Major German political factions have sharply criticized US President Donald Trump’s announcement regarding the withdrawal of US soldiers from Germany. Jürgen Hardt of the CDU, the party’s foreign policy spokesperson, noted in the “Welt” that “transatlantic relations are under stress”. He suggested that the unilateral agenda of the US president often leads him to blame external factors for problems within the US, frequently making Europe a scapegoat. Hardt argued that Germany must counter this with a positive transatlantic agenda that emphasizes mutual benefits, citing shared US interests in Latin America, the Pacific, and the Arctic, as well as areas like cybersecurity and combating international crime. He added that Europe should systematically and visibly ease the US burden from conventional defense tasks on its own continent while doing so in stages to avoid the appearance of caprice.
Thomas Erndl, the CDU’s defense policy spokesperson, reinforced this, stating that European NATO states must now assess the consequences of the partial US withdrawal and take appropriate measures. He contended that aspiring to build Europe’s most powerful conventional army places a unique responsibility on Germany, which must meet this challenge through rapid personnel growth and the expansion of crucial capabilities. Erndl stressed that the Ministry of Defence must present an “Action Plan 2029” for the Bundeswehr, detailing capacities for deploying long-range weaponry.
The SPD views the partnership between the US and Europe as a cornerstone for post-World War II prosperity and security. SPD faction deputy Siemtje Möller declared the party’s firm commitment to maintaining this vital transatlantic relationship. However, she criticized the president, asserting that his erratic policies make the safety of hundreds of millions of people subject to his whims. She urged Europe to clearly and confidently demonstrate that European security is also in US interest, and that no single individual should be allowed to endanger the high value of established international cooperation. Möller called the rumored withdrawal of intermediate-range missiles “highly worrying” and suggested that an initial meeting with France and Britain in the E3 format should be convened immediately to rapidly close the resulting defense policy gap.
Conversely, the AfD criticized the focus on the military withdrawal, pointing instead to concrete economic issues, citing that the potential closure of the Strait of Hormuz would hurt Germany more than the United States. Jan Nolte, the AfD’s defense spokesperson, argued that critical issues must be addressed-rather than resorting to rhetoric about “the humiliation of an entire nation”-and pointed out that Europe would face a capability gap concerning long-range weaponry for five to ten years. He insisted that closing this gap, irrespective of US deployment, must be the highest priority, though he added that NATO’s deterring capacity doesn’t rely solely on these weapons, but on the potential of the entire alliance structure. In an emergency, such systems would need to be transferred from the US to Europe, resulting in delays, but not a complete abandonment.
On the left, the party branded Trump’s announcement as a “clumsy attempt to pressure Europe into compliance regarding the Iran issue”. According to Ulrich Thoden, the SPD’s defense policy spokesperson, Trump is facing the failure of his own illegal war in Iran, and is now attempting to make that failure a problem for his allies. Thoden stated that the US has long failed to treat Europeans as partners and that Germany must realign its foreign policy, abandoning “partial dependencies” in favor of “broad partnerships” with nations in the Global South. He concluded that as long as Trump uses pressure as a political tool against Europe, he will misuse it for his own aims. Furthermore, Thoden argued that the withdrawal of 5,000 US soldiers does not represent a significant reduction in defensive capability for either Germany or Europe; on the contrary, Trump’s sudden and contradictory policies make the US military presence on European soil a potential danger. He framed the absence of missile deployment as an opportunity for disarmament initiatives, arguing that the presence of such weapons would have posed the risk of a costly arms race.