Britain chaired the meeting, Hegseth's speech was the longest part of the public part of the meeting. Guardian posted online the entire public portion. Here.
Coverage included pre-meeting movement and conversations not recorded.
The meeting was gaveled into order a bit after the 9:00 min mark, Hegseth beginning at roughly 13:30 min into the coverage.
What Hegseth said was nothing really new, given current news as well as Trump's earlier statements about European spending and resolve. And given current news of Trump's view that pre-2014 Ukraine borders may be adjusted in negotiation toward ending current war, and as Hegseth expressed, forming a permanant move toward not having further war develop. Hegseth stated a U.S. position where watching his comments will flesh out reader understanding of where the meeting might have gone after the press and public were excluded from further ongoing defense minsters' discussing and deliberations over options and events.
Hegseth saying the U.S. would be concentrating more on Asia and the Pacific than on Europe and the Atlantic, while not withdrawing from or intending to end NATO as a force in which the U.S. will remain a participant. That notice was given.
Terms Trump thinks are a basis on which the Ukraine war can be ended were stated by Hegseth, and have been reported already by media. Nothing really new there.
How Europe will react long term to what Trump has been saying and what Hegseth said is a future concern, but Hegseth giving a public speech among NATO representatives while Vance gave a speech about non-military events and thoughts suggests Europeans may feel it in their interest to reevaluate the U.S. as an ally.
Their view of their own best interests may diverge from what they have been publicly told by Trump's representatives as to how they might view the world's relations. That Trump's viewpoint is a four year thing is known by all, but the 2028 election outcome in the U.S. is known to nobody. European politicians will weigh that. Presumably they understand long term possibilities and will do what they believe is best for their own nations. What that will be, will be shown as time passes.
And there is a world economy running in parallel to military considerations. Interlocking national banking understandings exist which we citizens of one nation may have no knowledge. Crypto looms. Prices seem only on an upward trend.
____________UPDATE___________
With U.S, food policy seemingly being downsized and being rolled into the State Department with its civilian led structure, and the U.S.AID existence being ended as a spook usage for promoting regime change, (and with Afghan poppies being left to Taliban control); internationally, less untoward spook power per Gabbard leadership fits.
Cargill in Minnetonka, MN, will continue to be a major presence in worldwide food trade, but food as a weapon tied to the spook regime changers will be less a net U.S. action point going forward. This is good. Trump seems right minded that way. Regime change war, Iran in particular, seems destined for Israel to front as a U.S. proxy. But Iran getting the bomb has been clearly red-lined as not happening.
Whether things turn out ugly that way, or Iran remains close but not armed with actual nuclear weapons, how that evolves is uncertain. The Saudis want to have nuclear weapon power, but the international consensus is keep the Shia nations without it and the Sunnis will be satisfied. Pakistan and India seem to be coexisting in mutual deterrence, and, interestingly, Hegseth mentioned "deterrence" in his European NATO public presentation, when referencing U.S. Pacific/Asia aims.
Trump seems to have an ordered change but not too major a change in mind, internationally, curbing the spooks extremism, but his U.S. domestic actions are being met with dug in resistance more than with shock and awe. Elon is becoming a lightning rod for Trump but if that backfires Elon's public-facing role will be quickly and expeditiously downsized even where the campaign cash matters greatly to Republicans and will continue to hold sway in politicians' influence trading. Both houses of Congress, both parties, will continue to suck. It is where Democratic Party reform and power can grow, if leadership will only let it.
FURTHER: Pelosi needs to be replaced with a progressive. Her calling herself "a progressive" is an insult to everybody who really is one. The California of Phil Burton was good but is gone as a political thing. It needs reinvigorating and neither Newsom, nor Harris chasing a gov-ship fit with its growth and prospering.
Medicare for All. The party that honestly embraces it will survive. The other will regroup to who knows what. Klan rebirth with all that entails? Something else?