Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Fact check: Does the military train other countries using US bases
Executive Summary
U.S. military forces do train foreign militaries, but most publicly documented exchanges and exercises in the supplied material occurred off U.S. soil or at allied facilities rather than on U.S. bases. The examples here — National Guard state partnership deployments, multinational exercises, and foreign-hosted training centers — show persistent international training cooperation but do not substantiate a general claim that the U.S. regularly trains other countries using U.S. bases in the cited items [1] [2] [3].
1. What claim did people make — and why it matters for readiness and policy
The primary claim under review is whether the U.S. military trains other countries using U.S. bases. This matters because training location affects host‑nation consent, legal authorities, political optics, and force posture. The supplied items point to U.S. units training with foreign partners — for example, the Kentucky National Guard with Ecuador — but the reporting specifies the training took place in Ecuador, not on U.S. soil [1] [4]. Other items describe multinational drills in partner countries like Japan and Poland, or foreign-hosted training centers for U.S.-designed platforms such as the F-35 in Sicily, which signal international interoperability without proving a pattern of foreign militaries being trained on domestic U.S. bases [5] [3] [6].
2. The strongest evidence: State Partnership Program and overseas exchanges
The clearest documented examples in the dataset are National Guard state partnership exchanges and overseas joint exercises. The Kentucky National Guard’s air assault exchange with Ecuador’s 9th Special Forces Brigade is a State Partnership Program activity that enhanced interoperability and camaraderie, but it was conducted in Ecuador [1] [4]. Similarly, Wisconsin National Guard activity in Papua New Guinea shows U.S. units deploying abroad to train and advise, not foreign forces arriving to U.S. bases [2]. These items underscore a pattern of U.S. forces going abroad to train partners, which is legally and politically distinct from hosting foreign militaries on domestic installations.
3. Counterexamples and international hosting: training centers and allied facilities
The supplied items include training that involves allied or foreign facilities hosting advanced training, such as the Trapani-Birgi airbase in Sicily becoming the first F-35 training center outside the U.S. That example shows U.S.-designed platforms and doctrine being taught abroad at partner facilities, reflecting alliance burden-sharing and technology transfer, but it is not a U.S. base hosting foreign trainees within the 50 states [3]. Norway’s training camp in Poland for Ukrainians further demonstrates countries establishing training sites abroad for partner forces rather than relying on U.S. domestic ranges [6].
4. Multinational exercises: U.S. presence does not equal U.S.-based training for foreigners
Reports on multinational drills like Orient Shield in Japan, which included U.S., Japanese, and Australian forces, illustrate large-scale interoperability exercises taking place on partner territory amid regional tension. These exercises show the U.S. trains alongside and with allied forces overseas; they do not provide evidence that U.S. bases are the primary venues for training foreign militaries in the cited coverage [5]. The political calculus for holding exercises overseas often centers on regional deterrence and host-nation consent, features absent when considering domestic U.S. bases.
5. Gaps, omissions and possible agendas in the sources
The supplied materials focus on U.S. units deploying overseas or allied facilities hosting training and include no explicit instances of foreign militaries being routinely trained on U.S. bases. This selection may underrepresent classified, bilateral, or routine foreign-visitor programs that can and do occur on U.S. installations under specific authorities (not covered here). Some articles may emphasize partnership successes to bolster defense cooperation narratives, while others note regional threat responses; readers should note potential promotional or strategic communications aims in reporting on interoperability [1] [5] [3].
6. Synthesis: what can and cannot be concluded from these items
From the supplied documents, it is clear that U.S. military personnel regularly train with foreign forces and support partner training — typically abroad or at partner facilities — and the U.S. also supports allied-run centers for U.S.-designed platforms. What cannot be concluded from these items is that foreign militaries are commonly trained on U.S. domestic bases: the direct evidence shows training occurring in Ecuador, Papua New Guinea, Japan, Poland, and Sicily, not on U.S. soil [1] [4] [2] [5] [3].
7. Bottom line and recommended next steps for verification
The responsible conclusion is that the U.S. military conducts extensive international training cooperation, but the supplied sources do not demonstrate a pattern of training other countries on U.S. bases. To verify instances of training on U.S. soil, consult additional, dated official DoD briefings, State Partnership Program summaries, and base visitor/training records, and look for explicit mention of foreign units conducting curriculum on specific U.S. installations — data not present in the current set [1] [3] [2].