Key Takeaways
- •General Alexus Grynkewich (Commander, U.S. European Command) testified that European allies will not be capable of assuming primary responsibility for conventional defense until 2035, citing significant industrial delays.
- •Daniel Zimmerman (Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs) defended the "NATO 3.0" strategy, which requires allies to lead on conventional deterrence while the U.S. provides limited support.
- •Rep. Adam Smith (D, WA-9) challenged Zimmerman over the president's rhetoric, arguing that threatening to walk away from NATO undermines the alliance's stability and shared democratic values.
- •Rep. Mike Rogers (R, AL-3) advocated for permanent U.S. bases in Poland, while Democrats expressed alarm that the president's disparaging comments toward allies damage essential security partnerships.
- •Lawmakers will use the upcoming defense authorization process to mandate consultations before any troop reductions, ensuring U.S. forces remain in Europe until allies achieve military self-sufficiency.
Read the full transcript
Starting at $350/mo
- Full hearing transcripts
- Speaker timestamps with video verification
- Organization & competitor mentions
- Same-day delivery
- Personalized summaries
30-day money-back guarantee on all paid plans.
Hearing Analysis
Overview
The House Armed Services Committee met on March 18, 2026, to review the U.S. military posture and national security challenges within the U.S. European Command (EUCOM) area of responsibility. Chaired by Rep. Mike Rogers (R, AL-3), the hearing focused on the evolving role of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, and the strategic necessity of burden-sharing among European allies. The committee examined how the Department of Defense (DOD) is balancing the primary threat of the Russian Federation with simultaneous challenges from the Islamic Republic of Iran and the People's Republic of China.
Key Testimony
The Honorable Daniel Zimmerman, Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs, and General Alexus Grynkewich, Commander of U.S. European Command, provided testimony. Secretary Zimmerman outlined a "NATO 3.0" strategy, which envisions a reformed alliance where European members assume primary responsibility for conventional defense while the U.S. provides an extended nuclear deterrent and "critical but more limited" operational support. He emphasized the "America First" approach, noting that President Trump’s leadership has pushed allies toward a goal of spending 5 percent of GDP on defense by 2035. General Grynkewich identified EUCOM’s three priority missions: protecting the U.S. homeland (in coordination with NORTHCOM and NORAD), serving as a platform for projecting combat power into other theaters like CENTCOM and AFRICOM, and positioning NATO to deter Russian aggression.
Policy Proposals
A significant portion of the discussion centered on the "Pearl Initiative," a policy mechanism where European nations provide compensatory funds to purchase U.S. military equipment for Ukraine. Secretary Zimmerman defended this as a way to ensure Europeans are at the "front" of supporting Ukraine's defense. However, Rep. John Garamendi (D, CA-8) questioned why the U.S. was using European countries as a "front" rather than providing direct support. General Grynkewich explained that these packages, valued at $500 million each, are shopped to NATO allies who then fund the transfer of materiel to Kyiv.
Overview
The hearing highlighted several critical organizations and their roles in the current security landscape. NATO was the central focus, discussed as an alliance in transition toward greater European self-sufficiency. The Russian Federation was identified by both witnesses as the "principal threat" to European security, with specific concerns raised about its collaboration with the Islamic Republic of Iran. Rep. Joe Wilson (R, SC-2) cited reports from The Wall Street Journal regarding Russia providing satellite imagery and drone technology to Iran to target U.S. forces. Ukraine was discussed both as a recipient of aid and a provider of innovative counter-drone technology currently protecting U.S. forces in the Middle East. Romania and the Republic of Poland were praised as "model allies"; Romania for investing $2 billion in infrastructure for U.S. use and Poland for its willingness to host rotational armored brigades. The People's Republic of China was noted for its economic support of Russia and its efforts to evade sanctions.
Partisan dynamics were sharp regarding the administration’s rhetoric and diplomatic tactics. Ranking Member Adam Smith (D, WA-9) and Rep. Joe Courtney (D, CT-2) criticized President Trump for "belittling" and "bullying" allies, specifically citing social media posts suggesting the U.S. does not need NATO. Rep. Courtney highlighted a recent incident where the Kingdom of Denmark rescued a U.S. sailor from a submarine, arguing this proved the practical value of the alliance. Conversely, Republican members like Rep. Michael Turner (R, OH-10) and Rep. Robert Wittman (R, VA-1) focused on the success of the administration’s pressure in increasing allied defense spending and the need to reform the Foreign Military Sales (FMS) system through the "America First Arms Transfer Strategy."
Notable exchanges occurred regarding the loosening of energy sanctions on Russia. Rep. Jason Crow (D, CO-6) confronted Secretary Zimmerman on the administration’s decision to allow Russian oil sales, arguing that the resulting $10 billion in revenue directly funds the Russian war machine. Zimmerman attributed the move to global economic pressures and the need to stabilize crude oil prices following the onset of Operation Epic Fury against Iran. Additionally, the committee debated the permanent stationing of U.S. forces in Poland. While Chairman Rogers advocated for making the two rotational armored brigades permanent to close a "deterrence gap," General Grynkewich noted the benefits of both permanent and rotational forces, emphasizing that any change must be balanced against global priorities.
Regarding industry impact, General Grynkewich noted that "money is no longer the problem" in Europe, but production capacity is. The defense industrial base in both the U.S. and Europe is currently the bottleneck for delivering capabilities like M1 Abrams tanks to Romania or HIMARS to the Republic of Estonia. The General estimated that while some capabilities will arrive by 2030, it will take until 2035 for European allies to fully assume the conventional defense burden. No immediate follow-up deadlines were set, but the committee indicated that the upcoming National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) would continue to mandate consultation before any significant U.S. force reductions in Europe.
Transcript
Committee will come to order. Today we continue our posture hearings with EUCOM. We meet at a critical moment. Russia's brutal invasion of Ukraine continues. The U.S. military is actively degrading Iran's military capabilities and preventing the regime from acquiring a nuclear weapon. And the Department remains laser-focused on defending the homeland and deterring China. Managing these threats simultaneously requires a stronger NATO. Fortunately, thanks to the leadership of President Trump, our allies are beginning to step up. And their commitment to spend 5 percent of GDP on defense by 2035 shows they are serious about assuming greater responsibility for their own defense. But Europe's rearmament will take time. Fixing manpower shortages and restoring readiness will take time. Building out the transatlantic defense industrial base will take time. And developing our purchasing capabilities that today only the United States can provide will also take time. Yet despite this reality, some within the Department are advocating for a premature and unwise reduction in U.S. forces in Europe and from NATO defense plans. More troubling still, those same voices have not provided a credible roadmap for how such a transition would occur. Nor have they defined what "critical but more limited" U.S. support actually means. That is not a strategy for a stronger, more credible NATO. It is a risk we should not take. That is why last year's NDAA mandates consultation with Congress before making any significant reductions in U.S. forces in Europe. Because the overwhelming bipartisan and bicameral assessment is that a premature drawdown would create a dangerous deterrence gap and invite further Russian aggression. In particular, as Europe rearms, the two rotational U.S. armored brigades in Poland remain a cornerstone of NATO's conventional defense. President Trump has been clear about the importance of maintaining that presence, even suggesting the United States could further bolster our posture there. He's right that those brigades must remain in place. And I believe it is past time that we should seriously consider permanently stationing them in Poland as well. Moreover, those in the Department advocating for a premature reduction of U.S. forces in Europe are also ignoring that our posture there is about as much as about much more than just Europe. It helps defend the homeland and forward. And it gives the President more options to project combat power in other theaters, including CENTCOM, AFRICOM, and the Arctic. Operations like Midnight Hammer and now Epic Fury make that clear. Both are enabled by our presence in Europe and by the access, basing, and overflight permissions provided by our allies. Just look at Romania. Romania is allowing the United States to use two of its bases to support operations in the Middle East. Think about that. Even after we withdrew a U.S. brigade last year, Romania continues to open its facilities to American forces. And they are not just providing access. Romania has invested over $2 billion to improve their bases and runways for American use. That's exactly the kind of ally we should be deepening our engagement with, not prematurely stepping away from. We also should not prematurely step away from Ukraine. It is in the U.S. interest that a strong, well-armed, and independent Ukraine emerges from this war. In fact, its innovative and battle-hardened forces are already degrading the threat Russia's military poses to Europe's conventional defense. Kyiv is also demonstrating that this partnership is not a one-way street. Ukraine counter-drone teams and technology are now helping to protect U.S. forces and partners in the Middle East from Iranian attacks. Russia, meanwhile, is doing the exact opposite. It is helping Iran refine its drone tactics and reportedly providing targeting intelligence to strike American troops. It is clear Putin is not only a liar and a war criminal, he is also not our friend. He is an adversary. The temporary easing of Russian energy sanctions must indeed be temporary as Secretary Bessent has pledged. And if Putin continues to refuse to negotiate with President Trump in good faith, pressure on the Russian dictator must increase, including through the additional sanctions now being considered by Congress. History has taught us this lesson again and again. Vladimir Putin interprets the lack of American resolve as an opportunity. We should not give him one. Neither should Ukraine, nor should NATO. With that, I yield to my friend the ranking member for any opening statement he may have.
Read the full transcript
Starting at $350/mo
- Full hearing transcripts
- Speaker timestamps with video verification
- Organization & competitor mentions
- Same-day delivery
- Personalized summaries
30-day money-back guarantee on all paid plans.
Not ready to subscribe?
Get a free daily digest with hearing summaries ranked by relevance.
Already have an account? Log in
