The following is the transcript of the interview with former Defense Secretary Robert Gates that aired on "Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan" on May 17, 2026.

MARGARET BRENNAN:  Mr. Secretary, if you're ready, we'll dive right in.

FORMER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE ROBERT GATES:  Absolutely.

MARGARET BRENNAN:  So it's great to be back here with you, but there's a lot going on in the world. You said in December we're living in perhaps one of the most, if not the most, dangerous periods in our modern American history. Why do you feel that way?

SECRETARY GATES:  For the first time in our history, we face nuclear-armed adversaries in both Europe and Asia. When China finishes their strategic nuclear modernization, China and Russia together will have nearly twice as many strategic nuclear warheads deployed as we do. We have never faced a country, at least- at least since the British Empire, that had greater manufacturing and industrial capacity than the United States. We have not faced a country that was as technologically advanced as we are, ahead of us in a few areas, behind us in a few areas, pretty much even with us in a few others. So we face an adversary that is more powerful and- and has more non-military instruments of power than- than any adversary we've faced, certainly than the Soviet Union. So whether it's strategic communications or development assistance or trade or whatever, the Chinese are all over the world dealing with these things, so I think if you take all those things together and- and- and the nature of the two regimes, this is a very, very perilous time.

MARGARET BRENNAN: The two regimes, Russia and China--

SECRETARY GATES: Right.

MARGARET BRENNAN: The chief adversaries, in your view, of the United States.

SECRETARY GATES: Yeah.

MARGARET BRENNAN: So, President Trump was in China, standing across from Xi Jinping, and he referred, almost jokingly, to the grouping as the new G2. He seemed to mean the two global powers. Do you think that the U.S. and China are on equal footing? Is that how you would describe it?

SECRETARY GATES:  I don't think so yet. I think China is a- you know, the military refers to China as a near peer, and I think our- right now our military power is greater than theirs, although they're catching up and certainly ahead of us in terms of ship building and so on. But we- that we still have a lead economically, we still have a lead technologically, and, and I think- I think, you know, we have our own problems here at home, but the Chinese have some real problems as well, domestically, in terms of their economy and demography, and so on. So, you know, they're- they're approaching our level of power, but- but I think they're not there yet.

MARGARET BRENNAN: But the meeting itself seemed to be the message between President Xi and Trump. There weren't a lot of, as they call it, deliverables coming out of this summit. There was an announcement of working groups to study artificial intelligence and talk about tariffs. What do you think was accomplished?

SECRETARY GATES:  I think that the main objective for the administration, for the president, probably was simply to keep a lid on the relationship, to keep a floor under it so it doesn't deteriorate, to continue the trade truce that has existed for about a year now. We're still batting back and forth various measures against each other, but by and large the trade truce has- has been sustained. And- and so I think avoiding a re-escalation of the economic conflict between the two. I think putting this floor under the relationship, keeping it on even keel, probably was the primary objective of both sides, frankly.

MARGARET BRENNAN:  Certainly, for the business community, that was their concern.

SECRETARY GATES: And- and if they- if we can get some greater business opportunities, of course, take advantage of that, and we'll see what happens.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, Xi Jinping's language in that public statement that was released by his government was very strong on Taiwan. China considers it a core issue, as they described it. The U.S. still officially has this stance of strategic ambiguity, but do you think the tone needs to shift a little bit from the United States, given how strong the Chinese rhetoric is now?

SECRETARY GATES:  I think the Chinese rhetoric has often been strong in the past when it comes to Taiwan. Whenever we've made an arms sales to Taiwan in the past, the Bush administration, Obama administration, and so on, the Chinese rhetoric gets very, very strong. So I think- I think Xi was reiterating the Chinese position on that. I think it would be a mistake to change the carefully worded position of the United States with respect to Taiwan. Any change at all, the nuances- this is one of those things where the experts parse these things down to the tense of the verbs, and so on. So, I think- I think keeping things, the U.S. position as it has been was important, and I think everything I've read so far indicates that the President did that.

MARGARET BRENNAN: So, leave it open to question whether the U.S. would militarily come to the defense of Taiwan if China were to move on it--

SECRETARY GATES: Yes.

MARGARET BRENNAN: --that needs to be an open question. Well, on paper, the president has made significant pledges to Taiwan in terms of promised arms sales, not delivered on yet. There's another $14 billion in proposed weapon sales that the Trump administration has delayed approving. Do you think the president should green light that?

SECRETARY GATES: I think he should. I think we should go forward with what- with what we've agreed with Taiwan. One of the concerns that I have is even with respect to previous arms sales, there is a huge backlog of weapons that we have sold to Taiwan that we have not been able to deliver because we don't have the supplies, and so if you're offering another 14 billion, is that just going to be added to the backlog, or is there a way forward in terms of actually getting these weapons to the Taiwanese? I think one of the- an important thing that has happened in recent years is getting the Taiwanese to focus on purchasing the kinds of weapons that would be necessary to defend themselves against a Chinese amphibious invasion. In the past, they wanted the kinds of high-end weapons that would enable them to retake the mainland. Well, that's never going to happen. And- and so getting the, the old Chinese-  the old Taiwanese generals to adapt their thinking to the kinds of weapons that the Ukrainians, for example, have been using, and so on.

MARGARET BRENNAN: -- The HIMARS, the THADDS--

SECRETARY GATES: It has been an achievement, and, and the Taiwanese legislature has just finally reached an agreement to fund the purchase of these weapons, so I think- I think we should go forward with it. It is in our own way our counter to President Xi's strong statement. Yes, you have your position, we have ours.

MARGARET BRENNAN: So you talk about the demand for weapons. There's a bigger problem with supply and readiness and access to them right now. A retired colonel in China's People's Liberation Army was recently quoted in the New York Times saying the depletion of US stockpiles has "significantly diminished the US military's ability to project its combat power." They're looking at what's being used in Iran and Ukraine. I know Admiral Paparo, the head of Pacific Command, has said he doesn't see any real costs on our ability to deter China, but isn't that pretty time dependent? It's fairly well reported and established that there is a lag in terms of replenishing American weapons stockpiles. Isn't that a problem?

SECRETARY GATES: It is a problem, and I, and I think I think this administration, especially, has- has been very aggressive in working with the Congress in trying to expand our defense industries and bring new companies into the defense industrial mix that can produce the kinds of numbers of these weapons that are necessary. I've read that Ukraine is going to produce 7 million drones next year, or over the next year. We need that kind of capacity in the United States, and so, but it's a matter of getting the factories built, expanding factories. Part of the problem in Washington is you get all the right rhetoric about increasing our ability to produce these weapons, but the money is slow to come, and it's unpredictable, and so what's needed is- is accelerated action in actually starting to get these factories built and expand these capabilities.

MARGARET BRENNAN: But when you compare it to Ukraine, that's a wartime economy, that's an emergency they're responding to. You're saying we need to act like it is here?

SECRETARY GATES: Absolutely, absolutely. We do need to replenish, and I would say that I'm well aware- well away from it now, but based on everything I've seen, I think that where we have the real shortfalls are in presided- precision-guided munitions, but also defensive missiles like Patriots, the THAAD missiles, and the Navy's Standard Missile-3 that are our most effective, although very expensive air and missile defense systems, and those are the ones that have been expended especially.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Recently?

SECRETARY GATES: Yes.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Secretary Rubio did tell another network, though, that his belief is that China's preference is to have Taiwan willingly join the People's Republic. Do you expect that to be the more likely scenario that there is sort of a slow strangulation of Taiwanese democracy by the Communist party?

SECRETARY GATES: Let me put it this way, I think- I think the chances of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan are pretty low, particularly over the next several years, and partly because Xi has other- other options open to him that include- that involve far less risk. So, they have surrounded Taiwan with ships, and in the air. They have shown their ability to close off maritime and air access to the island. They could create a blockade or a quarantine around Taiwan anytime they wanted, what the Taiwanese call an anaconda strategy, and it would strangle Taiwan over time. I don't think they want to go in and attack Taiwan. They don't want to destroy the very chip factories they want to take over. So, and then there's- there's cyber, there are all kinds of pressures. I also think that the Chinese are hoping that over time the Kuomintang, KMT, which has been more friendly toward China, will be a vehicle that will allow them over time to get more and more influence in Taiwan and maybe have some kind of a Hong Kong style transition over a period of time. I think- think that the Chinese would far prefer that kind of, if you will, takeover of Taiwan than all the risks inherent in a military invasion. There isn't one single Chinese general or admiral today that has one day of combat experience. The last time these guys fought was 1979 and the North Vietnamese- the Vietnamese gave them a bloody nose. Xi has fired- has fired all these generals. He's- there are now no generals left on the Central Military Commission that kind of oversees the whole thing. He's fired- and they're slated for execution his last two defense ministers. So this is not an outfit that I think he has enormous confidence in right now, and there- he's been fighting against corruption in their military ever since he became president of China. So I'm not sure that he thinks his military is the greatest in the world.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Or he's threatened by them.

SECRETARY GATES: Yeah.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Let me ask you about what's happening in the Middle East. The last time we spoke, last spring, we were just weeks away from that US-Israeli strike on the three nuclear sites in Iran. You said at that time, it was May, when you were Defense Secretary, you were concerned that a strike on the nuclear program would just buy time, a year or two, but it would not solve the problem. Do you still believe that?

SECRETARY GATES: I think the only way that we are likely to get the enriched uranium out of- out of Iran and bring about an end to their nuclear aspirations is through a negotiation. To go after that enriched- that buried 1000 pounds of enriched uranium, some huge and complex military operation. And so I think- I think that the only way you do this and bringing pressure to bear on them to force them into negotiations is certainly- is certainly the only path that seems to offer any chance of success, but- but I think ultimately that that the only way you actually end the Iranian nuclear program for good is to negotiate it.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, that offer of having the UN go in and inspect the sites and possibly remove the enriched uranium was on the table before the strikes were carried out in February. They weren't quite at a deal, but that was being discussed. Is that where we end up at the end of this, back with some kind of UN agency going in and doing what the US and Israel have not been able to do?

SECRETARY GATES: I- I suspect that the administration would not settle for any arrangement that did not include getting that enriched uranium out of Iran, or as has- has been said, or diluting it in some way that makes it no longer usable for- for a potential weapon.

MARGARET BRENNAN: But the diplomacy seems to be at a stalemate, and so does the military operation, at this moment in time, with Iran still having control over the Strait of Hormuz. Is it possible for the President of the United States to walk away and leave this for the Israelis to settle?

SECRETARY GATES: No, I don't think he can walk away. And no, I don't think the Israelis can settle it. I don't think, as powerful as they are, they don't have the kind of power the United States has, and- and I think the President seems to have been very consistent and very clear that under no circumstances can Iran ever have a nuclear bomb. Well, the only way you get to that objective is resolving this issue of the enriched uranium and any future plans for- for enrichment. I mean, I think- I don't think that the nuclear program in Iran poses an imminent threat. After all, we bombed it twice. The nuclear material is pretty deeply buried, to- you'd have to spin up, use the centrifuges to spin it from 60% enriched to over 90% enriched. The centrifuges are very sensitive, they're also mostly destroyed. Many of their nuclear scientists have been killed, so I don't think- this is not a problem for tomorrow, but it does, you know, the President's got it right in terms of this is a long-term threat that cannot be allowed to develop, and if left alone, they clearly are- have been trying to move in that direction.

MARGARET BRENNAN: But it is a big enough problem that it was clearly not going to be settled in four to six weeks, which was the timestamp that the American people were told to expect, in terms of the duration of conflict.

SECRETARY GATES: I think that there were some unrealistic expectations.

MARGARET BRENNAN: You're smiling as you say that. Do you have a clear- have you heard a clearly articulated sort of center of gravity to this operation, an end goal, a strategy? Because there are members of Congress who are saying they're not getting enough information from the administration on many of these points.

SECRETARY GATES: Well, I think some of the justifications have- have changed over time, but one thing I think there have been a few things that have been consistent from the very beginning. One is to eliminate Iran's ability to have a nuclear weapon. Another is to eliminate their military capabilities to attack their neighbors. Third is to eliminate the capability to support their surrogates, the Hezbollah, Hamas, Houthis. To sink their navy. I think those are all- those were- have all been articulated as objectives of this operation, and although the nuclear program has been dramatically damaged and set back a long time, I think those other things, a lot has been accomplished.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Prime Minister Netanyahu told my colleague Major Garrett over the weekend, on 60 Minutes, that the war was not over, because there were still nuclear issues, there were still missiles that needed to be dealt with, and militias. He did not seem to be saying he was done.

SECRETARY GATES: I think- I think it would be hard to say the war is over, I think from either the standpoint of the United States or Israel at this point.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Prime Minister Netanyahu is someone you had a lot of experience with over the years.

SECRETARY GATES: Yes.

MARGARET BRENNAN: And you were very critical of him in your 2014 book. You referred to his arrogance and outlandish ambition in his approach, specifically to Iran. You recalled a disagreement during a 2009 meeting, where he argued an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities would trigger the Iranian people to overthrow the regime, and that Iran would not attack, he said, American targets or oil facilities in the region. That was in 2009 and he was trying to press an American president to do what this American president has done. Was he overly optimistic then, and is he now?

SECRETARY GATES: He told me all those things in July of 2009 and I told him then he was dead wrong, that he was underestimating the resilience of the Iranians, that I thought he had been lulled into an unrealistic position by the absence of an Iraqi reaction when the Israelis destroyed the Osirak reactor in Iraq. he- he'd been lulled by the Syrian lack of reaction when we destroyed their- when Israel destroyed their reactor, that was during the second Bush administration, and I told him--

MARGARET BRENNAN: But this is the war he's been trying to sell for years?

SECRETARY GATES: --and I told him that, that this notion, that- that the- he was saying, then the regime is fra- this is 2009, the regime is fragile, it'll crumble at the first attack and they won't have time to do anything else. I told him then, he was wrong.

MARGARET BRENNAN: The regime was historically weak at the moment of these strikes. Is it possible he's- right now, even though we haven't seen those things, like an uprising among the Iranian people?

SECRETARY GATES: I think that the likelihood of an uprising, of course, this is one of those predictions that can get you into a lot of trouble, but I think the likelihood of a near-term uprising is very low, because the besiege and the internal controls seem very much intact in Iran. You haven't seen any demonstrations, or very few demonstrations in the street. People are cowed, they're afraid, and right now they're concerned with how they- how they can eat and live under the current circumstance. This is a regime that couldn't provide water to Tehran before the attack started. So I think that- I think when the danger will come, will be some time after the- after the war stops, but I also think what you generally see in regimes like this is not so much a change of regime from the streets, but that the regime itself begins to fracture, and that you have people within the regime who want to take a different tack, and so you have an internal fight for control.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Let me ask you about how America is handling its own problems here at home. You were a CIA director, you were a Defense Secretary. How do you assess Secretary Hegseth's performance?

SECRETARY GATES: Well, I will. I mean, I'm not into talking about my successors, but I will say I want to point to something positive that I think is going on that goes back to something we were talking about earlier. I think- I think the leadership in the Pentagon, and especially the deputy secretary and the undersecretary involved in acquisition are doing some very important and overdue things in terms of shaking up the bureaucracy in the Pentagon, in trying to figure out ways not only to expand industrial production of defense materials and to do it on-time and on-budget, but also to bring and develop new new companies into the defense and industrial business that have new kinds of manufacturing capabilities and that can crank out what we need much faster and much cheaper than that has been the case in the past. I think- I think some of the moves to reduce the autonomy of the services will- will help this, so I think some of the things they're doing to try and- and shake up the defense industrial base is really important and a high priority.

MARGARET BRENNAN: But we're here at William & Mary, where you are chancellor. This is one of the universities that Secretary Hegseth included on his list of quote "woke breeding grounds of toxic indoctrination." He has ordered U.S. troops cannot attend this school or institutions like it, including ones he studied at Princeton and Harvard. He referred to them as "factories of anti-American resentment and military disdain." What's your response to that? Because I'm sure you have some feelings, but also, what's the impact on telling our fighting force that they can't attend a school like this?

SECRETARY GATES: Well, I think he's badly misinformed. The fact is, this is a very military-friendly campus. We have a lot of relationships with military organizations here in the Tidewater of Virginia. And even in Washington, we do a lot of national security work here, and we have a very active ROTC program, I just commissioned 10 officers last night. So I think this is a very, very military-friendly campus, and- and we have very good relationships with the services.

MARGARET BRENNAN: But a "woke breeding ground of toxic indoctrination." What's the impact on our next generation of American troops who won't have access to top universities because of his description?

SECRETARY GATES: Well, I think they will, and I think--

MARGARET BRENNAN: --you don't think this lasts.

SECRETARY GATES: I think, well, first of all, I think the practical application of this has been one fellowship here at William & Mary. We've got a lot of other relationships going. And I think that first of all, I think that's a complete mischaracterization of this- of this campus, but- but I think the military is still going to be active on U.S. campuses through the ROTC programs and various other national security programs.

MARGARET BRENNAN: But he's got this focus on the "warrior ethos." I'm sure you've heard a lot of what he has announced. He summoned the generals to D.C., told them he's tired of seeing fat troops and fat generals. He wants to weigh them twice a year. He ordered a ruthless review of the Judge Advocate corps, the military lawyers. He fired most of the inspectors general, saying he planned to overhaul the weaponized internal Pentagon watchdog. When you're talking about the things you like, would you put any of these things on that list?

SECRETARY GATES: No, I will say this. I mean, I- I fired a fair number of generals and senior people myself. The way I handled it was a little differently, in the respect that I felt that I needed to go in front of the press and explain why I had taken these actions. And in the case of where I, on the same day, fired the Chief of Staff of the Air Force and the Secretary of the Air Force, I not only had a press conference explaining why I had done it in terms of the mishandling of nuclear materials and weapons, I went to three different air bases to talk to airmen, assemblies of airmen to explain why I had relieved their superior officers. So I think you need to be able to make changes in personnel, but I think the way you do it, and is important, and I think it's important to explain to people why you have done it.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Well there's not a full Pentagon press corps, even present at the Pentagon these days for a news conference like that, without getting special permission to be on the premises right now. He's fired 16 military officials, at least, including the Navy Secretary and the Army Chief of Staff General Randy George during the Iran war. He pushed out the admiral at the helm of SOUTHCOM, the Chief of Naval Operations, the Air Force Vice Chief of Staff, the head of defense intelligence. Do you see those things as necessary disruption that ultimately will have a positive impact, or does it concern you?

SECRETARY GATES: Well, it concerns me, but I also have to acknowledge that I don't know the rationale for those changes. I don't know why those changes were made, and there may be perfectly justifiable reasons, but I'm, I just don't know what they are.

MARGARET BRENNAN: And you think that that should be explained to the public and to the Congress?

SECRETARY GATES: I think, I think that people, when, when you have a lot of changes like that, yeah, I think you, I think there is an obligation to explain, at a minimum, to the Congress the rationale.

MARGARET BRENNAN: The systems don't seem to be operating that way right now.

SECRETARY GATES: No.

MARGARET BRENNAN: You're being very diplomatic in your description of oversight of the Pentagon and Pentagon operations. Let's ask about another country before I let you go, because I'm getting the wrap here. The CIA director was just in Havana, meeting with Raúl Castro's grandson, along with the head of intelligence and the head of- the minister of the interior. The U.S. is offering Cuba aid, they're pressing for political change and floating the potential of indicting 95- 94-year-old Raúl Castro, who's no longer in power, but he's clearly influential. Does it matter to U.S. national security what happens on this island?

SECRETARY GATES: I think that actually the biggest risk is that we end up with another Mariel evacuation from Cuba that has tens of thousands of Cubans heading to the United States out of desperation, as has happened a number of years ago. So I think that's actually at this point the biggest threat. You know, the Cubans have- have had a lot of security people in Venezuela, they were, they were- formed the security cordon around Maduro. He didn't trust his own people. They've done this in other countries, so they have been involved in ways that have impacted our national security and our interests in their engagement in other countries for a long time. And- but are they an imminent threat to the United States? Other than in these, if you will, peripheral ways, I think, I think the main threat is, frankly, is collapse.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Which the administration says they're trying to avoid.

SECRETARY GATES: Right.

MARGARET BRENNAN:  Yeah.