U.S. Defense Secretary Hegseth tells NATO allies some countries may fail U.S. defense review

U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said on June 18, 2026, that NATO allies face a U.S. defense review in which “some nations” may “fail” to meet U.S. expectations. The remarks add to friction over how allies contribute to shared security goals and how the United States and Europe coordinate basing and operational support for military missions.

In the same set of comments, Hegseth also criticized European governments for refusing to provide U.S. forces access to bases that he said were needed to carry out strikes connected to Iran. He called that refusal “shameful,” framing the issue as one of allied cooperation and access for U.S. personnel and equipment during potential operations.

The defense secretary’s comments come as NATO members continue to debate capability gaps, readiness levels, and the scope of support they provide to U.S. and coalition activities. His language underscores that the United States is weighing not only broad contributions, but also specific access arrangements that can affect how quickly and effectively forces can plan and execute missions.

Hegseth did not, in the published report, identify which NATO countries he believed would fail or what exact criteria the U.S. review will use. The report also did not specify whether he was referencing an ongoing review that had already been completed or a new process being prepared for future assessments. Without additional detail, it is not possible to determine from the report how countries will be scored or what consequences would follow if a review finds shortcomings.

The remarks about base access for actions related to Iran also raise questions about operational alignment within NATO and broader Western security planning. If U.S. requests for basing or access are declined, it can affect logistics, command-and-control arrangements, and the timelines required to generate strike options, potentially increasing pressure on alternative routes, partner arrangements outside NATO, or non-basing approaches.

U.S. and allied officials typically handle such disputes through defense ministries and diplomatic channels rather than public debate. The next steps, based on the issues highlighted by the report, would likely involve clarifying what the U.S. defense review requires, whether allies will be asked to adjust specific capabilities or agreements, and what access arrangements for operational planning can be negotiated to prevent future public conflict over support for U.S. missions.