Major Overhaul of NATO’s Force Commands

Why It Matters

The realignment deepens European responsibility for conventional defence while preserving U.S. strategic leverage, reshaping NATO’s command dynamics and cost structure.

Key Takeaways

• US hands NATO joint commands in Naples, Norfolk to Europeans.
• British and Italian officers to lead Joint Force Commands.
• US retains strategic SACEUR, air and land domain commands.
• Shift reflects NATO burden‑sharing, limits US “skin in the game”.

Pulse Analysis

The latest NATO command overhaul reflects a strategic pivot in transatlantic defence cooperation. By moving the Joint Force Commands in Naples and Norfolk under European generals, the alliance is operationalizing the burden‑sharing agenda outlined in the 2026 U.S. National Defense Strategy. This shift not only distributes day‑to‑day command responsibilities but also signals confidence in European militaries to manage regional contingencies, especially on NATO’s eastern flank where Russian activity remains a focal concern.

Washington’s decision to retain the Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR) role, along with Allied Air Command in Ramstein and Allied Land Command in Izmir, ensures that the United States continues to shape strategic priorities and escalation management. The retention of domain‑specific commands provides the U.S. with decisive leverage over air, land, and maritime operations, even as it cedes regional joint headquarters to European leadership. This balance allows the United States to reduce its “skin in the game” while still influencing NATO’s overall posture and response mechanisms.

Looking ahead, the command realignment may accelerate Europe’s push for greater autonomy in defence procurement, force integration, and rapid reaction capabilities. Analysts will watch whether European leaders can translate increased operational authority into proportional political weight within NATO’s decision‑making structures. If successful, the model could serve as a template for future adjustments, potentially prompting further redistribution of senior staff positions as the alliance adapts to evolving security challenges and fiscal pressures.

Major overhaul of NATO’s force commands

By Kacper Kremiec · 10 February 2026, 17:32

In a major restructuring of NATO’s military command system, the United States will cede leadership of the Alliance’s two Joint Force Commands to Europeans.

According to yet‑publicly‑unconfirmed information from La Lettre and Politico, the United States will transfer command of NATO’s Joint Force Commands in Naples and Norfolk to European officers – an Italian and a British officer, respectively. Meanwhile, an American commander will assume leadership of Allied Maritime Command in Northwood, currently held by the United Kingdom.

After the reshuffle, all three NATO joint operational‑level headquarters in Brunssum, Naples, and Norfolk will be led by Europeans. Notably, the leadership of Joint Force Command Brunssum, which is responsible for the eastern flank, will alternate between German and Polish generals.

By taking Allied Maritime Command, Washington will retain leadership of all three NATO domain‑specific operational commands responsible for air, land, and maritime components. American commanders will remain at the head of Allied Air Command in Ramstein and Allied Land Command in Izmir. Moreover, the United States will keep the Alliance’s most senior military post, the Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR), which provides strategic direction and oversight for NATO military operations in Europe.

Rebalancing command, not relinquishing control

The reported changes align closely with the U.S. administration’s plans to recalibrate force posture and activities in the European theatre, as outlined in the 2026 U.S. National Defense Strategy. That document calls for greater burden‑sharing, with European allies expected to assume primary responsibility for their own conventional defence.

While this staff reshuffle may bring that vision closer, it does not signal a U.S. abandonment of Europe. Washington will retain the top strategic leadership and the domain‑specific capability commands, while Europeans will lead the regional joint operational headquarters. This is consistent with the National Defense Strategy, which states that the United States “will remain engaged in Europe … with critical but more limited support”.

Such a command composition also suggests that Washington aims to retain decisive influence over the Alliance’s strategic direction and escalation dynamics vis‑à‑vis Russia, but at lower cost and with less “skin in the game”. The United States appears to recognise that relinquishing all pivotal commands and making the Alliance fully European‑led would significantly reduce its ability to shape military responses to Russian actions on the eastern flank, especially in scenarios where European and American interests diverge.

In the medium and long term, it will be worth watching whether Europe’s growing share in the Alliance’s conventional military power translates into adequate representation in its top command positions. If it does not, the growing mismatch between continued U.S. control over strategic direction and Europe’s assumption of the bulk of the conventional burden could reignite debates over further command and staff adjustments.