The internal guidance memo from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth instead focuses on deterring China’s seizure of Taiwan and shoring up homeland defense

A confidential Pentagon memo has been leaked, revealing that the U.S. does not plan to assist Europe in the event of a Russian attack. The internal guidance memo from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth instead prioritises deterring China’s potential seizure of Taiwan and strengthening homeland defence.

The Washington Post reports that parts of the document are almost identical to a report from the conservative think tank behind Project 2025.

In the memo, Hegseth acknowledges that the United States is unlikely to provide significant support to Europe if Russia makes military advances. It states that the U.S. intends to insist on NATO allies taking primary responsibility for the region’s defence.

READ MORE: Donald Trump furious and ‘on the rampage’ after leaked war plan texts fiasco

The memo suggests that the U.S. will support Europe with nuclear deterrence against Russia, but only with forces not needed for homeland defence or China deterrence missions, reports the Express.

The document also notes that an increase in Europe sharing the defence burden “will also ensure NATO can reliably deter or defeat Russian aggression even if deterrence fails and the United States is already engaged in, or must withhold forces to deter, a primary conflict in another region.”

The memo’s guidance aligns the Pentagon with several of President Trump’s global concerns, including unspecified threats from the “near abroad”. In the document, he emphasizes that U.S. forces must be prepared to defend American interests across the hemisphere, spanning from Greenland to the Panama Canal and Cape Horn.

Tensions with Denmark, a NATO ally responsible for Greenland’s foreign policy and defense, escalated on Friday, March 28, when Trump declared, “we have to have Greenland”.

The nine-page interim guidance contains passages that bear a striking resemblance to a more comprehensive 2024 report by the Heritage Foundation, with some sections being nearly identical, as revealed by The Washington Post’s analysis of both documents.

The Heritage Foundation did not respond to The Washington Post’s request for comment.