Opening Statement (As Prepared)
Click here to stream the hearing.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and welcome to our witnesses. I want to thank them for working with the Committee as it conducts critical oversight of U.S. European Command and Europe’s & NATO’s impact on U.S. national security.
The security situation in Europe is complex and dangerous. On the one hand, we as a country, and as an alliance, have engineered great wins for our national security in recent years. The United States and more than fifty partners and allies around the world – most of them NATO allies – empowered Ukraine to stop a full-scale Russian invasion in its tracks. Allies across the continent are also investing huge amounts in their militaries, with more investment on the way.
The United States continues to reap the benefits of our posture in Europe, both directly as permanent presence, acting as a deterrence for a dictator in the Kremlin and indirectly in support of operations worldwide, including most recently in the Red Sea. Our national security is stronger as a result.
It’s in this context that we’re here today. I want to hear from Ms. Thompson about how the Administration plans to conclude a just peace in Ukraine and deter Russia against further wars against other partner countries or NATO itself while potentially proposing to this Committee to cut resources from EUCOM, as has been widely reported.
I also look forward to hearing from General Cavoli about the security situation in Europe, including the war in Ukraine, how EUCOM is currently postured, and what he requires in terms of forces, funding, and authorities to maintain and advance deterrence against a violent and expansionist Russia.
And, from both witnesses I want to know how the Department plans to take advantage of the huge increase in European burden sharing and defense expenditures over the next few years to build a resilient and strong NATO under U.S. leadership. The ways the Department could do that are many: deploying forces permanently to places like Poland, where our hosts have graciously offered to pay vast sums for infrastructure, operating costs, and other expenses associated with our presence; concluding new agreements with other allies following the Polish model; transitioning from the expensive “permanent rotational” concept for brigade combat teams (BCTs) to a “permanent” posture, both to decrease costs but also increase the efficacy and deterrent value of our forces in Europe; and, working with allies across the continent to ensure that our industrial bases gear up to meet the vastly increased demand for weapons and munitions in time and in a way to maximize interoperability and cost.
As there are increasing calls for our European allies to spend more on defense, we must be clear and consistent about where we believe those funds should be focused so that they may properly align industrial bases to respond. That is particularly important for those countries that are building back spending levels after years of assisting through other means.
Unfortunately, the Trump Administration’s insistence on actions that alienate our partners and allies is squandering much of the benefit of our national security wins and driving wedges into the NATO alliance. Actions on tariffs, threats on our commitment to NATO, insinuations of military action against an ally in Greenland, and insults to countries that have shed blood in support of the United States – have all been levied questionable policy reasons or for no discernible reason.
The cohesion and defense posture required to maintain and enhance our national security is not achieved by antagonism and threats. Alliances do not work when they are divided by resentment and disrespect, because alliances are built on trust. Above all, I want to hear from Ms. Thompson and the Supreme Allied Commander how we intend to build and rebuild the trust of our allies.
It’s not too late the make the right decisions about reinforcing our alliance and securing our national and shared interests on Ukraine, deterrence, and many other areas of joint concern.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
The security situation in Europe is complex and dangerous. On the one hand, we as a country, and as an alliance, have engineered great wins for our national security in recent years. The United States and more than fifty partners and allies around the world – most of them NATO allies – empowered Ukraine to stop a full-scale Russian invasion in its tracks. Allies across the continent are also investing huge amounts in their militaries, with more investment on the way.
The United States continues to reap the benefits of our posture in Europe, both directly as permanent presence, acting as a deterrence for a dictator in the Kremlin and indirectly in support of operations worldwide, including most recently in the Red Sea. Our national security is stronger as a result.
It’s in this context that we’re here today. I want to hear from Ms. Thompson about how the Administration plans to conclude a just peace in Ukraine and deter Russia against further wars against other partner countries or NATO itself while potentially proposing to this Committee to cut resources from EUCOM, as has been widely reported.
I also look forward to hearing from General Cavoli about the security situation in Europe, including the war in Ukraine, how EUCOM is currently postured, and what he requires in terms of forces, funding, and authorities to maintain and advance deterrence against a violent and expansionist Russia.
And, from both witnesses I want to know how the Department plans to take advantage of the huge increase in European burden sharing and defense expenditures over the next few years to build a resilient and strong NATO under U.S. leadership. The ways the Department could do that are many: deploying forces permanently to places like Poland, where our hosts have graciously offered to pay vast sums for infrastructure, operating costs, and other expenses associated with our presence; concluding new agreements with other allies following the Polish model; transitioning from the expensive “permanent rotational” concept for brigade combat teams (BCTs) to a “permanent” posture, both to decrease costs but also increase the efficacy and deterrent value of our forces in Europe; and, working with allies across the continent to ensure that our industrial bases gear up to meet the vastly increased demand for weapons and munitions in time and in a way to maximize interoperability and cost.
As there are increasing calls for our European allies to spend more on defense, we must be clear and consistent about where we believe those funds should be focused so that they may properly align industrial bases to respond. That is particularly important for those countries that are building back spending levels after years of assisting through other means.
Unfortunately, the Trump Administration’s insistence on actions that alienate our partners and allies is squandering much of the benefit of our national security wins and driving wedges into the NATO alliance. Actions on tariffs, threats on our commitment to NATO, insinuations of military action against an ally in Greenland, and insults to countries that have shed blood in support of the United States – have all been levied questionable policy reasons or for no discernible reason.
The cohesion and defense posture required to maintain and enhance our national security is not achieved by antagonism and threats. Alliances do not work when they are divided by resentment and disrespect, because alliances are built on trust. Above all, I want to hear from Ms. Thompson and the Supreme Allied Commander how we intend to build and rebuild the trust of our allies.
It’s not too late the make the right decisions about reinforcing our alliance and securing our national and shared interests on Ukraine, deterrence, and many other areas of joint concern.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.