Marco Rubio has long defended NATO because it gives the United States critical basing rights across Europe, but recent events and ally pushback have forced a fresh debate about whether the alliance still serves U.S. strategic interests in crises like those in the Middle East and Africa.
Rubio says those basing rights let America project force quickly and efficiently, moving aircraft and logistics into trouble spots when speed matters. He frames NATO as a practical tool that amplifies U.S. military reach, not just a symbolic club of friendly capitals.
He warned that when allies start denying access to bases the United States needs, the calculus that made NATO valuable changes. Rubio flagged Spain’s conduct during Operation Epic Fury as an example that raises hard questions about what being an ally actually means in practice.
“The problem with NATO, and I’ve been a supporter of NATO throughout my career in the Senate, and one of the reasons why I supported NATO was because it gave us basing rights,” the Secretary of state said. “It allowed us to have bases in Europe that we could use in a contingency, like something in the Middle East, where you could have planes flying from some country in Europe and actually protecting our national interests in the Middle East, as an example, or in Africa.”
“And so, when you have NATO partners denying you the use of those bases, when the primary reason why NATO is good for America is now being denied to us by Spain, as an example, then what’s the purpose of the alliance?” Rubio continued. “It starts becoming their allies when they want to be. And look, to be fair, there are countries in NATO that were very helpful to us.”
“I’m just singling one out, Portugal. They said yes before we even told them what the question was. Poland. So there are countries in Romania, Bulgaria,” he added. “Others, like Spain, have been atrocious, just horrifying.”
“So I do think there’s some very legitimate questions to ask about NATO, and that is, what is the purpose of being an alliance whose benefit to us is these basing rights, if in a time of conflict, like the one we’ve had with Iran, they can deny us the use of those bases? So why are we there for? Only to protect them, but not to further our national interests? This is a very legitimate question that we need to address.”
The criticism comes amid a broader Republican critique that European partners have so far offered too little in the face of threats in the Gulf, leaving Washington to carry the heaviest share of the operational burden. For weeks U.S. officials complained Europe was slow and limited in its response while the situation demanded decisive cooperation to secure shipping lanes and deter adversaries.
That posture began to shift only after a solitary Royal Navy destroyer moved to support a freedom of navigation mission to reopen access through the Strait of Hormuz. The small scale of that contribution reinforced the contrast between U.S. expectations and European willingness to act during acute crises.
At the same time NATO leaders are reorganizing parts of the alliance’s command structure in ways some U.S. officials worry will dilute American operational authority. Changes that hand more control to European staffs could leave the United States sidelined at moments when unified command and rapid American lift are decisive.
Rubio’s remarks underscore a policy choice Republicans will press: defend an alliance that demonstrably advances U.S. basing and power-projection needs, or rethink commitments if partners are unwilling to back those functions in practice. Lawmakers and commanders will face that tension as planning continues for future contingencies and as allies test the limits of cooperation.
