WASHINGTON — Military leaders continue awaiting clear direction from Pentagon leadership after President Donald Trump’s shifting decisions regarding European troop deployments have disrupted service members’ lives and potentially cost American taxpayers millions, according to two U.S. defense officials who spoke with The Associated Press.
European NATO partners were confused in May when Trump announced plans to deploy 5,000 U.S. service members to Poland, coming just weeks after he directed the same number withdrawn from Europe following tensions with Germany’s Chancellor Friedrich Merz regarding the Iran conflict. Trump administration officials maintain that European troop reductions have been long-term plans developed in coordination with partner nations.
The Republican commander-in-chief posted on social media two weeks prior that he would deploy forces to Poland — on the identical day Pentagon leadership had formally directed the cancellation of a scheduled soldier rotation to that location, according to one defense official.
Military equipment for the unit was already in transit. Transporting it required $32 million in military spending, according to U.S. Transportation Command, the defense agency primarily responsible for global troop and equipment movement.
These sudden policy shifts are requiring military leadership to “retroactively engineer” policies matching the president’s most recent statements, the official explained. Both officials received briefings on these decisions and, alongside others, agreed to speak anonymously when discussing classified military operations.
This confusion is not only concerning European partners who worry about signals being transmitted to Russia, but also threatens to damage confidence among American service members — including some whose deployments were halted just before departure — while occurring during existing Army budget pressures.
The scheduled Poland deployment of 4,000 service members from the Army’s 2nd Armored Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division, stationed at Fort Hood, Texas, was halted through a military memo distributed at May’s beginning. European partners learned about this decision during the month’s middle period.
Several troops received notification shortly before travel not to board Poland-bound flights, while those already deployed — initially approximately 1,000 service members — remain awaiting confirmation about their return, according to a U.S. military official.
Military leadership also continues awaiting Pentagon specifics regarding how to fulfill Trump’s directive to deploy 5,000 troops to Poland, that official stated. Current planning assumes these forces will come from units already stationed in Europe, rather than additional U.S.-based deployments, the official noted.
U.S. Transportation Command had contracted shipping to transport the team’s equipment from Texas to Poland and return departing unit gear to America. The incoming team’s transportation cost totaled $32 million, including ship charter and equipment loading and unloading operations.
Since the ship was contracted to transport one unit to Europe and return another to America, determining potential savings from an earlier deployment halt decision remains difficult.
Nevertheless, the military official indicated that unplanned personnel and equipment returns from Europe likely exceed Pentagon budget allocations and represent additional expenses.
Complete rotation cancellation costs remain difficult to calculate due to multiple variables, explained Joe Costa, a former senior Pentagon official who currently directs the Atlantic Council’s Forward Defense program focusing on U.S. military challenges.
Costs likely stem from returning equipment and troops deployed ahead of the main deployment and would probably represent the lower end of the rotation’s total expense, Costa stated. The more significant impact affects troop readiness when personnel trained for specific missions may receive different deployment assignments, he explained.
U.S. military contracts with private transportation companies include cancellation provisions that frequently impose additional charges when deployments are terminated, according to John Deni, a senior nonresident fellow at the Atlantic Council who has researched such expenses.
“The question is what additional costs were incurred by deciding to send them back prematurely, changing the arrangements, changing the plan?” asked Deni, a former U.S. military adviser and planner specializing in European forces.
Whether the Pentagon can recover those costs or expenses related to the unit’s European movement remains unclear. The Defense Department declined to answer questions regarding deployment plan change costs, and the White House directed comment requests to the department.
Pentagon leadership has consistently stated plans to reduce troop numbers to encourage Europe to assume greater defense responsibilities and described the decision as part of a “comprehensive, multilayered process.”
Last month’s memo also resulted in canceling a Germany deployment for a battalion specializing in long-range rocket and missile operations.
When Trump initially threatened European troop reductions of 5,000 personnel, Pentagon officials first suggested withdrawing the 2nd Cavalry Regiment, permanently stationed in Germany, the defense official stated.
Instead, officials chose to cancel the other unit’s Poland rotation. Then Trump’s subsequent decisions created additional confusion for that plan as well.
Withdrawing Germany-stationed troops could cost in the low billions since no dedicated U.S. space and infrastructure exists to house them and their families, Costa explained.
“The other option is basically breaking up the unit,” Costa noted. “They move the equipment in different places. They move the people to different places. That carries significant readiness costs because now you’re artificially jamming pieces of units into places where they don’t necessarily belong.”
Withdrawal or deployment pauses can also damage soldier and family morale since they plan for these assignments months and years ahead, Deni observed. The uncertainty creates disruption.
“That’s often the last thing you want to do to military families,” Deni stated.
What will happen to European-stationed U.S. troops remains uncertain, both officials indicated. Options include relocating military units assigned to Germany to Poland, but that could require several years and increased costs, the military official explained.
These changes occur while the Army faces budget shortfalls, which the service’s top uniformed officer, Gen. Christopher LaNeve, recently acknowledged to Congress.
Estimates place the deficit between $2 billion and $6 billion, according to an Army official who also spoke anonymously to discuss sensitive defense matters. One consequence has included reducing nationwide soldier training courses, which ABC News previously reported.
In a statement, the Army indicated it has provided guidance to its commands to “make tough and sound resource decisions that optimize and prioritize resources toward their most critical requirements, to include major training and readiness events.”
The Army official also noted the service has received missions including National Guard deployment in Washington, increased U.S.-Mexico border presence and its Iran war participation — all straining its budget.
The Department of Homeland Security expects to reimburse the Army for border mission costs.
Army Secretary Dan Driscoll told lawmakers at a May 15 hearing that he was “optimistic” there would be progress on those payments “within a week or two.” However, the Army has not yet received reimbursement.
“We want those backfilled payments,” Driscoll stated then.
The European U.S. military is also reducing non-combat training support and strictly prioritizing essential functions, the military official noted.
