0:01

Don't miss your chance to spring

0:03

into deals at Lowe's. Right now,

0:05

get a free 60 volt Toro

0:07

battery when you purchase a select

0:09

60 volt Toro electric mower. Plus,

0:11

buy 3 19 .3 ounce vegetable

0:13

and herb Bonnie plants for just

0:16

$10. It's time to give

0:18

your yard a grow up. Lowe's, we

0:20

help, you save. Valid to 423. Selection

0:22

varies by location. While supplies last, discount

0:24

taken at time of purchase. Actual plant

0:26

size and selection varies by location. Excludes

0:28

Alaska and Hawaii. From the

0:30

Free Press, this is honestly an

0:32

I'm Barry Weiss. On Tuesday,

0:35

the Free Press published a major

0:37

scoop, the news of the State

0:39

Department launching the biggest shake -up in

0:41

decades in an effort spearheaded by

0:43

Secretary of State Marco Rubio. The

0:46

reorganization looks to eliminate

0:48

132 agency offices dedicated

0:50

to efforts like promoting

0:52

human rights, advancing democracy,

0:55

and combating extremism. It

0:57

will also lead to the State Department

0:59

eliminating hundreds of positions intended

1:01

for career officials. Last

1:03

but not least, top officials

1:05

are also being asked to

1:07

reduce their offices by an

1:09

additional 15%. So why does that

1:11

matter? For those of us far from Washington,

1:14

it's natural to ask that question. Well,

1:16

Secretary Rubio says that this will

1:19

make the department more efficient, eliminating

1:21

bloat and redundancy at a critical

1:23

time, one in which the US

1:25

is navigating one of the most

1:27

dangerous international moments since the end

1:29

of World War II. But

1:32

some, including critics of the Trump

1:34

administration, see it as a sign

1:36

of something more troubling. They see it

1:38

as a signal of America's

1:40

inward turn as we enter this

1:42

dangerous multipolar age. Today, Secretary

1:45

Rubio joins me on Honestly to

1:47

discuss his goals for restructuring the

1:49

department and also how the US

1:51

is responding to so many crises

1:53

at home and abroad. From

1:55

controversial deportations to the American attempt

1:57

to end the war in Ukraine

2:00

to the possibility of a new

2:02

Iranian nuclear deal. In his

2:04

confirmation hearing at the Senate, Secretary

2:06

Rubio talked about how the

2:08

post -war global order is obsolete. I

2:11

think a lot of us are feeling that way. But

2:13

the question is, what's going to

2:15

replace it. I ask that

2:17

and more of the man who

2:19

has been charged with overseeing one of

2:21

the most transformational shifts in our

2:23

relationship to the world in American history.

2:26

Stay with us. Ryan

2:34

Reynolds here for Mint Mobile.

2:36

I don't know if you

2:38

knew this, but anyone can

2:40

get the same premium wireless

2:42

for $15 a month plan

2:44

that I've been enjoying. It's

2:46

not just for celebrities, so

2:48

do like I did, and

2:50

have one of your assistance

2:52

assistance to switch you to

2:54

Mint Mobile today. I'm told

2:56

it's super easy to do

2:58

at Mint Mobile today. I'm

3:00

told it's super easy to

3:02

do at mintmobile.com. Thank

4:03

you. Well, I want to

4:05

start with a report that came

4:07

out today from Gabe Kaminski

4:09

and Maddie Rowley. And it's about

4:11

this major reorganization that is

4:14

now underway in your State Department.

4:16

It is the largest shakeup at

4:18

the State Department in decades, something

4:21

like 132 offices are being

4:23

cut. There's many other details. And

4:25

I want to understand

4:27

the significance here beyond cost

4:29

cutting. How does this

4:31

reorganization help advance American interests?

4:34

and the president's foreign policy abroad. Well,

4:36

I think that's important to point out. This

4:39

is not a cost -cutting exercise, although it

4:41

certainly will provide savings to the American taxpayer.

4:43

This is a policy exercise. And here's why. Foreign

4:46

policy, mature foreign policy, realistic foreign

4:48

policy, requires the balancing of both

4:50

policy geopolitical considerations, which often involve

4:52

pragmatism and some level of idealism,

4:54

you know, the promotion, for example,

4:56

of human rights or democracy and

4:58

things of that nature. So this

5:00

sort of balance. Well, Today, those

5:02

two entities are housed in two

5:04

different places. We have a group

5:06

of people that are our regions,

5:08

our embassies, and our regional bureaus that

5:10

oversee those embassies. And they're involved in

5:12

balancing our relationships with these countries. And

5:14

then you have these other entities that

5:16

are only looking at issues from a

5:18

single source standpoint, human rights, human trafficking,

5:20

whatever it may be. These two have

5:23

to be brought together. And so we

5:25

get rid of those bureaus that are

5:27

what they call functional bureaus. And instead,

5:29

we move that function. We're not getting

5:31

rid of, for example, a group of

5:33

people that care about human rights, but

5:35

we're putting those people in the regions

5:37

and in the embassies so that all

5:39

of our foreign policy is being balanced

5:41

within those bureaus. So say it's Western

5:43

Hemisphere. It's being balanced within the Western

5:45

Hemisphere and then ultimately empowering our embassies

5:47

to pursue mature foreign policy that takes

5:49

all of these factors into account. So

5:51

it really is about streamlining an entity

5:54

that's continued to grow. If I show

5:56

you the org chart. of what the

5:58

State Department looked like in the 70s.

6:00

And what it looks like today, it's

6:02

unrecognizable. So we have to bring back

6:04

some stability, some organizational streamlining that allows

6:06

us to further foreign policy in a

6:08

way that balances all of the things

6:10

we have to take into consideration when

6:12

we pursue foreign policy and we can

6:14

deliver it efficiently and fast. One

6:17

more point, I know it's been a long

6:19

answer to a very short question, but it's

6:21

important to talk about it. As the Secretary

6:23

of State, I get these memos. They're called

6:25

these decision memos. And if you look at

6:27

all of the boxes that have to be

6:29

checked before it even gets to me, in

6:31

some cases, it has to be checked by

6:33

six or seven people in one bureau alone

6:35

before it gets to me. That's way too

6:38

long. It almost renders the State Department irrelevant.

6:40

We have to shorten that approval process,

6:42

and the way to do it is

6:44

to get rid of all these offices

6:47

that are all chiming in, any one

6:49

of whom could slow action for an

6:51

indefinite period of time. Secretary, if you

6:53

are a normal American and you don't

6:55

know much about the bureaucracy at the

6:57

State Department, and you just look at

6:59

the headline out of today, you will

7:01

see that many of the offices that

7:03

are being cut seem to broadly be

7:05

about America's soft power role in the

7:07

world. things like the promotion of human

7:09

rights, fighting extremism, promoting democracy abroad. And

7:12

I think critics of the administration are

7:14

already saying in reaction to this news,

7:16

this is sort of yet another sign

7:18

that the Trump administration is pulling back

7:20

from the world and leaving the vacuum

7:22

to be filled by other contenders like

7:24

China and Russia. What does that

7:26

perspective get wrong? Is this a sign

7:29

that America is no longer in the self

7:31

-power business? Yeah. Well, first of

7:33

all, I don't think anyone should be to

7:35

enthusiastic about China or Russia promoting human rights

7:37

or democracy anywhere in the world. So it's

7:39

not like they're going to displace us from

7:41

that. No, no, no. They don't mean I'm

7:43

sorry. They don't mean displacing America from the

7:45

human rights promotion business, simply that in the

7:47

same way that China, you know, advances its

7:49

own interest in Africa through the Belt and

7:51

Road Initiative, America has historically after the Cold

7:53

War, as you know, advanced ours through many

7:55

of these offices. And people say. we should

7:57

still be in that business. And I think

7:59

the Trump administration has a different answer to

8:01

that. Well, the answer is we still are,

8:03

but we're going to do it in a

8:06

way that's balanced across all of our other

8:08

equities. So for example, we're still going to

8:10

be involved in those things, caring about human

8:12

rights, but it's going to be run at

8:14

the embassy and regional level, not out of

8:16

some office in Washington DC that has that

8:18

title. And so just we need to be

8:20

grownups here about how we talk about this.

8:23

Promoting democracy and human rights in our relations,

8:25

for example, with some country in the Middle

8:27

East. is probably going to look different than

8:29

it would with some country in Central America

8:31

or South America. That's just a geopolitical reality. In

8:34

geopolitical reality, we are going to have to

8:36

have partnerships and alliances with countries whose system of

8:38

government maybe is not like ours, whose view

8:40

on religious tolerance, for example, may not be like

8:42

ours. And we may not like that. And

8:44

it doesn't mean we don't wish it was different.

8:47

But we still have to have relations with

8:49

these countries because it serves a geopolitical purpose. It

8:51

serves the national interest of the United States.

8:53

The national interest of the United States in the

8:55

Middle East is stability. of

8:57

the United States in the Middle East

8:59

is preventing groups that would attack us here

9:01

in the homeland from taking root. The

9:03

national interest of the United States and Central

9:06

America is different. It's migration. It's drugs.

9:08

It's hoping to have countries that are prosperous

9:10

so people don't migrate here and don't

9:12

join drug cartels. So we have to have

9:14

foreign policies in different parts of the

9:16

world that are different. And we have to

9:18

have the regions and the embassies run

9:21

it, not some. office in Washington that sort

9:23

of applies the same standard all across

9:25

the board. That's just not realistic foreign policy

9:27

in today's world. 20 years ago, I

9:29

think if you asked the secretary of state

9:31

and certainly the president, is the national

9:33

interest of the United States stability or democracy?

9:36

I think they might have said democracy

9:38

instead of stability. Was that view

9:40

wrong? Was it foolish? Well,

9:42

I think it was a different world. If

9:44

you go back 20 years, we were a unipolar

9:46

power and we were often called in to do

9:48

things because nobody else could or would. We don't

9:50

live in that world anymore. We now

9:52

live in a world with a near peer

9:54

adversary in China. We live in a

9:56

world where while Russia's economy is not large,

9:58

they have the ability to project power and

10:01

destabilize. We live in a world with a

10:03

nuclear armed North Korea, with a nuclear ambitious

10:05

Iran. We live in a world where there

10:07

are both opportunities and real challenges in the

10:09

Middle East. We live in a world where

10:11

in Africa, countries are going in two directions.

10:13

Some are developing economically, others are falling into

10:16

chaos. It's just a very different world. And

10:18

in that world with that many problems, especially

10:20

big ones like like China, the United States

10:22

has to make a mature decision about

10:24

how to prioritize the use of our national

10:26

power. There are some issues in the world

10:28

that matter more than others from our national

10:30

interest perspective. That doesn't mean we don't care

10:32

about some terrible humanitarian crisis somewhere on the

10:35

planet, but we can't put that ahead of

10:37

some critical long -term challenge to the national interest

10:39

of the United States. So we have entered

10:41

an era where we have to, we are

10:43

the most powerful country in the world. but

10:45

neither our power nor our resources have ever

10:47

been infinite. And so we

10:49

have to prioritize them in a mature and

10:51

sustainable way in this new era in which

10:53

we live in. In essence, the

10:56

world order is changing and we need

10:58

to adjust our foreign policies to serve our

11:00

national interest in that new world that's

11:02

taking shape. Okay, well, let's talk about what

11:04

I think is arguably the biggest story

11:06

in America right now, which is the fight

11:08

over deportations. And curious how

11:10

that should rank in terms of...

11:13

that you just lined up for

11:15

me. But the president suggested in

11:17

an Oval Office meeting with President

11:19

Bukele of El Salvador, that

11:21

American citizens might be deported to

11:23

El Salvador. Here's what he said.

11:25

He said that Bukele, in addition

11:27

to the prison, I think it's

11:29

pronounced cicat, you'll correct me if

11:31

I'm wrong, might have to build

11:33

new places to house deported American

11:35

citizens. And over the weekend, your

11:38

old colleague in the Senate, John

11:40

Kennedy, a Republican from Louisiana, hardly

11:42

a squish, he was unequivocal in

11:44

saying that the president cannot do such a

11:46

thing. He said, have our own laws, we

11:48

have the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution, we

11:51

shouldn't send prisoners to foreign countries. So is

11:53

he correct? Should we take the president seriously

11:55

but not literally in that Oval Office meeting?

11:57

Which is it? Well, two things. The first,

11:59

the president talked about the most dangerous and

12:01

vile criminals imaginable. And the question is whether

12:03

you could send them to be in a

12:05

prison in some other country. But the second

12:07

point the president made, and I was there

12:10

when he said it, and I was there

12:12

when he said it in the past is,

12:14

I don't know about the legalities of that.

12:16

You'll have to ask DOJ. Maybe that's not

12:18

possible because of our laws. So he acknowledged

12:20

that in his statement. I think the broader

12:22

point on deportations, and it's the one that

12:24

really is in the news these days, is

12:26

We have people here illegally in this country

12:29

from other countries. And one of

12:31

the things we've done at the State Department

12:33

is work with those countries to take back

12:35

their citizens, to take back people that are

12:37

citizens. That's where you deport people. You deport

12:39

them back to the country that they came

12:41

from. They are unlawfully in the country, and

12:43

that's where they're supposed to be returned. And

12:45

that's what we've worked on doing. In the

12:47

case of El Salvador, in addition to that,

12:49

they've been willing to take trained at Agua

12:51

gang members because Venezuela was refusing to take

12:53

them. And this is now a designated terrorist

12:55

organization, one of the most dangerous gangs in

12:57

the history of the world that's infiltrated our

12:59

country and we want them out of our

13:02

country. We don't want them in our country.

13:04

One of the things the president and you

13:06

have done in the past 90 -something days, it

13:08

feels like it's been a lot longer than

13:10

that, has been to successfully, I

13:12

cannot even imagine how long it's

13:14

felt for you, has been

13:16

to successfully close the southern border.

13:18

And yet that story has

13:20

been just totally overtaken with the

13:22

story of some of these

13:24

individual deportations that have captured the

13:26

national conversation and that many

13:28

people, even people that voted for

13:30

Trump are opposed to. And

13:32

so I want to just ask

13:34

you a bigger question, which

13:37

is what message is the president

13:39

trying to send with these

13:41

deportations? You know, there's, is

13:43

it about... people from coming or is

13:45

it about terrifying people that have been

13:47

here for years that have paid taxes

13:49

for many, many years and might even

13:51

have American children? Should they be scared

13:53

of deportation? Like what is the message

13:55

that the president and the State Department

13:58

is trying to send? Well, two

14:00

things. The State Department isn't involved necessarily in

14:02

the issue of migratory enforcement. We're involved in

14:04

making sure that foreign countries take back the

14:06

citizens that are in our country illegally of

14:08

their countries. So I would say two things.

14:10

Number one, mass migration. is

14:13

almost entirely based on an incentive system. People

14:15

were coming to this country under Joe Biden

14:17

because they knew if they got to the border

14:19

and claimed asylum, said these magic words, they

14:21

would be allowed to come in and they would

14:23

be allowed to stay. Almost 90 % success rate,

14:25

if you said the magic words. So people

14:27

were coming. Now they know that if they

14:29

come, they won't get to stay and they've stopped

14:31

coming, which is why it's the most secure border we've

14:33

had in modern history. And in fact, we've seen

14:36

a new phenomena, which is people that were on their

14:38

way here sort of do a U turn and

14:40

go back. We've seen that play out. to

14:42

know its achievement because it stops the problem.

14:44

That still leaves us with a fundamental challenge.

14:46

And that is that we have in this country

14:48

millions of people, some who have been here many

14:50

years, some who have been here for a year

14:52

and a half or two, who are unlawfully in

14:54

the United States. And it's this simple. If you

14:57

say the speed zone is 70 miles an hour, but

14:59

people know they're not going to get a

15:01

ticket unless they go 90 miles an hour, no

15:03

one's going to drive under the speed limit.

15:05

You have to have laws and laws have to

15:07

be enforced. If you don't enforce your laws,

15:09

then your laws become meaningless. And that's what's happened

15:11

in this country over the last 20 years.

15:13

We were not enforcing our immigration laws, and now

15:15

we are. Obviously, they're going to

15:17

prioritize the most dangerous people, dangerous criminals. If

15:19

you look at the manifest of these

15:21

flights of people that are being deported, these

15:23

are some of the most vile human

15:25

beings imaginable that we're getting out of our

15:28

country, sex offenders, rapists, killers. That's who

15:30

we're prioritizing and being sent out. But let

15:32

there be no doubt. We have immigration

15:34

laws. And if you are in violation of

15:36

those immigration laws, you have no right

15:38

to be in the country. Now, some will

15:40

choose to leave voluntarily. Others

15:42

may get caught up and be forced to leave. But

15:44

they are prioritizing the most

15:46

dangerous. But that said, there's

15:49

no point in having immigration laws if

15:51

you have no intent to enforce them.

15:53

Okay, let's talk about Iran. Both

15:55

you and President Trump were profoundly

15:57

opposed to Barack Obama's nuclear deal known

15:59

as the JCPOA. The Iran deal,

16:02

and this was what the president said

16:04

in 2018 when he withdrew from

16:06

the deal, the Iran deal was one

16:08

of the worst and most one -sided

16:10

transactions the United States has ever

16:12

entered into. You yourself called it disastrous.

16:15

Now it looks like the administration is

16:17

heading into another deal. So simple

16:19

question. What would a good deal with

16:21

Iran look like? Well, you know,

16:23

we have good people negotiating that and involved

16:25

in it, obviously. Let me just say a

16:27

couple of things about the previous deal and

16:29

then I'll compare it to now. The previous

16:31

deal was bad for a number of reasons.

16:33

It gave Iran immediate and full sanctions relief

16:35

in exchange for enrichment capabilities that at any

16:37

point could be weaponized in the future. They

16:39

got to keep that permanently. They got to

16:41

keep the sanctions relief permanently. And they only

16:43

had to live by the enrichment limitations for

16:45

a defined period of time. In fact, right

16:48

now we are entering that period of time

16:50

in which the requirements of that deal would

16:52

have expired. So it was a bad deal

16:54

all the way around. We gave them. permanent

16:56

concessions for temporary concessions on their part. So

16:58

now we've reached that point. Let me make

17:00

a second point, and that is the worst thing

17:02

that could, we do not want a war.

17:04

We do not want to see war. This is

17:06

not a president that campaigned on starting wars.

17:08

And as he said very clearly, Iran is not

17:10

going to have a nuclear weapon, and he

17:12

reserves every right to prevent that from happening, but

17:14

he would prefer it not happen. He would

17:16

prefer that there not be need to resort to

17:18

military force, either by us or anybody else.

17:20

He would prefer that it be something that we

17:22

can negotiate. have shown a

17:24

willingness to talk, we're going to talk to

17:26

them. If there is a chance at peace,

17:28

we're going to give peace and a peaceful

17:30

resolution to this challenge every opportunity to succeed. Our

17:33

priorities remain the same. If Iran wants

17:35

a civil nuclear program, they can have one

17:37

just like Many other countries in the world

17:39

have one, and that is they import enriched

17:41

material. Now, we're not going to negotiate this

17:44

in the press. We're not going to negotiate

17:46

this publicly because it undermines negotiations. But there's

17:48

a pathway to a civil peaceful nuclear

17:50

program if they want one. But if they

17:52

insist on enriching, then they will be the

17:54

only country in the world that doesn't have

17:56

a weapons program, quote unquote, but is enriching.

17:58

And so I think that's problematic. But again,

18:00

let's give peace every chance here to succeed.

18:03

I don't want to see a war.

18:05

The president certainly doesn't want to see one

18:07

either. Some who are watching

18:09

these negotiations unfold and who have

18:11

watched the JCPOA and then it's

18:13

unraveling are warning that this deal

18:15

is on a path potentially to

18:18

be similar or weaker to the

18:20

JCPOA. And one of the reasons

18:22

they're saying that is because Steve

18:24

Witkoff gave an interview in which

18:26

he said that the goal should

18:28

be to ensure that Iran's uranium

18:31

enrichment would be capped at something

18:33

like 3 .5 % for civilian use

18:35

and verified. are

18:37

saying, that is a very bad

18:39

sign, is because they're saying, why

18:41

shouldn't the US's position be zero

18:44

enrichment and the complete elimination of

18:46

the program? Yeah, well, I

18:48

think Steve, subsequently. followed up by

18:50

clarifying that what he meant is that

18:52

that would be the limit of what they

18:54

would be allowed to import for their domestic

18:56

program. And they do that now. They do

18:58

have a nuclear reactor that imports Russian enriched

19:00

material at 3 .67. And that's what

19:03

you need for, but they don't enrich it

19:05

themselves. So I think what Steve was,

19:07

the point he was trying to make in

19:09

that interview, and it subsequently clarified was he's

19:11

talking about the level of enrichment that they

19:13

would be allowed, the level of enriched material

19:15

that they would be allowed to import from

19:17

outside, like multiple countries around the world do.

19:19

for their peaceful civil nuclear programs. If

19:22

the United States wanted to take

19:24

out Iran's nuclear program with a strike,

19:26

does it have the capability to

19:28

do so? Or is everything buried so

19:30

deep underground that there's no guarantee? Yeah,

19:33

look, I think logistically, I

19:35

probably don't want to discuss all the logistics of

19:37

it. Suffice it to say that I do believe the

19:39

United States has options, but we don't want to

19:41

ever get to that. We really don't. Maybe we

19:44

could talk about it in a signal group together. Let's

19:47

say this to you. Let me

19:49

put it to you this way, okay? We don't want

19:51

it to get to that point. We're not at a

19:53

stage now where we're going to be making threats or

19:55

anything of this nature, because honestly, this is not a

19:57

president that ran on the promise of starting wars or

19:59

armed conflicts. We've gotten involved in this

20:01

Houssi situation. It's a favorite of the world that

20:04

we're doing, because these guys basically had shut down

20:06

shipping in the Red Sea. That needed to end.

20:08

But this is not a president that's looking to

20:10

start wars. He's a president that's looking to stop

20:12

them and to prevent them. That's why we've

20:14

been focused on Ukraine. That's why we're

20:16

having these talks with the Iranians. I

20:18

would tell everybody that we're a long

20:20

ways away from any sort of agreement

20:22

with Iran. We recognize it's difficult and

20:24

hard. Oftentimes, unfortunately, peace is. But

20:26

we're committed to achieving a peaceful outcome that's acceptable

20:28

to everyone. It may not be possible. We don't

20:30

know. I don't even know if Iran knows how

20:32

to make a deal. They've got their own internal

20:34

political dynamics in their country they have to work

20:36

through. But we would want to achieve a peaceful

20:38

resolution to this and not resort to anything else

20:40

or even speculate about it at this point. OK,

20:42

just one last question, and then I want to

20:44

go. Russia and Ukraine, Tucker Carlson

20:46

has said that a strike on Iran's

20:49

nuclear facilities, now I'm quoting from

20:51

him, would almost certainly result in thousands

20:53

of American deaths at bases throughout

20:55

the Middle East and the cost the

20:57

United States billions of dollars. Those

20:59

aren't guesses, those are the Pentagon's own

21:01

estimates. A bombing campaign against Iran will

21:03

set off a war and it will

21:05

be America's war. Is that true? I

21:08

think, here's what I can

21:10

say. Any military action at this

21:12

point in the Middle East, whether it's against

21:15

Iran by us or anybody else, could

21:17

in fact trigger a much broader conflict that

21:19

will not be the sort of thing

21:21

that people become accustomed to watching on television,

21:23

which is, well, a couple of drones

21:25

got shot down, but we took out a

21:27

hundred fighters or whatever. This will be

21:29

more complex. I think we have to recognize,

21:31

and it's important to be honest about

21:33

it, Iran has taken both under sanctions and

21:36

because of sanctions relief under Obama, they

21:38

have spent billions of dollars dollars developing military

21:40

capabilities that we're seeing, for example, being

21:42

used in Ukraine right now with drones and

21:44

the like, is the United States capable

21:46

of defeating and confronting all that? Absolutely we

21:48

are. I think it's important

21:50

to understand it's much more complex than it

21:52

would have been 10 years ago or five

21:54

years ago. But that's why we

21:57

hope to avoid this. So when you hear

21:59

people make the points that they've made, it's true.

22:01

Any sort of armed conflict in the region is

22:03

going to be much messier than what people are

22:05

used to seeing or that we would want. And

22:07

that's why the president is so committed to the

22:09

peaceful resolution, the prevention of an

22:11

armed conflict in this scenario. although

22:13

he reserves every right to prevent Iran from

22:15

getting a nuclear weapon. He preferred peace. He has

22:17

said that repeatedly. And that's why

22:19

we want to end the war in Ukraine if

22:22

that's possible. Okay, so let's talk about that.

22:24

Is it possible? On Sunday, President

22:26

Trump said he hoped that Russia and Ukraine

22:28

would make a deal this week. What

22:31

are the remaining obstacles to such a deal? Is

22:33

there a chance that we could hear about a deal

22:35

by the end of the week, as Trump said? Well,

22:37

I don't know about by the end of the week. I'm

22:39

hopeful that we can get to something quickly. And I remain

22:41

hopeful that we can get something done because this is a

22:44

terrible war and it needs to end. Because

22:46

it has no military solution. There is no

22:48

military solution to this war. We have to be

22:50

frank. Russia's not just going to roll

22:52

over Ukraine and take the whole country. And Ukraine's not going

22:54

to push them all the way back to where they

22:56

were before 2014. So what I would

22:58

say we're involved in is understanding what is

23:00

the Russian position. We have a better understanding

23:02

of that now because we've actually spoken to

23:04

them after three years of not speaking to

23:06

them. What is the Ukrainian position? And

23:09

figure out, are these guys even in the

23:11

same neighborhood? Because if they're in completely different zip

23:13

codes, then we may have to conclude that

23:15

they're so far apart that peace is impossible at

23:17

this time. We've done our best. We've put

23:19

a lot of time and energy at the highest

23:21

levels of our government. We'll continue to be

23:23

willing to do so as long as there is

23:26

a realistic path forward. If at some point

23:28

we determine that we're just too far apart and

23:30

not enough movement is happening, We may

23:32

need to move on to other priorities, because there

23:34

are a lot of important things happening in the world.

23:36

This is not our war. We didn't start this

23:38

war. We're trying to help everybody end it. But they

23:40

may be too far apart. But I hope not.

23:42

We should be optimistic. We should be

23:44

willing, as we are, to do whatever

23:46

it takes to bring the two sides

23:48

closer. And hopefully we can be

23:50

successful. But ultimately, it's not up to us.

23:52

It's up to Russia, and it's up to

23:55

Ukraine. They have to make the decision that

23:57

they're willing to move closer to one another.

23:59

And we need to start to see progress.

24:01

A lot of Republicans and a lot of

24:03

conservatives have become skeptical of NATO as an

24:05

institution. They question the outsize

24:07

funding the US provides, whether or not

24:09

it's in our interest to remain in

24:11

it. Why is NATO a

24:13

good idea if you still think of the

24:15

good idea? And what would you say to

24:17

people in your party that think NATO should

24:19

be dissolved? Well, I think there's two separate

24:21

issues involved. Is NATO a good idea as

24:24

a concept? And as, yeah, it is. I

24:26

think alliances are always good. To be able

24:28

to enter into a defense alliance with advanced

24:30

economies and advanced militaries, it's a force multiplier

24:32

for the United States. So absolutely NATO is

24:34

in our interest. Now the question is what

24:36

kind of NATO? It has to be a

24:38

NATO in which your partners are carrying their

24:40

weight. And when you see a NATO where

24:43

you have countries that are spending 1%, 1 .1

24:45

% of their GDP, 1 .2%, then that's really

24:47

not an alliance. That's a dependency. Now,

24:49

to be fair, there are other countries like Poland

24:51

that are doing more than their fair share. And there

24:53

are other countries that frankly have not invested in

24:55

their defense capabilities for almost three decades. So

24:58

what the president's point has been is

25:00

he wants to be in NATO, but

25:02

a NATO that's real, a NATO that

25:04

actually is strong, a NATO in which

25:06

every partner is contributing at scale. And

25:08

we haven't had that. Now, we've started

25:10

to see movement. We have. We've started

25:12

to see more and more countries dedicate

25:14

more and more money to their defense,

25:16

thanks to the pressure that President Trump

25:18

has put on. And by the way,

25:21

virtually every American president in

25:23

the last 25 years

25:25

has complained that NATO partners

25:27

aren't doing enough. President

25:30

Trump is the only one that's actually insisted on it

25:32

in a way that's actually gotten results. So

25:34

it's on a good trajectory. So NATO

25:36

is good as long as NATO is real,

25:38

as long as it's a real defense

25:40

alliance, not the United States and a bunch

25:43

of junior partners that aren't doing their

25:45

fair share. One of the areas where it's

25:47

unclear to many people if it's strategic

25:49

and a Trump. sort of negotiating tactic

25:51

or sincere, is the question of tariffs. And

25:53

that's because there have been sort of

25:55

two messages coming out of the White House.

25:58

There's the Peter Navarro School, which is

26:00

basically tariffs are an end in

26:02

and of themselves. They're a way to

26:04

rebuild American industries that have suffered

26:06

from foreign competitions. And then the

26:08

other view, and this is more the

26:10

Treasury Secretary, is they're strategic. They are

26:12

pressure position. They are a way to

26:15

extract meaningful concessions from other countries and

26:17

get them to move. I

26:19

think it's both and I think both

26:21

are legitimate. I think there are some industries

26:23

that are critical to the future of

26:26

the United States and we have to have

26:28

a domestic capability. We have to be

26:30

able to do things like build ships. We

26:32

have to be able to do things

26:34

that are critical to our national security, our

26:36

pharmaceutical industry. And then there's the broader

26:38

question of whether the state of current global

26:40

trade as fair to the United States,

26:42

and unfortunately, across multiple administrations and presidents in

26:44

both parties, especially since 1991, we

26:46

have allowed very dangerous trade imbalances to

26:48

build up. As I travel around

26:51

the world and virtually every country I go

26:53

to, you can't find an American car on

26:55

the road. Many American products are not allowed

26:57

in, sometimes because of tariffs, sometimes because of

26:59

non -tariff barriers, all kinds of things they

27:01

put up. That just can't continue. Maybe that

27:03

made sense 50 years ago when these were

27:05

poor developing countries that we hoped wouldn't fall

27:08

into the Soviet orbit. But now these are

27:10

advanced economies. The EU, if you take

27:12

the EU holistically, its economy is

27:14

the same as the United States. These are

27:16

advanced economies. Why would there be such a

27:18

massive trade imbalance between two advanced economies, the

27:20

EU and the United States? That's not sustainable.

27:22

That needs to be recalibrated and that's to

27:24

be fixed. In the case of the Chinese,

27:27

it's an export -driven economy. They can sell

27:29

and export whatever they want into the

27:31

US, but they severely restrict what we

27:33

can send them. That's not sustainable. That

27:35

has to be confronted. And we don't

27:37

have 10 years to figure this out

27:39

now. We have like one, two, or

27:41

three years to figure it out. So

27:43

I think it's a combination of both

27:46

industries that we need in our country

27:48

and need to be protected, but also

27:50

the broader issue of resetting the baseline

27:52

for global trade in a way that's

27:54

sustainable to the national interest of the

27:56

United States. The Treasury Secretary reportedly told

27:58

investors at this closed -door JP Morgan

28:00

summit today, and I'm quoting from him,

28:02

there will be a de -escalation. I'm

28:05

reading in President Trump's trade war with

28:07

China in the very near future. And

28:09

then he added this, no one thinks

28:11

the current status quo is sustainable. So

28:14

what can we expect next?

28:17

Well, I can't answer for what he said. I wasn't

28:19

in that meeting and I certainly don't speak. It's

28:21

not the State Department is not running

28:23

the tariff negotiations. I will say this, you

28:26

know, as far as people are talking

28:28

about the price that tariffs are going to

28:30

have on the US economy, it's also

28:32

having a tremendous price on the Chinese economy.

28:34

That's an export driven economy. Their entire

28:36

economy is built not on consumption domestically, but

28:38

on what they can overproduce and dump

28:40

onto economies all over the world. all over

28:43

the world. The Europeans had to stop

28:45

them from selling electric cars or they were

28:47

going to wipe out the European electric

28:49

car industry. So I think China

28:51

is paying a heavy price. So I would

28:53

say, without commenting on what the Secretary

28:55

of Treasury said, that yeah, there's vulnerability to

28:57

the Chinese side as well. But at

28:59

some point, this issue had to be brought

29:01

to a head because the trade imbalance

29:04

and the unfairness that exists between the Chinese

29:06

and the United States is simply unsustainable.

29:08

It's more than unsustainable. It's dangerous. It's

29:10

geopolitically dangerous. and

29:12

it needed to be confronted and we

29:14

can't wait any longer to do it. We've

29:16

allowed this to go on for 25

29:18

years and it cannot continue or we're gonna

29:20

wind up living in a world in

29:22

which we depend on China for everything critical

29:25

to our security and to our prosperity.

29:27

And that's not a world that we intend

29:29

to leave for our children and grandchildren.

29:31

Is China the number one defense priority that

29:33

America faces? I think China is the

29:35

number one challenge on every front that I

29:37

can imagine, geopolitically, national security, economically, industrially.

29:39

And look, the president says this all the

29:41

time and I agree. We don't blame

29:43

the Chinese. The Chinese have done what we

29:45

would have done if we were the

29:47

leaders of China. They looked, previous leaders in

29:49

this country and around the world allowed

29:51

them to cheat and steal and get these

29:53

unfair advantages and they took them. Why

29:56

wouldn't they? But now it's gotta be fixed.

29:58

It's gotta be fixed. Let's look just

30:00

objectively at where we stand versus China. The

30:02

US Navy is the smallest it has

30:04

been since World War I. Our army is

30:06

the smallest it has been since World

30:08

War II. Our air force is smaller and

30:10

older than it used to be. And

30:12

meanwhile, China has the world's largest army and

30:14

the world's largest navy. They build more

30:16

ships in a month. I think this will

30:18

shock people than we do in a

30:20

year. And meantime, we are cutting

30:22

defense spending. What are

30:25

we doing to prepare for

30:27

a possible war with

30:29

China? And if one came,

30:31

could we win it? What

30:33

we want to do is prevent a

30:35

war from China by being strong enough to

30:37

make them understand that they could never

30:39

win a war against the United States A

30:41

war against China would be a terrible

30:43

thing. I know but if I'm China and

30:45

I'm looking at that reality I'm thinking

30:47

I could win this and that's how that's

30:50

why it's dangerous because China is undertaking

30:52

the fastest most rapid most expansive peacetime military

30:54

buildup in the history of the world,

30:56

not in modern history, in the history of

30:58

the world. Meanwhile, the United States has

31:00

lagged behind for a variety of different reasons.

31:02

You talk about the Navy as an

31:04

example. We don't have a shipbuilding industry. We

31:06

have some shipbuilding in the United States,

31:08

but not nearly at the scale the Chinese

31:10

do. It's not just that we're not

31:12

spending the money on it. We don't have

31:14

the ability to do it because we

31:16

allowed the nation to be deindustrialized. We allowed

31:18

the United States to become deindustrialized, especially

31:21

since 1991, with both free trade agreements

31:23

and the cheating that we allowed when we

31:26

that allowed China to ascend to the World

31:28

Trade Organization. And what it has done

31:30

is deindustrialized this. We can't just build ships.

31:32

Boeing struggles to build planes. We

31:34

can't make pharmaceuticals. We depend on China for

31:36

88 % of all the active ingredients in

31:38

most of the pharmaceuticals that we rely

31:40

on in our country. You can go down

31:43

issue after issue after issue. And you

31:45

can see that it's not just that we're

31:47

not spending money on it. It's that

31:49

we can't do it because the industries that

31:51

would produce it domestically were

31:53

long gone. They were outsourced. They were

31:55

sent somewhere else, not just to China,

31:57

but other places, but primarily to China.

31:59

That's dangerous. It cannot continue. In your

32:01

Senate confirmation hearing, you talked about how

32:03

the post -war global order is not

32:05

just obsolete. It is a weapon

32:07

being used against us and that right

32:09

now we're being called to create a

32:12

free world out of the chaos. And

32:14

I think a lot of people

32:16

have different explanations clearly about how we

32:18

got to a place where the

32:20

post -war global order is obsolete, but

32:22

everyone is seeing the reality of that.

32:24

And I think feeling a lot

32:26

of anxiety and concern from many different

32:28

points along the political spectrum about

32:30

what is going to replace it. And

32:32

I think some people are feeling

32:34

that the U .S. has almost accepted

32:36

a declineist position and we're now in

32:38

a kind of managed decline. So

32:40

I've wanted for a while to ask

32:42

you two questions. Are we in

32:44

decline and is the role of our

32:47

leadership to manage it as best as they

32:49

can? And the second is what comes

32:51

next? What is the new global order going

32:53

to look like? And what are some

32:55

of the parameters of the American position inside

32:57

of it? Well, the only reason why

32:59

the US would ever be in decline is

33:01

if we made bad decisions and continued

33:03

to allow them to perpetuate. I think the

33:05

road we were on under Joe Biden

33:07

and previous administrations before that put us on

33:09

a road to decline. I think what

33:12

the President and President Trump is doing now

33:14

is addressing the causes of it. You

33:16

talk about the post -Cold War era and

33:18

why it's bad. That post -Cold War era

33:20

basically said free trade is important above everything

33:22

else. We've now recognized that there are

33:24

industries critical to a country and its national

33:26

security and national interests that you have.

33:28

have to be able to have domestically you

33:30

can't rely on foreign sources for. And

33:32

that's why we're addressing that in a trade

33:34

space. I think we realize that

33:36

mass migration is not something that we

33:38

can just tolerate. It undermines your country. It

33:40

undermines your security. And that had to

33:42

be addressed. I think you look at

33:45

our alliances around the world and I get

33:47

it. You're a country that has this vast social

33:49

safety network that you have high taxes to

33:51

pay for and you're spending very little on your

33:53

national security because America's got your back. That

33:55

can't be sustained. We can't continue to engage in

33:57

that way. That has to be. that we've

33:59

talked about NATO a moment ago. You

34:01

think about all these conflicts going on in the

34:03

world. We have to prioritize them.

34:05

I think if we become a country

34:07

that spreads itself too thin, that basically

34:09

is trying to go 100 % all

34:11

in on five major conflicts around the

34:13

planet, you begin to exhaust overreach and

34:15

overextend yourself, even for the most powerful

34:17

country in the world. So I think

34:20

we're beginning to address this. all

34:22

of these challenges that could lead to

34:24

American decline, not because somebody else, but because

34:26

of the things we failed to do.

34:28

And that includes rebuild our industrial capabilities here

34:30

at home. One final point I would

34:32

make is we are entering an era in

34:34

which our foreign policy has to be

34:37

more focused, more pragmatic, and more balanced. And

34:39

that is that we have to clearly

34:41

define what is our national interest. Remember

34:43

what the issue is, and then we

34:45

have to pursue that. And that means balancing

34:47

things that in the past weren't balanced.

34:49

In the past, it was democracy promotion at

34:51

any cost, or human rights promotion at

34:54

any cost. We're not abandoning democracy. We're not

34:56

abandoning human rights. We're just saying that

34:58

has to be part of the overall analysis

35:00

when we decide where to spend our

35:02

time and what to spend our money on.

35:04

Secretary Rubio, the poem on the Statue

35:06

of Liberty, the Emma Lazarus poem, give me

35:08

your tired, your poor, your huddled masses

35:10

yearning to breathe free. Is that

35:13

still true? Yeah, and there's

35:15

laws that allow people to come here every

35:17

day. You know, the United States, every year

35:19

on average, about a million people legally enter

35:21

the United States on a green card and

35:23

three to five years later can become United

35:25

States citizens. We remain, despite all the specter

35:27

out there, the most generous country in the

35:29

world in terms of allowing people to come

35:31

to the United States. All we're asking is

35:33

that they do it through a process. All

35:36

we're asking is that they even The

35:38

most generous charities in the United States

35:40

generally require people that show up for

35:42

help to fill out a paper and

35:44

wait in line and sort of have

35:46

their case evaluated. So we're not a

35:48

charity, but when it comes to our

35:50

immigration policies, no country in the

35:52

world allows as many people to come in.

35:54

We just ask people to do it legally through

35:56

an appropriate process. What we can't be

35:58

is a country where you can just show up

36:00

at the border and say, I'm here and I'm here

36:02

to stay. No questions asked. That's, That's lunacy. Secretary

36:05

of State Rubio, thank you so much for

36:07

the time. I really appreciate it. Thank you.

36:11

Thanks for listening. If you

36:13

liked this conversation, if it made you

36:15

think differently, then share it with your

36:17

friends and family and use it to

36:19

have an honest conversation of your own.

36:22

Last but not least, if you want

36:24

to support the kinds of conversations we

36:26

have here on Honestly, there's just one

36:28

way to do it. It's by going

36:30

to the free press at VFP.com and

36:32

becoming a subscriber today. you