Connect with us

News

Los Angeles Geared Up for Fire Risk, but Fell Short

Published

on

Los Angeles Geared Up for Fire Risk, but Fell Short

Follow continuing coverage of the wildfires in Southern California.

The alert came in blaring, hot-pink, all-caps: Be prepared for a “LIFE THREATENING & DESTRUCTIVE WINDSTORM!!!”

The notice on Monday was one in a series of warnings issued by the National Weather Service about the powerful Santa Ana winds that were about to blow through Southern California, which hadn’t seen serious rain in months.

Officials in Los Angeles, a city that is accustomed to treacherous fire conditions, turned to a well-worn playbook. The city predeployed nine trucks in vulnerable areas and called in 90 extra firefighters. The county fire department moved 30 extra engines into the field and called up 100 off-duty firefighters. The U.S. Forest Service brought in trucks and support units, as well as bulldozers, helicopters and planes.

But by Tuesday afternoon, five hours after a fire ignited high in a canyon in the oceanside Pacific Palisades neighborhood, it was clear their preparations would not be enough. As furious wind gusts approaching 100 miles per hour tore through the city and propelled showers of embers that ignited entire neighborhoods, Anthony Marrone, the chief of the Los Angeles County Fire Department, stood at a command post on the edge of the Pacific Ocean.

Advertisement

Blasted by dust and dirt kicked up by the relentless wind, he snapped a picture with his phone of smoke obscuring the sun and looked out at a panorama of flames, smoke and debris. The fire, he thought to himself, looked unstoppable. It was moving “like a funnel, like a speedway,” he said. “I knew that if we had one start, we probably weren’t going to be able to contain it.”

The conflagrations that killed at least 11 people and destroyed thousands of homes have raised questions about whether the dozens of federal, state, county and city fire departments involved in this week’s fire response deployed enough resources — and the extent to which modern firefighting tools are effective against the megafires that have become increasingly common in California over the past decade.

It was only hours before a situation that bore no resemblance to an ordinary red-flag alert, the kind set off when the Santa Ana winds blow in over the Mojave Desert from the inland West, began to evolve. A second huge fire broke out in Altadena, the unincorporated area adjacent to Pasadena, destroying more than 5,000 structures. A third ignited in Sylmar, to the north, and yet another, the next day, in the Hollywood Hills.

Chief Marrone quickly acknowledged that the 9,000 firefighters in the region were not enough to stay ahead of the fires.

“We’re doing the very best we can, but no, we don’t have enough fire personnel,” he said at a news briefing on Wednesday afternoon. “The L.A. County Fire Department was prepared for one or two major brush fires, but not four.”

Advertisement

The hurricane-force winds, low humidity and parched landscape created unusually perilous conditions: On the first day, when the Palisades and Eaton fires broke out, it was too windy by late afternoon to send up the aircraft whose drops of water and fire retardant might have helped slow the spread of the blazes.

Chief Marrone said the parched terrain and the concentration of homes, surrounded by forested hillsides, also combined to create an indefensible landscape.

“The next time I’m not going to do anything differently because I don’t feel that I did anything wrong this time,” he said in an interview.

Los Angeles city fire officials had a similar view. “The fire chief did everything she could with the resources she had,” Patrick Leonard, a battalion chief with the Los Angeles Fire Department, said, referring to the city’s fire chief, Kristin Crowley.

The question of resources will almost certainly arise in the weeks ahead as the fire response is analyzed. The Los Angeles Fire Department has said for years it is dangerously underfunded. A memo sent to city leaders in December by Chief Crowley complained that recent budget cuts had “severely limited the department’s capacity to prepare for, train for, and respond to large-scale emergencies, including wildfires.”

Advertisement

But there are a host of other factors at play. Fire experts have long warned that climate change and more home-building outside of urban areas are straining firefighters’ ability to prevent and contain fires. As fires have grown in size and complexity, California has explored mitigation through thinning brush out of forests, safer power grids and shoring up home protection. But it has been far from enough, they say.

The fires in Los Angeles have also raised the critical question of how departments can battle so many powerful infernos at once. After the Woolsey fire burned more than 1,600 structures in the northern part of the county in 2018 — at the same time that other major fires were raging across the state — Los Angeles County commissioned an assessment that found that the simultaneous outbreaks had slowed the ability of other fire agencies to fight the blaze because they were already busy.

Lori Moore-Merrell, the head of the U.S. Fire Administration, a division of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, who flew this week to Los Angeles to inspect the firefighting efforts and damage, said she believed that the reason for the widespread devastation was not the firefighting response.

“They deployed enough,” Dr. Moore-Merrell said in an interview. “This fire was so intense. There isn’t a fire department in the world that could have gotten in front of this.”

The question of predeployment will almost certainly prove one of the keys to understanding the response.

Advertisement

It nearly always involves weighing a host of unknown factors. Firefighting experts agree that having engines and firefighters very close to the site of an outbreak is essential, especially in very windy conditions; fires in those cases must be stamped out immediately, or they will very likely begin to spread out of control.

“Once a wind-driven fire is well established you’re not going to put it out,” said Patrick Butler, a former assistant chief of the Los Angeles Fire Department who ran the response to many of the major fires the city has faced over the past decade.

With the threat of highly destructive fires increasing, he said, fire authorities should “flood” fire-prone areas with extra fire engines and crews during times of high winds.

But such predeployments are enormously costly, and fire chiefs often have a tough task convincing political leaders to repeatedly spend the money on them — especially when no fires break out.

Chief Butler, who now runs the fire department in Redondo Beach, Calif., said he prepositioned firefighters on a large scale at least 30 times during heightened fire threats. Fires broke out after those threats just three times, but to him, it was worth the cost.

Advertisement

“I’m not in the business of making decisions that are politically palatable,” he said.

Chief Marrone began preparing for his own predeployments after meteorologists at the National Weather Service, on the first weekend of the new year, issued a bulletin warning of a “Particularly Dangerous Situation” — code words for a severe weather warning, the kind the federal government issues only about two dozen times a year. Based on the conditions in Los Angeles, it was clear that fire would almost certainly ensue.

The chief authorized overtime and supplemental state funding to add 100 people for duty drawn from a pool of around 2,000 off-duty firefighters so they could have more units prepositioned in areas known to be vulnerable to fire, including Santa Clarita and the Santa Monica mountains.

He prepositioned four strike teams, each with five trucks, and asked the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, the state fire agency known as Cal Fire, to preposition two more teams. The staffing was typical for a red-flag wind event, he said. Early on Tuesday morning, the chief ordered that 900 firefighters who were finishing their shifts stay on the job. The decision increased the number of county firefighters on duty to 1,800.

And the U.S. Forest Service, which fights fires in national forests, also began mobilizing. Adrienne Freeman, an agency spokeswoman, said that on Monday, the day before the winds kicked up and the first fires started, the agency had 30 trucks from out of state and Northern California in place at four Southern California forests and at a local coordination center. On Monday night, the agency called in 50 more trucks that arrived on Tuesday, she said.

Advertisement

The city fire department proceeded with prepositioning the nine fire trucks it was deploying on Tuesday morning, according to an internal document reviewed by The New York Times, three each in Hollywood, Sunland Valley — in the northwestern part of the city — and near the city of Calabasas in the western foothills. The extra 90 firefighters the city was predeploying were called up on overtime. No extra trucks were sent to Pacific Palisades.

Those extra firefighters the city of Los Angeles called on made up less than a tenth of the approximately 1,000 on duty on any given day. And the 100 additional people called up by the county added to its daily firefighting force of 900.

Mr. Leonard, the city battalion chief, said the trucks were positioned based on historical patterns of fire during high-wind events.

“Predicting where the fire is going to start is a scientific guess,” he said.

Then the wind started, and the first embers started flying.

Advertisement

Chief Crowley, with the city department, texted the chiefs in the counties surrounding Los Angeles at 10:35 a.m. Tuesday, five minutes after the Palisades fire was first reported, notifying them, according to an account of the messages shared with The Times.

Chief Marrone responded immediately. “What do you need?” he texted.

The Ventura County chief said he was sending strike teams. “They’re on the road now,” he wrote.

Orange County’s chief said he could provide three strike teams of five trucks each, along with a helicopter and a crew that uses hand tools to cut firebreaks.

The Los Angeles Fire Department put out a call for off-duty members to come to their stations and scoured mechanic yards for vehicles.

Advertisement

Tens of thousands of people were being evacuated out of Pacific Palisades as the fire spread out of the foothills, leaping across the four lanes of Pacific Coast Highway and wiping out restaurants and homes along the coast.

Then, at 6:18 p.m. on Tuesday, came more stunning news: the second major fire, in Altadena, had ignited.

Chief Marrone put Eaton Canyon, the site of the new fire, into a navigation app and set off from the Palisades. Stuck in bumper-to-bumper freeway traffic, he could see the fresh fire and its smoke swelling into the sky.

Around 9 p.m., he called Brian Marshall, the chief of fire and rescue for the California Office of Emergency Services.

“I said, ‘We are out of resources, we need help,’” Chief Marrone said. He requested 50 strike teams, a total of 250 fire engines and 1,000 firefighters.

Advertisement

At 10:29 p.m., a third major fire ignited in Sylmar, in the northernmost part of the San Fernando Valley, about 25 miles northwest of downtown Los Angeles, and a fourth broke out near Santa Clarita on Wednesday afternoon.

Mutual aid teams from across the West, and beyond, began streaming toward Los Angeles.

Firefighters tried and failed to stay ahead of the furious flames.

“Resources were scarce” during the initial hours of the blazes, said Capt. Jason Rolston of the Orange County Fire Authority, who was among those who traveled to join the firefighting effort in Los Angeles. “There were too many houses to protect, and not enough fire engines.”

The wind was gusting so powerfully that smoke boiled across the terrain. Firefighters said the barrage of ash and soot was so overwhelming at times that they struggled to even move through the fire zone.

Advertisement

“There would be times when you couldn’t see 10 feet in front of the rig,” said Capt. Shawn Stacy, another Orange County firefighter who deployed to the Palisades fire. “What went wrong is that you had 80-m.p.h. winds.”

Some firefighters said there was so much demand on water systems that they ran out of water.

Capt. Ryan Brumback of the Los Angeles County Fire Department said he was five hours into an all-out effort to save buildings in Altadena from the Eaton fire early Wednesday morning when the hydrants started running dry — a situation firefighters also faced in the Palisades.

Suddenly, he said, “we noticed our hoses became very limp and soft.” The problem, he said, was that a power shut-off intended to prevent additional ignitions also shut off the pumps that help with water pressure in Altadena. “It was devastating, because you want to do all that you can do.”

By Friday, both initial major fires were still burning with little containment, and others that ignited later in the week also required aggressive responses, particularly in the Hollywood Hills on Wednesday evening and in the West Hills, northwest of Los Angeles, late on Thursday. Fire officials were still focused on saving lives and homes, and said they would spend time later looking at whether their preparations had been sufficient.

Advertisement

“It wasn’t for a lack of preparation and decision making that resulted in this catastrophe,” Chief Marrone said at a news briefing on Saturday. “It was a natural disaster.”

The coming analysis, several experts said, will have to take into account that the standard guidelines that have long determined red-alert fire responses may no longer apply, as weather and fires become more virulent.

“There’s going to be a real reckoning about land use, escape routes, water pressure, water supply,” said Zev Yaroslavsky, a former longtime Los Angeles City Council member and county supervisor. Mr. Yaroslavsky said the fire might serve as a “Pearl Harbor” moment for the city, an alarm bell that signals fundamental new questions about how the city approaches the threat of wildfires.

“A lot,” he said, “will be reassessed.”

Nicholas Bogel-Burroughs and Ivan Penn contributed reporting.

Advertisement

News

Trump’s Vision for D.C. ‘Garden of Heroes’ Statues Grows in Size and Cost

Published

on

Trump’s Vision for D.C. ‘Garden of Heroes’ Statues Grows in Size and Cost

President Trump’s vision for his National Garden of American Heroes is growing larger and most likely more expensive than his initial estimates, with the latest plans calling for reflecting pools, dining facilities and an amphitheater alongside 250 life-size statues of notable Americans.

The plans have expanded to the point that they could require significant redevelopment of West Potomac Park, an area of mostly sports fields near the National Mall, according to documents obtained by The New York Times. The statues alone could cost more than the $40 million approved for the project by Congress, according to the Trump administration’s estimate.

Based on the latest renderings, the Garden of Heroes could rank among the more expensive and time-consuming projects Mr. Trump has undertaken as he works to remake the nation’s capital in his own style.

Construction has yet to begin, raising questions about whether Mr. Trump will run out of time — and money — to deliver on his ambitions before the end of his second term. If Mr. Trump were to solicit donor funds, as he has done with his ballroom project, it could renew ethical concerns about attempts to court favor with the White House.

The latest drawings depict a “Heroes Walk,” connecting themed areas dedicated to categories of American figures, including politicians, soldiers, scientists, activists, artists and athletes. The set of honorees is eclectic: George Washington, Ronald Reagan and Amelia Earhart are on a list circulated by the administration, along with Elvis Presley, Kobe Bryant, Alfred Hitchcock, Dr. Seuss and others.

Advertisement

Accompanying the statues would be formal gardens, reflecting pools and plazas arranged in a style reminiscent of classical European planning traditions, according to renderings reviewed by The Times. The Trump administration has yet to settle on a final plan or submit it to any oversight board.

One of the most prominent features in the plans would be a large amphitheater carved into the landscape at the water’s edge, suggesting the space is intended to function both as a performance venue and as a ceremonial gathering place.

The plans also include cafes and open recreational spaces.

“President Trump’s National Garden of American Heroes will be built to reflect the awesome splendor of our country’s timeless exceptionalism,” said Davis Ingle, a White House spokesman. “President Trump continues to beautify and honor our nation’s capital during America’s historic semiquincentennial celebration.”

Proposed in his first term, Mr. Trump initially hoped to have the project completed by July 4 of this year, the 250th anniversary of American independence. But administration officials are now hoping to have a few dozen statues ready to unveil in time, with the remainder of the project to be completed by the end of Mr. Trump’s term.

Advertisement

Mr. Trump first proposed a Garden of Heroes during his first term, at a time of widespread protesting over the murder of George Floyd in police custody. Protesters had toppled statues of Confederate generals and leaders, and in some instances vandalized monuments to national icons like George Washington and Abraham Lincoln.

Mr. Trump denounced those actions as attempts to “erase our values” and he signed an executive order authorizing the monument garden. The election of Joseph R. Biden Jr. as president interrupted those plans, but since Mr. Trump took office for a second time, he has taken the project up again in earnest.

Paul M. Farber, the director of Monument Lab, a nonprofit public art, history and design studio based in Philadelphia, noted that the description of the historical figures being honored portrays a sanitized version of American history.

Mr. Trump’s executive order detailed most of the figures to be featured with statues, and a White House task force overseeing festivities for the country’s 250th anniversary also published a list, with biographies of those selected.

The description of Martin Luther King Jr., for instance, praises the civil rights leader for having a “can-do” spirit, but makes no direct mention of the racism that he fought.

Advertisement

“To not name the injustice that made people ‘significant Americans’ is a sanitizing of the history,” Mr. Farber said. “Whether it’s Ida B. Wells-Barnett or Frederick Douglass, when you look at the fine print, you understand the Faustian bargain here, which is representation at the cost of real history.”

Under the “journalists” category, there are two honorees: Edward R. Murrow of CBS, and Alex Trebek, who hosted the game show “Jeopardy!”

The National Endowment for the Humanities has solicited “preliminary concepts” for individual statues from artists who must be American citizens. Mr. Trump has directed that subjects be depicted in a “realistic” manner, with no modernist or abstract designs allowed.

Artists who are selected will receive awards of up to $200,000 per statue, which must be made of marble, granite, bronze, copper or brass. (That price is a relative bargain. Outdoor public sculptures can cost roughly $1 million each to produce in cities like New York.)

Still — even if the statues cost $200,000 each, for a total of $50 million — there is not enough money appropriated by Congress to pay for them. And then there is the matter of the redevelopment of the land, the reflecting pools and all the rest in the latest plan.

Advertisement

Since the start of his second term, Mr. Trump has embarked on what he has characterized as an effort to beautify the nation’s capital. He has run into hurdles.

The president is in the midst of a legal battle over whether he can unilaterally build a $400 million ballroom at the White House with donor funds, after he abruptly demolished the historic East Wing. He is also in court fighting to close the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, which he has renamed the Trump-Kennedy Center, for a major renovation. He has proposed building a 250-foot triumphal arch near Washington’s border with Arlington, Va. Next to his proposed garden is a golf course that Mr. Trump wants to make into a luxury destination.

His plans for the Garden of Heroes have yet to go before any review panel.

Should Mr. Trump leave office without finishing his signature projects, the next administration would be faced with choices about whether to finish them or abandon them.

It’s an issue other countries have faced as well, said Ken Lum, a sculptor, professor and Chair of Fine Arts at the University of Pennsylvania Stuart Weitzman School of Design.

Advertisement

“I don’t think it’s like the Sagrada Familia in Barcelona, where it was this great project of Gaudi and people said, ‘No, we must finish this,’” Mr. Lum said. “I think there’s going to be a lot of debate in terms of, ‘We don’t need to finish this. Maybe we should even take it down.’”

Mr. Trump has tapped several people closely associated with the National Civic Art Society, a nonprofit that endorses traditional styles of architecture, to oversee the Garden of Heroes, according to three people close to the project.

The garden would most likely need to overcome some legal hurdles, including the possible need for exemption under the Commemorative Works Act, which restricts what can be built around some federal lands in Washington. The site’s proximity to the Potomac also could introduce concerns about ecological disruption.

Mr. Trump appears to have left himself room to make five last-minute nominations; there are only 245 people on a list the administration distributed. The White House did not reply to questions about whom he would choose to fill extra slots.

In an interview with The New York Times in January, Mr. Trump described his plans for the Garden of Heroes as “beautiful.”

Advertisement

“That’s going to be most likely right on the Potomac River,” he said, adding: “It’s going to be a beautiful complex. You’re going to have the hall of — you know, it’s — we’ll call it a hall. We call it a lot of things, but the memorials or statues are going to — it’s going to be beautiful.”

Continue Reading

News

Can Trump’s latest pick for surgeon general make it through confirmation?

Published

on

Can Trump’s latest pick for surgeon general make it through confirmation?

Nicole Saphier, President Trump’s nominee for surgeon general.

Theo Wargo/Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Theo Wargo/Getty Images

President Trump has nominated Dr. Nicole Saphier, a radiologist and former Fox News Channel contributor, for the role of surgeon general. It’s his third pick for this position, often called “the nation’s doctor,” responsible for promoting health and wellness to the general public in the United States.

Saphier is expected to be more acceptable to Republican lawmakers, than Dr. Casey Means, Trump’s previous choice. His first pick, Dr. Janette Nesheiwat, was withdrawn following scrutiny over how she had represented her medical credentials.

Trump described Saphier, who directs breast imaging at Memorial Sloan Kettering Monmouth, as a “STAR physician” and an “INCREDIBLE COMMUNICATOR” in his April 30 nomination post on Truth Social.

Advertisement

The same day, Trump blamed Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., a physician, for having “stood in the way” of Means getting confirmed as surgeon general. He accused Cassidy of “intransigence and political games.”

Saphier will be facing scrutiny from the same committee members who were doubtful of Means.

Means told Politico that Sens. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, also opposed her nomination, effectively tanking her confirmation.

All three Republican lawmakers serve on the influential Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee, which Cassidy chairs. The committee holds confirmation hearings for nominated health officials and determines whether to advance them to a full Senate vote.

In response, the Republican members of the Senate HELP Committee wrote, “It’s clear she did not have the votes,” in a post on X.

Advertisement

Does Saphier have a better chance than Means?

While a confirmation hearing has not been scheduled yet, Saphier can expect many questions about her qualifications, views on vaccines and other topics she’s publicly addressed.

David Mansdoerfer, former deputy assistant secretary of health at the Department of Health and Human Services in the first Trump administration, says she likely faces a warm reception from Republicans, saying she’s “extremely strong on some of the core base issues.”

“[She’s great on] the pro-life issue, on chronic disease and prevention. She speaks a lot to the MAHA influence, especially to the suburban moms,” he says, referring to the Make American Healthy Again movement, an interest group that Republicans are trying to win in the midterm elections.

In addition to being a practicing physician, Saphier is also a health influencer and former medical contributor to Fox News from 2018 to this week, a Fox News spokesperson confirmed. She currently sells herbal supplement drops that promote “focus” and “calm” and hosts a podcast called Wellness Unmasked on iHeartRadio. In 2020, she published a book titled Make America Healthy Again — years before the phrase coalesced into a movement led by current Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Saphier is a clear contrast from Means in some key respects. She is an active licensed physician — which Means wasn’t — practicing at a top academic medical center. These credentials make her a “reasonable choice” for surgeon general, says Dr. Georges Benjamin, CEO of the American Public Health Association.

Advertisement

Benjamin had described Trump’s previous pick, Means, to NPR as “less qualified professionally than any other surgeon general in history.”

In February, Saphier addressed Means’ nomination on her podcast, saying the surgeon general’s main role is public health messaging, and for that they need to be “a trusted messenger.”

“They need the respect of not only …the American people that they are communicating to, but they also need the respect of the administration, which they are working together with,” she said, “And also the [respect of] medical professionals, the medical organizations.” In Saphier’s opinion at the time, that’s where Means was falling short.

Dr. Jerome Adams, who served as the 20th surgeon general in the first Trump administration, said in an interview with NPR’s Morning Edition that he expects Saphier to get the respect of the medical community, along with the public and the Administration.

But Saphier’s focus on individual care is just one piece of public health, Adams says. “She tends to see things through a diagnosis and treatment lens because that’s what cancer docs do. It’s clear when you look at the book she wrote that she does not think of things through a public health and societal lens.”

Advertisement

For instance, “she talks about personal responsibility a lot, but you can’t eat healthy if you are having your SNAP benefits cut or if the cost of groceries is going through the roof because of inflation. The broader societal context actually matters,” he says.

Still Adams wrote on X, “Overall, this is a solid pick. I believe she’ll be confirmed and that she has both the clinical background and the temperament to do a good job.”

Views on vaccines and other credentials

The Trump administration has been trying to pivot away from the focus on vaccines ahead of the midterm elections. Secretary Kennedy’s attempts to make sweeping changes to the vaccine schedule have polled poorly with voters, and been blocked by court challenges from leading U.S. health groups.

Still, the topic will likely be front and center in an upcoming confirmation hearing for the role of surgeon general.

Saphier’s views on the topic are not completely aligned with Kennedy. She criticized his attempts to link vaccines with autism in an op-ed last year in the Wall Street Journal. “When it comes to autism, we can’t afford to chase ghosts,” she wrote, advocating for more research into genetic and environmental causes.

Advertisement

But she disagrees with some public health recommendations on the childhood vaccine schedule. While vaccines “really can save lives,” Saphier said in a February 2025 Fox News Digital video, “I do think that the CDC and the American Academy of Pediatrics need to be less stringent on these schedules,” she said, specifically mentioning the hepatitis B and COVID-19 vaccines for children.

Based on what Saphier has said publicly, “she’s been opposed to vaccine mandates, but she’s not anti-vaccine,” says Benjamin from APHA.

At her confirmation hearing in February, former surgeon general pick Dr. Casey Means articulated a similar position, which served as a sticking point for some senators.

Role of surgeon general

Getting confirmed in this role is high stakes, says Dr. Richard Carmona, who served as the 17th surgeon general in the George W. Bush administration. Of all the competencies required for the role, political affiliation or experience as a television commentator are not high on his list.

The job is “to protect, promote and advance the health, safety and security of the nation” and to represent the U.S. government when disasters and public health emergencies strike in the U.S. and abroad, he says.

Advertisement

The surgeon general commands the U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps, one of the eight uniformed services of the United States, with thousands of members that have earned their ranks in a career of service, Carmona says. The surgeon general’s rank is three-star vice admiral.

For this role, Carmona would prioritize experience in leadership and public health. The surgeon general should have “the credibility to sit at the table with foreign ministers and carry the message of the United States and work with our allies.”

As surgeon general, Carmona fielded questions from lawmakers and the media about a wide range of public health topics, from cancer to emergency preparedness for biological and nuclear hazards.

For someone being considered for the role, “I want to know that you have expertise in public health besides clinical medicine,” he says, “Have you dealt with vaccination issues? Have you dealt with clean water and sanitation? How about air pollution? … That’s what a surgeon general does.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

U.S. to Withdraw 5,000 Troops From Germany, Pentagon Says

Published

on

U.S. to Withdraw 5,000 Troops From Germany, Pentagon Says

Pentagon officials said on Friday that they were pulling 5,000 troops from Germany and would redeploy them to the United States and other posts overseas.

The Defense Department is also canceling a plan developed under the Biden administration to place a missile-equipped artillery unit in Europe.

The moves will return U.S. forces in Europe to the level they were in 2022, before Russia began its war in Ukraine, the officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss the planning process. Last year, the Pentagon redeployed a brigade in Romania and did not send replacement forces.

Sean Parnell, a Pentagon spokesman, said in a statement that the withdrawal would be completed over the next six to 12 months.

“This decision follows a thorough review of the department’s force posture in Europe and is in recognition of theater requirements and conditions on the ground,” he said.

Advertisement

The Defense Department — particularly during both of President Trump’s terms — has for several years considered decreasing the military presence in Germany. But senior defense officials privately made it clear that they wanted the move to be seen as a punishment for Germany, whose recent comments about the U.S. war in Iran have annoyed Mr. Trump.

Earlier this week, Germany’s chancellor, Friedrich Merz, said Iran had “humiliated” the United States, and he questioned how Mr. Trump planned to end the conflict.

“The Americans obviously have no strategy,” Mr. Merz said.

Mr. Trump then took to Truth Social, his social media site, to vent.

“The United States is studying and reviewing the possible reduction of Troops in Germany, with a determination to be made over the next short period of time,” he wrote on Thursday.

Advertisement

Later, he added: “The Chancellor of Germany should spend more time on ending the war with Russia/Ukraine (Where he has been totally ineffective!), and fixing his broken Country, especially Immigration and Energy, and less time on interfering with those that are getting rid of the Iran Nuclear threat, thereby making the World, including Germany, a safer place!”

On Friday, while announcing the decision, a senior Pentagon official said that Germany’s failure to contribute to the Iran war effort had frustrated the United States, and that the country’s rhetoric was inappropriate and unhelpful.

The announcement, and the criticism of Germany, represents a shift for Pentagon officials, who recently had praised Germany’s efforts to increase military spending and take over more of the burden of supporting Ukraine.

Even if the Pentagon pulls 5,000 troops out of Germany, the country would still host the second-largest U.S. troop presence in the world, at more than 30,000, behind only Japan.

Defense officials say the United States depends on its bases in Germany to stage many of its operations in the Middle East, Europe and Africa.

Advertisement

The Iran war has made that clear. Many U.S. troops evacuated from bases in the Middle East that were targeted by Iran were moved to Germany. And many of the U.S. troops wounded in the war have been taken to Germany — to Landstuhl Regional Medical Center near Ramstein Air Base — for treatment.

The U.S. military’s Africa Command and European Command are also headquartered in Germany.

Defense officials said the reduction would not directly affect Landstuhl or other medical facilities in Germany where U.S. troops receive care.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending