Which European host nations bear the greatest economic and political costs of hosting U.S. bases, and how do local populations view them?
Executive summary
The countries that shoulder the largest economic and political burdens from hosting U.S. bases are those with the biggest and longest-standing U.S. footprints—notably Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom and key Southern and Eastern hosts such as Spain and Poland—because they host large numbers of personnel and infrastructure and therefore face recurring costs, political friction and debates over sovereignty [1] [2] [3]. Economically, the literature is divided: some analyses find long‑run growth and local benefits tied to U.S. deployments [4] [5], while others argue bases impose financial burdens and distort local development [6] [7].
1. Who carries the biggest basing footprint — and why that matters
The largest and most consequential American footprints in Europe concentrate in Germany (multiple garrisons), Italy, the United Kingdom and a growing posture in Eastern Europe such as Poland and the Black Sea area (Bulgaria and Romania), a pattern the Department of Defense and policy analysts still emphasize for deterrence and logistics reasons [1] [2]. Those concentrations translate into greater direct economic exposure—host‑nation logistics, infrastructure access, and political negotiation over use and costs—so these states are the likeliest to face recurring basing costs and political fallout when Washington shifts posture [1] [8].
2. The split evidence on economic impact
Academic and policy work diverge: some empirical studies associate U.S. troop deployments with higher long‑run per‑capita GDP growth—arguing bases act as security umbrellas that lower investment risk—while cautioning that benefits can take decades to materialize and may obscure local distortions [4]. Conversely, critics and newer academic work stress that bases increase host‑nation financial burdens, can divert investment, and impose maintenance or opportunity costs on host economies, particularly after major geopolitical shifts such as post‑Iraq reconfigurations [6] [7]. Both perspectives are present in the literature and should temper any single narrative about uniform economic gain or loss [4] [6].
3. Political costs: sovereignty, controversy and unexpected disruptions
Political costs of hosting can be immediate and strategic: basing rights sit on foreign sovereignty and have been altered or revoked in the past, from mid‑1960s France to more recent episodes where host governments constrained U.S. use of facilities—illustrating how domestic politics can impose sudden costs on both parties [8]. Hosting can also feed domestic debates about strategic autonomy and the degree to which alliance dependence limits independent defense policymaking, an argument increasingly prominent in European debates about EU strategic autonomy [9] [10].
4. Local views are mixed, contingent on money, history and politics
Local populations’ attitudes vary by community and by national political context: where bases are long‑standing, American forces have sometimes built rapport with local leaders and communities and even improved public opinion toward the U.S. [1]. Yet local opposition remains visible—municipalities, veterans and activist coalitions press for closures arguing bases are wasteful or a drag on national sovereignty and resources [7] [9]. Thus support often hinges on tangible economic ties and perceived security benefits, while opposition focuses on autonomy, environmental, or social costs [1] [7].
5. Who bears the “greatest” cost in practice?
Measured by concentration of U.S. forces and likelihood of bearing recurring fiscal, political and reputational burdens, Western hosts with deep, long‑term stationing—Germany, Italy, the U.K.—and frontline Eastern and Southern hosts that have absorbed recent expansions—Poland, Romania, Spain—stand out as bearing the greatest combined economic and political costs [1] [3] [2]. Which of those bears more depends on the metric: Germany and Italy face high maintenance and political negotiating exposure from large garrisons, while smaller hosts can face outsized sovereignty debates when basing agreements become politically contentious [1] [8].
6. Tradeoffs ahead: politics will shape any reevaluation
Debates about whether to shrink or reconfigure bases rest on competing priorities: deterrence and rapid response proponents warn of gaps if U.S. presence declines, and link basing to regional stability [11] [10], while critics argue modern logistics and access agreements can substitute for permanent footprints and free host nations from costs [7]. Any change will therefore play out as a political contest in host capitals as much as a technical cost‑benefit exercise, and current research does not yield a single, unambiguous economic verdict [10] [7] [4].