Secretary of State Marco Rubio was recently interviewed by Hugh Hewitt. Mr. Hewitt is a popular radio talk show host, as well as the President and CEO of the Richard Nixon Foundation, on the faculty at the Chapman University School of Law, and a commentator on Fox News.
The interview provided Secretary Rubio with an opportunity to elaborate on certain issues that are of particular concern to the Administration of President Trump. It was, perhaps, also a way in which Secretary Rubio, in the usual style of indirect speaking to institutions and officials not directly acknowledged, might be given an opportunity to signal intent or provide clues as to openings for the resolution of a variety of challenges with respect to which the U.S. has been particularly attentive.
There were certain elements that might be worth underscoring.
1. The first concerns China. Secretary Rubio echoed, but in a more refined way, some thinking that might echoes some thinking from prior administrations. Secretary Rubio stated it this way:
I think the Chinese believe that they are on a path towards becoming the most powerful nation on Earth, that it’s inevitable, it’s just a matter of time, and they seek to manage that rise in a way that – and avoid disruptions along the way if possible. And look, if in fact they end up out-competing us, out-innovating us, outworking us, what have you, that’s one thing.
It is in the fairness of that competition, rather than in the competition itself, that this Administration is likely to take a substantially more aggressive stance. That involves two distinct points. The first is that the Administration will tend to define fairness in its own terms. Fair enough--the expectations of liberal democratic markets driven competitive environments has been a long standing baseline for both democratic and republican administrations. It was a key element for the Obama Administration's decision to keep China out of TPP (The Trans-Pacific Partnership: Japan, China, the U.S., and the Emerging Shape of a New World Trade Regulatory Order). Yet that was hardly enough in the Secretary's view:
There was this assumption that some made that if – that we should allow China to continue to cheat in rules of trade and commerce and intellectual property and that kind of thing, and if we let them do it, that eventually they’d become rich, and when they became rich they’d become just like us. Well, that’s not what happened. They became rich, but they’re not just like us.
The answer is engagement but not dependence and the protection of liberal democratic markets rules and expectations.
2. That perspective on China, one that is indifferent to convergence of values but protective of interests and the rules that define the core national political-economic model drives U.S. engagement with China across the security field as well. This is a function of protection of markets, though not necessary of territory abroad. And thus the sort of cheeky response to the question about U.S. reaction to Chinese opposition to the sale of Chinese corporate interests in the Panama Canal to U.S. interests: the "President has been abundantly clear about it, and that is that the Panama Canal cannot be an outpost for the Chinese, because we built it and we intend to have influence over it, and because we didn’t turn it – like I said, we didn’t turn it over to the Chinese. We turned it over to Panama, and that’s not the way it’s played out."
3. At the same time, the U.S. appears to be making a distinction between aggressive competition and the protection of its own political economic model respecting inbound investment and competition in foreign markets and issues of the territorial integrity of China. Secretary Rubio appeared to be quite clear that U.S. policy remains what it has been for more than half a century and there does not appear to be any inclination to change it. "Our policy is the same as it’s been; it’s been consistent. We believe that they status of Taiwan should not be changed by force or by extortion or compelled in any way. That’s the policy of the United States; that remains the policy of the United States. That’s been the policy of President Trump, and that will continue to be his policy. And when he makes policy decisions, he means them." But what that means is also that changes in Chinese policy will not produce changes in U.S. policy on this matter. And that is where the friction will likely appear most acutely.
4. With respect to Iran, Secretary Rubio also suggested that Mr. Trump appears prepared to take a much more aggressive stance than Mr. Biden. That requires a reinterpretation of the meaning of the phrase "hold Iran responsible.
Well, I think the President’s been clear. He’s prepared to do whatever it takes to prevent Iran from ever having a nuclear weapon. He’s been abundantly clear. Now, he’s a president that wants to promote peace. If you asked him, he would tell you he would much prefer to work this out diplomatically without a war. And that’s his preference. That will always be his preference. But if you force him to choose between a nuclear Iran or taking action, the President’s been clear: He will take action. Whether other countries seek to join us in that endeavor or simply cheer us on, sometimes quietly from the sidelines, that’s another matter. But it certainly will not determine the steps we take,
That provides signals both of predictability (the U.S. will act somehow) and uncertainty (ir is not clear exactly how the U.S. will respond, or in concert with whom). And certainly little is said here of the hard work necessary to ensure that the political branches 's position are sufficiently aligned with those of the President. But that is a problem of all administrations. What ever action Mr Trump takes will, in any case, be controversial, produce domestic and international opposition, and also serve to more closely align those states and other actors whose interests align with U.S. objectives. Of course, none of this was discussed.
5. The American courts and foreign policy. Secretary Rubio underscored the likely confrontation that is brewing between the President and the federal courts-or at least the practice of seeking federal intervention in what the President (and some before him) tend to view as within thee prerogatives of their office. Secretary Rubio has taken a softer line than others in the administration, one that seems to echo the subtle suggestion made by Chief Justice Roberts--that the Supreme Court is constitutionally established as the primary line of defense against the over exuberant actions of the lower federal judiciary. And reported by the New York Times "Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. issued a rare public statement. “For more than two centuries,” the chief justice said, “it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose.” (New York Times). While generally reported as a "rebuke" it might as easily be characterized as a reminder of the courts authority to look after their own shop. As Secretary Rubio put it:
It is my view that judges do not have the right to conduct the foreign policy of the United States. Go beyond the immigration issues that people focus on. These are alien enemies in our country. They’re an organized group undermining the national security of the United States, and that needed to be dealt with. We made an arrangement with an international partner. * * *
Indeed, Secretary Rubio echoed both the Chief Justice and the President, who used his social media apparatus to declare: "“Stop nationwide injunctions now, before it is too late,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. “If Justice Roberts and the United States Supreme Court do not fix this toxic and unprecedented situation IMMEDIATELY, our Country is in very serious trouble!” (quoted in The Hill). Of course, the President added a threat absent from the remarks of the Chief Justice or the Secretary: it is also clear that should that clean up by the appellate courts prove to be insufficient in the opinion of the Executive, more provocative action may be in the offing. .
6. Each of these positions, of course, will be strongly opposed by people and groups both within the U.S: and among foreign elements. That is to be expected, and to some extent welcomed as part of experience of the political discussions in the U.S., one that exists irrespective of the Party or the ruling ideology being projected from out of the elected branches of government. My object here is not to judge those positions--others may find that more appealing. My goal is clarity in a context in which clarity is act oriented rather than a function of alignment between orthodox ideological positions and operationalization. The semiotics are quite different. In the former one considers the way that action is a function of operating system; in the latter one looks at the way that action becomes the operating system.
With clarity it is possible to engage in better analytics. And it is in the analytics that one can insert whatever normative, objectives based or perspective privileging lens appeals. What does emerge even more strongly here is the phenomenological element of Presidential engagement (here). That applies to what what is emerging as the America First Initiative--grounded in a merchant view of open borders that are manifested in an accumulation of win-win relationships (approaching, in some respects a portion fo the Chinese New Era model with its secondary focus on more comprehensive penetration to enhance national development on all sides of the equation). Those win-win relationships no longer are to be judged or valued with a uniform measure but are meant to be nationally relevant; at the same time the U.S: has adopted the strategies of "unequal treaties" from the Chinese (with American characteristics) as a means of re-balancing those values where by U.S. measure the relationship is win-lose. At the same time the notion of territorial imperium is shifting to one that mirrors the territorialization of production, not through or grounded in national territories but in the territories of production, distribution, and supply. With exceptions--those exceptions touch on the protection of the inner realms of apex borderlands. That, in turn, does not depend on geographic proximity, but on a conception of territorial integrity that is both a function of territorial control but not of geography. It is for that reason, for example, that China might view the Arctic and Antarctic as critical territories in the way that the U.S. (in a more crude but honest expression) views Greenland and the Panama Canal (but not Panama itself). That is what appearances suggest--but who knows what is percolating within the brain casings of those making decisions. Secretary Rubio has offered a glimpse, but only a glimpse, the rest is speculation from the iterative activity of the apex states. And so on.
And last but by no means least--this is an administration, like that of Franklin Roosevelt, that means to reshape government as well as the notions of government. Whether this Administration is up to that task remains to be seen--but that was the question in 1935 in a way that reflects the question in 2025, but from a historical perspective with the polarities reversed. In both cases the targets were the courts, the extent of presidential (and Congressional to some extent) power, and the role of the national administrative apparatus (and public policy) within a re-emerging core sense of private action driving change with substantially fewer public policy overlays, controls, or protections. In the 1930s the battles were short, brutish, nasty, and focused on the authority of the national elected officials to craft and operate a national administrative apparatus with substantial regulatory authority. In 2025 the question touches on the extent and use of the judicial remedial power (at least to start). In the 1930s the the president won. It remains to be seen whether there will be a replay in 2025. The result will leave few entirely happy but the nation will continue its usual habit of criticizing everything and everyone as its traditional sociopolitical habitus. And so on.
The full text of the interview, as posted to the Department of State website, follows below.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio with Hugh Hewitt
QUESTION: Joined now by Secretary of State Marco Rubio. Mr. Secretary, welcome back. It’s good to have you. Congratulations on assuming the top – the seventh floor.
SECRETARY RUBIO: Thank you. It’s – I think we’re starting our tenth week or our ninth week. I’ve lost count at this point, but a lot has happened in that period of time. But it’s a great honor to be able to do this and to work for a president that I think is making history every day.
QUESTION: Well, Mr. Secretary, you’ve been on this program since 2010, I think probably more than a hundred times, and you may remember my basic worldview is that America’s biggest adversary is China, People’s Republic of China; that General Secretary Xi is a tough, ruthless man. He’s in an alliance with the fanatics in Iran and they present a real and present danger with us. Do you share that worldview? Can a diplomat say that?
SECRETARY RUBIO: Well, I think it’s certainly the biggest challenge we face. Look, here’s the way I characterize it, because you’re right, I mean, we need to have relations with these countries. But I think the story of the 21st century is going to be about what happened between the U.S. and China. I think I said this during my confirmation hearing. I think the Chinese believe that they are on a path towards becoming the most powerful nation on Earth, that it’s inevitable, it’s just a matter of time, and they seek to manage that rise in a way that – and avoid disruptions along the way if possible.
And look, if in fact they end up out-competing us, out-innovating us, outworking us, what have you, that’s one thing. But for us to sort of unilaterally allow them to do that rise while not playing by the same rules, then that would be on us. I think that’s what’s happened for the better part of 20 years. There was this assumption that some made that if – that we should allow China to continue to cheat in rules of trade and commerce and intellectual property and that kind of thing, and if we let them do it, that eventually they’d become rich, and when they became rich they’d become just like us. Well, that’s not what happened. They became rich, but they’re not just like us.
So I would say they’re a rich and powerful country. They’re going to be a rich and powerful country. We need to engage with them because it’s irresponsible not to, but we also don’t want to live in a world where we depend on China for things that we need.
QUESTION: Yesterday, The Wall Street Journal reported that General Secretary Xi is upset about the deal you made in Panama about the canal, and today it was announced that Hong Kong Enterprise is going to delay opening a car plant in Mexico in retaliation for the attempt to get the canal back. Do you care? Are we going to get the canal control back in American hands?
SECRETARY RUBIO: Yeah, look, we didn’t give the canal to China, as the President says. President Trump’s been very clear: We built that canal, we turned it over to – he didn’t agree with that decision, but we turned it over to Panama. We wake up one day and Chinese influence is all over the canal. They – Hong Kong-based companies, which obviously have to respond to Chinese law, control all the key ports on – the key ports on both sides, the infrastructure deeply ingrained there benefited the Chinese, and that’s just not sustainable and it can’t continue. We made our view very clear that we believe the treaty has been violated. We had a great visit. There’s a lot of follow-up to be done, but the President has been abundantly clear about it, and that is that the Panama Canal cannot be an outpost for the Chinese, because we built it and we intend to have influence over it, and because we didn’t turn it – like I said, we didn’t turn it over to the Chinese. We turned it over to Panama, and that’s not the way it’s played out.
QUESTION: So it’s obviously a flashpoint. Flashpoints are best discussed at a summit. Is there a summit in the offing between President Trump and General Secretary Xi, either here or there?
SECRETARY RUBIO: Well, I think that meeting is eventually going to happen. There isn’t one scheduled. I think that time will come. Obviously, as you know – and you’ve followed these things for a long time – and there needs to be a reason behind it. It has to – we have to know what they’re meeting about and what the result of the meeting is going to be. But there’s no doubt that that will happen. The President has in his first term – he’ll do it again now – I mean, he’ll meet with any foreign leader, basically, if there’s a good reason to do so. He’s – and look, I think that meeting will happen. But there’s none scheduled at this moment.
QUESTION: Now, when the President talked to me – it was President-elect last, in January – and we talked about Jimmy Lai, and he told me he would get Jimmy Lai out of jail. Have you had any conversations with your Chinese counterparts about getting Mr. Lai out of jail? Because he’s going to die pretty soon unless we get him out of that Hong Kong prison.
SECRETARY RUBIO: Yeah, it’s a priority. We’ve raised it in every possible form and they know that it’s important to us, and I think there are other countries as well that are very involved in raising this issue. And that needs to happen, and we’re going to continue to raise it. Obviously, with some of these things you want to be careful what we say in the media. We don’t want to jeopardize any efforts. But I think it’s important to know that it’s not something we’ve forgotten about and that it remains a priority, and I think other countries around the world are making the same point as well to the Chinese.
QUESTION: Very good. Now, the Iranian fanatics sell a lot of oil to China. That’s the connection. I want to move to the attack on the Houthis this weekend. First of all, have the Houthis attacked us, or are they just putting out press releases over the last three days? Because they put out a lot of press releases that they’re shooting at the Truman, and I understood Trump to say if they did that, the bombs would fall on Iran. What is the situation, Mr. Rubio?
SECRETARY RUBIO: Well, they’ve – look, they’ve – they say they attack. I mean, they launch and then they get shot down 100 miles away before it even is a threat, so DOD’s had no problem defending. They’re certainly not doing right now what they were doing at the peak of this thing, when they were attacking our Navy 150 times and global shipping 170 times. Maybe I got those numbers inverted, but nonetheless unacceptable.
And the one thing about President Trump is when he says things, he means it. And his – this effort is not a one-day thing. It’s been going on now every night. It’s been sustained, and it’ll continue until they no longer have the capability to threaten not just the U.S. Navy but global shipping. At the same time, the President’s been clear. Iran is going to be held responsible for any assistance they continue to provide the Houthis. The President had a post earlier this morning where he outlined that Iran is still helping the Houthis – maybe not as openly, maybe not as much as they were in the past, but they’re openly helping them. But they’re still helping them, and that’s unacceptable, and that needs to change.
So I won’t get out ahead of the President other than to say I don’t think I need to convince any of your listeners that when President Trump says something, he doesn’t – he means it. Like, if he says something’s going to happen, it’ll happen.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) a couple of times. You deal with MBS and MBZ, and you deal with the Israelis. If it comes to blows, will we act in an alliance against Iran, do you think, or will we act alone?
SECRETARY RUBIO: Well, I think the President’s been clear. He’s prepared to do whatever it takes to prevent Iran from ever having a nuclear weapon. He’s been abundantly clear. Now, he’s a president that wants to promote peace. If you asked him, he would tell you he would much prefer to work this out diplomatically without a war. And that’s his preference. That will always be his preference. But if you force him to choose between a nuclear Iran or taking action, the President’s been clear: He will take action. Whether other countries seek to join us in that endeavor or simply cheer us on, sometimes quietly from the sidelines, that’s another matter. But it certainly will not determine the steps we take, because we view a world with Iran having – and the ayatollahs, these religious fanatics, having nuclear weapons – that’s just not acceptable.
QUESTION: I agree. Do we have the weaponry necessary to destroy their sites where they’re conducting the illegal development programs, Mr. Secretary?
SECRETARY RUBIO: Well, let me just say on that – and that’s probably a question better directed to DOD – but I’m confident enough to say that if the President makes the decision that we need to take action to prevent Iran from having a nuclear capability, we have the ability to do that, and to go further and perhaps even threaten the regime. But look, again, I’m at the State Department, right? We promote peace, not war. But obviously, the President’s been clear that’s what he prefers as well. So I always tell everybody I’d love to handle it through the State Department, but if we can’t, then I have to turn these things over to Pete Hegseth over at the Department of Defense. And – but we’d prefer to deal with it at the State Department, but you need a willing partner to do that.
QUESTION: Now, Mr. Secretary, I want to turn to the deportation flights. I’m on record as saying this is a case of first impression to my constitutional lawyer eyes. It’s a non-justiciable political question. This judge should dismiss this case. And if they want to appeal to the D.C. Circuit, by all means let them try, but he should punt because he shouldn’t be telling – that’s my political opinion. Did you discuss with the President before the flights took off that we would have trouble with the courts as a result of this?
SECRETARY RUBIO: Well, we shouldn’t have trouble with the courts. I mean, that developed in the middle of all this Yemen stuff going on at the same time on Saturday. So let me just back up for a second and say this. This is, to me, a conduct of foreign policy. We have a regime in Venezuela that refuses, absolutely refuses, to take its nationals, and they have an obligation to take their nationals. So we had to make an arrangement with another country, El Salvador and President Bukele, an arrangement that I made personally and followed up on again last week in conversations. And once those commitments were made – and they included, by the way, MS-13 criminals that he wanted to put on trial in his country for crimes committed in El Salvador – we had made a foreign policy commitment that we were going to keep.
It is my view that judges do not have the right to conduct the foreign policy of the United States. Go beyond the immigration issues that people focus on. These are alien enemies in our country. They’re an organized group undermining the national security of the United States, and that needed to be dealt with. We made an arrangement with an international partner.
QUESTION: Let me pause here and give a signal to the stations down the road that I’m going to continue talking with Secretary Rubio and come back right away, so don’t go anywhere. I’m talking with Secretary Rubio about the deportation.
Now, Mr. Secretary, when you talked to President Bukele, did you make an agreement —
STAFF: We’re going to break. We’re going to break.
QUESTION: I’m going to talk to him during the break (inaudible). When we had those conversations, did you receive any assurance from him that he would segregate the Venezuelan terrorists from the MS-13 gangs in the other prisons?
SECRETARY RUBIO: Well, we didn’t have to make that agreement. We told them who we were going to send because the agreement is this: There’s two different groups here. There are people that he wants because they committed crimes in El Salvador, and they’re in the United States, and we agreed to return them so he can put them on trial for and deal with their justice system on the crimes they committed. And then we have Tren de Aragua, organized gang members and alien enemies inside the United States who are being housed by him in an excellent prison system that he has at a fraction of the cost of what it would cost to house them here in the United States. It is a matter that we’ve made, it’s a foreign policy matter, and it’s one that we weren’t going to go back on because we make arrangements with foreign leaders – that’s the conduct of foreign policy, and we can’t have judges running the foreign policy.
QUESTION: I agree. I think you’re going to win that case going away. Here’s my political concern, because I used to cover gangs and the prisons of L.A. quite a lot. If you mix them up, they kill each other. I don’t want to deport terrorists to a place where they’ll be killed by other terrorists. Are you confident that they will be protected from other terrorists or other gang members who are their rivals in the cartel business?
SECRETARY RUBIO: Well, ultimately I can tell you that I have confidence that El Salvador runs an excellent prison system. That’s why we engaged them on this process. They had capacity to assume them. They’ve done this before. They wiped out the MS-13 gang in El Salvador —
QUESTION: Yeah.
SECRETARY RUBIO: — in the way that they did it. So I think that my understanding is how they’re going to handle it is he needs to handle them separately anyways, because the MS-13 guys that he’s getting back are people that need to stand for justice for the crimes they committed in El Salvador. So that’s a different process from the people we sent them, some of whom, frankly, are just alien enemies. So I don’t know exactly how he’s going to house them, but ultimately I – these are two separate tracks. They just happen to be as part of the same flights.
QUESTION: All right. Now, Mr. Secretary, I want to go back to Israel for a moment. It is clear to me that some of our foreign adversaries are using the internet to try and drive a wedge between Israel and the United States, and that antisemitic tropes are everywhere and they’re trying —
SECRETARY RUBIO: Yeah.
QUESTION: — to split the indivisible alliance, the one – I think they’re the equal of any ally that we have. Have you seen that? Does it concern you? Do you think there’s any danger to our alliance?
SECRETARY RUBIO: Well, I don’t think there’s any danger to our alliance. I think there’s most certainly people out there that are pursuing these. Some are because they – they want the clicks, they want the followers, whatever it is may be that’s driving it. And I don’t know who in specific, but I mean, they’re out there doing that. And there are those, frankly, that hate Israel and hate the United States. And we’ve seen that engage itself and embed itself, for example, in what supposedly are supposed to be our elite universities in this country. And instead we have people on faculty and in the student body that are actively out there every single day not just protesting against Israel, but committing acts of vandalism and violence and rioting and all kinds of disruptive behavior on this matter.
So I think it’s very disturbing to see that play out because, at its core, I believe, is antisemitism.
STAFF: One minute.
QUESTION: So they also – it brings us to the deportation proceeding against Mr. Nahil, which, again, is a non-justiciable political question that you have the authority under 8 1227 to do. Do you expect to win that case and do (inaudible) —
SECRETARY RUBIO: I do.
QUESTION: — other people like him?
SECRETARY RUBIO: Well, I do and we are. And we’re going to continue to do it. Bottom line is if you told us that these are the things you were going to do when you came to the United States, we never would have given you – we should never give you a visa. If this is what you do once you get into the United States on a visa, we’re going to revoke your visa, whatever status you have, and we’re going to kick you out of the country. We don’t want that – those elements in our country. So not only have we done it, we’re going to continue to do it. And we’re going to – and we’re going to improve the way we screen people for their visas, by the way. It’s amazing some of these people ever got in here to begin with.
QUESTION: I – I’ve got one more question for you, Mr. Secretary —
STAFF: Ten seconds.
QUESTION: — and it’s got to do with China. I want to finish where we began. In his book – I’m talking with Secretary of State Marco Rubio if you’re joining us. In his book on China, Henry Kissinger said Mao did not believe in deterrence. Do you think General Secretary Xi Jinping believes in deterrence, and can we deter him from attacking Taiwan?
SECRETARY RUBIO: I think that’s a tough question because it’s so fundamental to his identity and to what he wants to be part of his legacy. I do think you can delay and deter by making the price of taking Taiwan higher than what he perceives to be the benefit, but let’s be clear. They believe the benefits are definitional for his – he wants that to be the defining crown jewel of his time in power. So it’s a very delicate situation there. Our policy remains the same. We do not believe that there should be any violent and/or extortion-based change to the status.
QUESTION: Yeah, the Shanghai Communique said 100 years before anything would happen, and it’s been only 50 years. The TSCM president meeting with President Trump in the Roosevelt Room was a big deal. I mean, that was a very big deal. Is that a signal of our resolve to stand by Taiwan?
SECRETARY RUBIO: Our policy is the same as it’s been; it’s been consistent. We believe that they status of Taiwan should not be changed by force or by extortion or compelled in any way. That’s the policy of the United States; that remains the policy of the United States. That’s been the policy of President Trump, and that will continue to be his policy. And when he makes policy decisions, he means them.
QUESTION: I will let you go with that. Secretary Rubio, keep coming back. Always a pleasure to talk with you. I appreciate your clarity and candor. Good luck in this very important mission that you’re on.
SECRETARY RUBIO: Thank you.
No comments:
Post a Comment