Major Bipartisan Bill From Congress Would Limit Troop Cuts in Europe, South Korea

The final text of the annual defense policy bill advanced by the US congress contains an interesting mix of bipartisan pushback against some of the Trump administration’s efforts to unilaterally restructure US military force posture around the world while circumventing congressional oversight.

The compromise text for the $900 billion defense authorization measure was released late Sunday after months of bipartisan negotiations between the House and Senate. It is expected that it will be voted on and approved for US President Donald Trump to sign within the next two weeks.

The final text of the annual defense policy bill advanced by the US Congress contains an interesting mix of bipartisan pushback against some of the Trump administration’s efforts to unilaterally restructure US military force posture around the world while circumventing congressional oversight.

The compromise text for the $900 billion defense authorization measure was released late Sunday after months of bipartisan negotiations between the House and Senate. It is expected that it will be voted on and approved for US President Donald Trump to sign within the next two weeks.

The legislation’s cap is more than $8 billion more than the White House requested spending on defense for fiscal year 2026, which began in October.

But the 3,086-page bill would prevent the Pentagon from reducing the number of forces deployed in Europe below 76,000 troops or relinquishing the role of commander of all NATO military operations, a position known as “NATO Supreme Commander Europe,” without first complying with certain congressional requirements, including an assurance that the measures would not weaken “the alliance’s military defense and deterrence posture against current and future Russian aggression, as well as the security of NATO as a whole.”

Likewise, the legislation would impose restrictions on the department’s ability to reduce the number of U.S. forces deployed in South Korea to fewer than 28,500 or transfer command of wartime joint U.S.-South Korean forces to the South Korean military.

The bipartisan restrictions follow months of growing concerns on Capitol Hill that lawmakers and European and Asian allies will be alienated from the Defense Department’s plans to restructure and reduce the deployment of U.S. forces, including by ending a rotational brigade in Romania.

Other examples of bipartisan rejection of the bill include:

• Provided that any removal of any member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff before the end of their statutory term shall be justified to Congress in writing.
• Denying funding for modifications or consolidation of geographic combatant commands misses detailed explanations of how the changes will impact U.S. national security in areas such as counterterrorism operations, crisis response operations, freedom of navigation, joint exercises with allies, and great power deterrence.
• Fine the office of US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth to withhold 25% of the travel budget until the Secretary provides his congressional supervisors with all late quarterly reports covering “execution orders” issued by Hegseth or military commanders. Specifically, it demands that the Congressional Armed Services Committees be provided with “unedited videotapes of strikes” conducted against designated terrorist entities in the Western Hemisphere, a reference to the administration’s ongoing lethal missile strikes on alleged drug smuggling boats in the Caribbean.

The legislation also finally revokes the 1991 and 2002 authorizations for the use of military force against Iraq. Ending AUMF powers has long been sought by progressive and isolationist lawmakers, who contend that such authorizations can be abused by the executive branch to justify military operations beyond their initial congressional intent to permit military campaigns against the long-overthrown regime of Saddam Hussein. For example, during his first administration, Trump cited the 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force Act to justify the targeted killing of Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani in early 2020.

Notably, the defense policy bill passed by the Republican-led Congress continues to use previous legal titles such as “Secretary of Defense” and “Department of Defense,” likely a compromise in the face of strong Democratic opposition to codifying Trump and Hegseth’s preferred designations for Secretary of Defense and War Department.

Defense policy legislation is traditionally an important signal of evolving Congressional priorities, and while it sets U.S. military funding levels annually, the actual allocation of funds is done through separate spending legislation. This latest measure remains stalled amid partisan conflict over how deeply to allow the administration to cut domestic spending and ignore previous spending directives in Congress.