that the United States should maintain a presence of troops in their countries — seen as a far more important deterrent against Russia.
Colby also is leading a review of U.S. force posture around the globe, which European officials widely expect to end in a smaller American military presence on the continent.
During a visit by Poland’s president to the White House on Wednesday, Trump said that the United States would not remove troops from the country, a close supporter of the Baltics, though he acknowledged the administration has thought about doing so elsewhere.
“If anything,” Trump said, “we’ll put more there.”
It wasn’t immediately clear what other programs face cuts or when the money previously authorized by Congress will run out. The funding left in the programs can be spent until October 2026.
The decision is likely to invite backlash from Congress, where lawmakers from both parties have grown increasingly concerned that the Trump administration is not spending money as they write into law, including a last-minute request not to send out around $5 billion in foreign aid previously approved by lawmakers.
Of concern on Capitol Hill, people familiar with the matter said, is that even if lawmakers passed money for the European security programs, the Defense Department could redirect the funding without their input, a process known as “reprogramming” that allows the Pentagon to move small amounts of money without congressional approval in certain cases.
The House and Senate could move to protect the programs in the National Defense Authorization Act, the must-pass defense policy bill that will soon come up for a full vote in each chamber.