When the Pentagon quietly announced last month that up to 1,000 US troops stationed in Romania would return home without replacements, the reaction in Washington was swift – and furious. Foreign policy experts, lawmakers, and even senior figures within President Donald Trump’s own Republican Party expressed deep concern. The decision, presented without consultation or strategic context, raised fundamental questions about America’s global posture, its commitment to allies, and the internal coherence of its national security policymaking.

What might otherwise have been interpreted as a minor adjustment in troop numbers instead became a revealing episode that exposed the fractures within the administration’s foreign policy apparatus. More troublingly, the decision risks undermining US leverage in one of the most sensitive geopolitical crises of the decade: the effort to bring Russia and Ukraine to the negotiating table.

The loudest critics were not Democrats, but two of the most influential Republicans on defense matters: Rep. Mike Rogers and Sen. Roger Wicker, chairs of the House and Senate Armed Services Committees. Both men condemned the move for two reasons.

First, they argued that the timing could not be worse. As Washington and its allies continue pressuring Russia to agree to meaningful negotiations over Ukraine, any reduction of American military presence in Eastern Europe could be read by Moscow as a pre-negotiation concession. At a time when unity and resolve are essential, such a withdrawal risks signaling wavering commitment.

Second, the lawmakers were angered by the administration’s unilateralism. Current US defense legislation places restrictions on reducing America’s military footprint in Europe unless the executive branch provides specific certifications to Congress. Yet no such consultation occurred. Instead, the Pentagon provided Congress with a fait accompli.

This disregard for established oversight mechanisms revived longstanding concerns about the administration’s foreign policy decision-making, which critics say often occurs without transparency, coordination, or strategic justification.

Compounding the confusion is the broader lack of strategic coherence within the administration. For much of the year, officials have promised a........

© Blitz