QUESTION: All right, Mr. Secretary, Marco Rubio, thanks so much for joining us - and National Security Advisor. I understand the Iranians are, on the recipient of American attacks. In fact, the President put on Truth Social - and I'll read some of it: The U.S., as we speak, is striking Iran near the strait. The strikes are large and powerful, and the retaliation for Iran's failed attempt at adding sea mines to the strait, which currently has no mines and the Iranians shooting eight missiles at us, all successfully knocked down. If the failed nation of Iran retaliates for the very justified attack, they'll be hit again as much harder at a higher level.
Mr. Secretary, where do you think we're at with this Iran confrontation, six months in?
SECRETARY RUBIO: Well, first of all, I'll remind everybody that, at the end, the core and central issue here is the following: Iran will never be allowed to possess a nuclear weapon, certainly not as long as President Trump is in office. So that's first and foremost.
With regards to the Strait of Hormuz, while our primary vehicle by which we are preventing them from getting a nuclear weapon and inflicting the price and a cost on them is economic, we always reserve the right to defend the interests - our interests in the region. Iran has continued to fire on shipping, continued to fire on commercial shipping in the straits. They're losing control of the straits; they've lost control of the straits. Their mines were - they put a bunch of mines in there. We were able to successfully destroy those mines, and so the shipping lanes are now even broader. But they keep shooting at things, and they keep shooting at ships.
So we will continue to target those things that pose an imminent threat to our forces and to global shipping in the straits. The straits will remain open, and they will not be under Iranian control. And that's what you're seeing the President carrying out right now.
QUESTION: Understood. And also from their perspective - I understand they speak from many different areas - the IRGC has a spokesperson, the parliament has a spokesperson, and they also have a president who came out and essentially said we'd like to go back to the MOU. What does Secretary of State Marco Rubio say about that?
SECRETARY RUBIO: Well, look, I mean, that ship, in many ways, has sailed - no pun intended with regards to the straits - because, if you think about it, as a moment - I mean, at the core issue here is they're never going to have a nuclear weapon. I have to remind people of that continuously. This is all about the fact that they want to possess a nuclear weapon and threaten the world with it, and we'll never allow that to happen. And as long as they continue to endeavor or claim to want one, they're going to pay a price for it, and that price is going to be primarily economic. But we reserve the right, as we said, to take military action when necessary - not just to protect ourselves but to prevent them from being able to threaten others as well.
So as far as the differences in their system, here's the bottom line - their economy's a disaster. It was a disaster before all of this, right, because they - if you think about it, Iran - every penny they get, be it through sanctions relief or whatever - every penny they get, they don't spend it on the Iranian people. They don't spend that money on their country. They use that money to fund Hizballah and Hamas and terrorist organizations and militias in Iraq to threaten us and threaten the world. If they spent a fraction, just half the money that they're spending on these militias - if they spent it on their own people, the Iranian people would be better off.
So they're going to continue to feel the squeeze, because understand that this is not just about punishing Iran, the Iranian regime. It's about preventing them from having access to money that will then be used to sponsor terrorism, which is what they've always done. They want money for two things - to sponsor terrorism and ultimately to have a nuclear weapon. And we can't allow that to happen.
QUESTION: We saw president - Prime Minister Modi meet with the Iranian president and Iranian officials, and it essentially looked like they're setting up some type of trade deal. Pakistan two weeks before. What's your message for those countries?
SECRETARY RUBIO: Well, I don't think there's a trade deal between India and Iran. Obviously, there are - countries all develop their own foreign policy, and many countries around the world talk to the Iranian regime. I mean, we've met with elements of the Iranian regime as well, in terms of some of these discussions that have occurred and there's been contact with them. I think what ultimately happens though is - and the President's been very clear - is no country should be helping Iran evade sanctions. No country should be out there helping them create mechanisms by which they can generate revenue that they will then use to sponsor terrorism and try to build a nuclear weapon. And if countries decide to do that, then we're going to have to sanction them too.
QUESTION: So Vladimir Putin says this to Iran: During this difficult time, we're trying to provide you with the assistance you need. We have discussed this with you and are supplying you with the necessary goods.
We always thought they were giving - it seems as though they're giving satellite coordinates to help kill our people, but now we have the Russians saying directly we're helping you out.
SECRETARY RUBIO: Yeah. Well, in the case, unfortunately, of Iran, we're not aligned with the Russians and the Russian system in terms of their view of the situation. Obviously, Russia has their own hands full with Ukraine and that effort there. But I've said this before, and I'll say it again: Nothing that anyone is providing Iran is in any way impeding our ability to act as necessary to protect the United States.
That said, it is clear that, in the case of what Iran is doing, we are not necessarily fully aligned with the Russian position on it, but Russia's got - and Putin's got his own set of problems that I think take up the majority of his time and focus, which is the war in - with Ukraine, and frankly the impacts that these Ukrainian strikes are having on the Russian economy in combination with sanctions.
QUESTION: I'm talking to Secretary Rubio, obviously. Mr. Secretary, appreciate your time. So when you talk about John Ratcliffe, he had 72-hour mission, six hours on the ground in Russia. We don't know exactly what he discussed, but I imagine it was important. Some have said it was a proposal to have a trilateral meeting between President Trump, President Zelenskyy, and President Putin, as well as warning them - letting them know the reality on the ground is you're not doing very well. Is there anything you could share with the country about what that meeting was about?
SECRETARY RUBIO: Yeah, I've seen those reports, and I don't know where those are coming from, because nobody who has any knowledge of that meeting is - it's a very small handful of people, and none of them have talked to the press. So this is stuff they're getting secondhand and reporting on, and - but let me just say that trip was primarily a routine one. It is not unprecedented.
Despite whatever differences you may have geopolitically, the United States does have to be able to communicate with Russia from a very practical perspective. They are - they have the largest, second-largest nuclear stockpile in the world. The United States has to be able to communicate with them. I have met with the foreign minister; we talk to their foreign ministry. We're engaged with them in that regard. And I think, for a long period of time, there's been exchanges between our respective intelligence communities, including our Department of War in deconfliction and things of this nature. This has always existed.
So his visit there was largely routine in that sense of just establishing and continue to build these intel-to-intel communication channels. Because they're - those things can prove useful in a time of crisis or conflict. I mean, this is not unusual; it's occurred under other administrations as well. And - but - they're really - it wasn't part of any sort of broader initiative, other than continuing to establish those intel-to-intel channels that can prove useful in any particular contingency or crisis situation.
QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, I also know that President Zelenskyy appreciates the support of the President now, but he says specifically they would just need Patriots, 5 percent more Patriots. I know there's only a finite number available. Is there a plan in place to help them with missile defense leading into the winter?
SECRETARY RUBIO: I mean, we've provided that in the past. And obviously, as you know, the whole world is asking for more air interceptors. It's become the number-one defense need on the planet - not just for Ukraine, but on the planet. Countries in the Middle East want it. I know Iran wishes they had interceptors, which they don't, which is why we're able to act the way we do and do some of the things we have, because those things were wiped out by us. But multiple countries around the world - look, it's just a question of availability.
And obviously, I have to remind people the United States has needs. Like, we have our own defense needs; we have our own defense requirements. And before we can help others, we have to make sure that our stockpiles are always sufficient. I think there's a lot that's been reported inaccurately about what U.S. stockpiles are - I think dangerously, too, because I think in some ways our adversaries read that stuff and think it's true, and they try to test us, and it could lead to conflict. But the U.S. I think, nonetheless - oh, and this is not new now; this has always been the case. We have minimum requirements of our own, and those always have to be met before we can provide others. As the President's been clear, I mean, we've provided more assistance to Ukraine over the last few years than anybody else has, and we continue to provide them assistance within the limits of our own availability and capability. We always have to look out for America first.
QUESTION: Are you against giving them the licenses to make their own?
SECRETARY RUBIO: Well, that's being negotiated as we speak. And as I said, again - but that is not an immediate solution. I mean, ramping up production, even if you have a license, is something that takes multiple years to build these factories. I mean, these are highly sophisticated weaponry. So that's being negotiated now. That may come to fruition, but it really won't solve the short-term challenge that they're pointing to.
QUESTION: Ukraine wants to help us with their drone technology and the unbelievable success they had against Russia. Have we been reluctant to accept their offer to use some of that incredible drone technology?
SECRETARY RUBIO: No, look, I think if it's a deal that makes - no, if there's a deal that makes sense for the United States, I think we're pursuing those, and we're negotiating those, and those are all a work in progress. I don't have an announcement on it today, but we're always looking for ways to strengthen our own defenses. And if someone has an ability to partner with us and create that, we'd certainly be open to it. But again, these are long-term projects; these are not the kinds of things that you would see come online immediately.
QUESTION: When you talk about the Lindsey Graham bill - I guess they're calling it now - which would give the massive sanctions, it got 85 votes in the Senate - you used to be in the Senate; nothing gets 85 votes anymore - that said give secondary sanctions to anybody dealing with Russia, which would include China, Turkey, South Africa, Pakistan, whoever's doing it, they would be susceptible to these secondary sanctions. Would you encourage the House to pass this? Because right now, Democrats are holding it up more than even Republicans. Would you like to see that on the President's desk?
SECRETARY RUBIO: Yeah, look, I mean, it gives the President the authority to do these things. It gives him more tools in the toolbox. Now, he can do a lot of it without the bill, but obviously the Democrats in the House are not apparently in a mood to provide the President any additional legal powers and to impose tariffs and other penalties. But I think it would be valuable for the President to have these tools available to him, and then he can decide if and when to use them appropriately, given changing circumstances.
So as we said, the White House was supportive of it passing in the Senate, and we would see that the House hopefully take it up. But right now, the opposition to it, as you said, is coming from Democrats that just don't want to pass a bill that gives the President more authority, even though they claim to be supportive of Ukraine.
QUESTION: So when we come - so let's just fast forward to Canadian talks. I never thought that we'd be talking about Canada and a rift between our two countries, but it looks as though the trade talks have broken off. September 8th, they're going to put in a whole bunch of tariffs on us. We're going to hit them at the beginning of 2027. Is there anything you can do as Secretary of State to try to get these back on track? And can you tell the country what happened between two weeks ago - because it looked like we had a deal Friday afternoon and we had - it all broke apart Friday night.
SECRETARY RUBIO: Yeah, so our Trade Representative, Jamieson Greer, leads those talks on - so he's probably the right person to ask in better detail about the prospects moving forward. Suffice it to say, though, that we did believe, at some point two weeks ago, that we were very close to a deal. In fact, everybody assumed one was about to happen because the terms had been agreed to. And then there was a change in the Canadian position at the last second that sort of unraveled it all.
So obviously, the hope is that we can get back to that original arrangement because we thought it was a good arrangement and a fair arrangement for both countries, but let's see what happens. I can't really prognosticate how it plays forward. I think some of that is tied into some domestic Canadian politics as well and some of the things going on over there. So I don't want to opine too much on it other than to say that we thought we had a really good deal, a very fair deal. We were on the verge of executing on it and then there was a change at the last minute in the Canadian position.
So it either will happen, and if it doesn't, then there'll be consequences for it, unfortunately. But hopefully we can get back to that.
QUESTION: You're not too far from when you were in politics, and you know that Michigan and Maine will probably make or break the Senate for either party. Does it concern you at all that the - that Leader Carney has reached out to governors to kind of say, this is my point of view when it comes to the trade deal, almost bypassing the federal government? And do you think that the liberal leader of Canada is trying to make sure that the Republican President does not have a successful midterm election?
SECRETARY RUBIO: I don't —
QUESTION: Do you think politics is playing into this?
SECRETARY RUBIO: It might be, but I don't think it has any impact ultimately. I mean, you can - you can't do a trade deal with a governor. If he wants a trade deal and they want a trade deal with the United States, there's a good deal on the table. They should have taken it when it was available. And maybe they'll get back to it, but in the end, they really can't circumvent President Trump. I mean, he holds all the cards here on this —
QUESTION: Right.
SECRETARY RUBIO: — because he's the President, and these are deals with our - with the federal government, not with state governments. So —
QUESTION: So Venezuela has been an unbelievable success. We know that Delcy Rodríguez, the interim leader of that country, worked out a tremendous oil deal between our two countries. They're gradually releasing political prisoners. But this is what Ted Cruz said on Sunday that he wants to see happen in Venezuela:
SENATOR CRUZ: There need to be democratic, free elections in Venezuela. Delcy Rodríguez was Nicolás Maduro's vice president. Maduro was illegitimate. He was a Marxist. He had seized power contrary to the will of the voters. And from the beginning, I have been urging - and I believe the administration is working towards this - that there should be free and fair elections.
QUESTION: Your thoughts to Senator Ted Cruz and others?
SECRETARY RUBIO: Yeah.
QUESTION: How close are elections?
SECRETARY RUBIO: Well, I don't - yeah, I don't know what the disagreement is. I mean, I don't think there is one. I mean, we've been - worked with - we've been very clear about the three-step process involved here. The first was stabilization. We have a country that, after 20 years of chavismo and Marxism, was deeply broken and corrupt. And the first thing we had to avoid is civil war or mass migration or systemic collapse of the country because that wouldn't have been good for the Venezuelan people, wouldn't have been good for anybody. And we've largely achieved that despite a devastating earthquake that required us to step in and do a bunch of stuff to help them because they had - for all those years of chavismo had not invested at all in some of the capabilities that governments basically need because the money had been stolen.
The second is a recovery phase, which is you have to rebuild the economy and rebuild it in a way that's credible, that's legitimate. And the third is the democratic transition. And these things - when I say third, it's not in sequence. I mean, you can have the democratic transition happening at the same time. But if you think about it, what do we want from a democratic transition? We don't just want there to be an election. Election is important, but we want to make sure that it leads to a republic, to an enduring republic that has elections on a regular basis for the foreseeable future.
We don't - what we don't want to see is a country that has an election and then the leader takes over a catastrophe, the country's in tailspin, and it all falls apart. So we are engaged in that now. I mean, the talks are happening between the - the last democratically legitimate National Assembly in Venezuela was the 2015 National Assembly. And through our facilitation, they have begun talks with the interim government towards that goal of the democratically elected - having democratic elections. But democratic elections are more than just about having an election because you could have an election tomorrow; we'd still be using the Chávez machines and the Chávez electoral committee, and it would not be credible. All those things have to be transformed; all of that has to be changed.
You need a free press. You need the time and space for political parties who are going to run in those elections to organize themselves. A lot of the most prominent leaders in Venezuela's opposition still live abroad. They need the opportunity to return to the country and organize themselves to run for office. All of that remains a priority of this administration, and it's something we're working towards; and in fact, the next phase of these talks - these transitional talks - will happen here in about 10 days, again facilitated by us. So we remain very committed to that prospect, and ultimately that is where this project needs to wind up.
What we don't want to see is something like what happened in Nicaragua 25 years ago, where they had an election but, four years later, the Sandinistas were back in power. So you have to have - this is a holistic process that has to take place, and it's important. And we're nine months into this. It's not going to take as long as it took in Eastern Europe, but it took Eastern Europe four to five years to fully transition. We can do it much faster here; we're pushing very hard on it. We need that to happen.
QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, I see the unbelievable success in Central and South America as they begin to transition towards more representative governments, from Argentina to Bolivia, to what we're seeing now in Venezuela, and it seems like Cuba is teetering. How much longer do you expect this Cuban Government to stay in power? And how important would it be for the United States interests for that to become a representative government, a democratic government?
SECRETARY RUBIO: Well, first of all, Cuba is a failed state right now, and it's not because of us. People say it's because of us; it's not. Cuba was getting free oil from Maduro. Maduro was literally stealing the oil of the people of Venezuela and giving it for free to Cuba. Cuba would take that oil - and they weren't using it to benefit the Cuban people; they were selling the majority of that oil for cash, and that cash was going into their pockets. That's no longer happening. That's the number one thing that's happened here, is they're no longer stealing the oil of Venezuela and getting it for free.
And so - so that really is the fundamental challenge they face in terms of - but their energy sector. You see these blackouts in Cuba. These blackouts are not new; they've been having blackouts for five or seven years. You know why? Because their system doesn't function; it doesn't work. They have equipment from the 1940s and '50s, and they haven't re-upped it or invested in it at all, because the economic model doesn't work. So I think the goal is that Cuba - the only solution and answer to Cuba - and we're prepared to play a productive role in this - is to place itself on an irreversible path towards becoming a normal functioning state that eventually, of course, also is a democratic one as well.
That's the future of Venezuela, and by - future of Cuba. And by the way, U.S. policy towards Cuba, unlike U.S. policy towards Venezuela or other countries - U.S. policy towards Cuba is codified. It's in statute; there's a law. And that law regulates what we can and cannot do with Cuba, and it makes very clear that ultimately, normalization between our countries cannot fully happen - under that law passed by Congress over 20-something years ago - cannot happen unless there's a functioning democracy, or at least steps towards a functioning democracy. So in many ways, when it comes to Cuba policy, it's governed not simply by the desires of an administration; it's governed by law that's sitting on our books.
QUESTION: Are you concerned at all - before I let you go, and I know you've got to run to do 20 million things for your many jobs - are you concerned at all about the transition in the Pentagon, with - you no longer have a secretary of the Army; there's been no replacement for Randy George as - as - I think he was chief of staff of the Army. Are you concerned at all about the churn, with no more Chris Donahu either; he was the head of European Command.
SECRETARY RUBIO: Yeah, look. I mean, first of all, these combatant commands rotate out quite often. There'll be some that are in place now that will - are soon about to term out. So I think Pete's doing a great job at the Pentagon and the Department of War. In every administration, there's always transitions. There are people coming and going for a variety of different reasons. Many people who sign up for work in the public sector and in government do so for a defined period of time with the understanding that they can do it for two years, or they can do it for a year and a half, or they can do it for three years.
So it's not abnormal. This - every administration has turnover. And obviously, look, when you're trying to systemically reorganize an agency, like one as big and as large as the Pentagon is, there are going to have to be some changes made, which is one of the things - some of the things that Pete Hegseth has done. But I think Pete's doing a great job.
QUESTION: Do you see yourself taking more of a leadership role in Ukraine with the Hamas transition and now, of course, with Iran? A more direct —
SECRETARY RUBIO: Well, yeah, look. I mean, we're —
QUESTION: — because they seem to be gummed up?
SECRETARY RUBIO: Just by the nature of the position that I'm in, both Secretary of State with the Department of State, which has jurisdiction and not just jurisdiction but actually has to do things, and also the National Security Advisor that works directly for the President from the White House, there is - none of these things involve - they're all involved as part of a team effort. We have - we've built teams around all of these things, so we have people that are designed who are - I'm sorry, whose directive is to negotiate peace agreements. And that's Steve Witkoff, and now Jared Kushner is involved in that, and these are people that dedicate themselves 100 percent of the time to sort of negotiating peace agreements.
But obviously all of this happens to the dynamic, and primarily in my role as National Security Advisor is to coordinate the interagency, because none of these issues stand on their own. For example, Iran. You look at Iran as an example. Iran has a component that involves Treasury. It has a component that involves the Department of Energy. It has a component that involves the Department of State. It obviously has a component that involves the Department of War. It also involves the policy considerations of the White House.
And the job of the National Security Council, which I chair, is to coordinate all of these agencies to make sure that we're all pulling and pushing in the same direction and taking what the President is ordering and executing it. That's our job, and that will continue to be our job whether it's Russia-Ukraine, whether it's Iran, whether it's the Western Hemisphere, whether it's any part of the world.
QUESTION: What worries you the most?
SECRETARY RUBIO: What worries me the most about the world?
QUESTION: About all those conflicts I just brought up between Cuba, Ukraine, Iran, Hamas —
SECRETARY RUBIO: Yeah, I mean these are all very - these are all great challenges. And then there's the challenges that are unforeseen, that come up from time to time, that you try to get ahead of but you can't always do.
Look, the world remains what it is: a risky place. I think the world is going through a period of transition, and both economic transition and geopolitical transition. And I think - I don't know if it's a worry, but I think the one thing that we have to understand is that a lot of these problems that are going on in the world don't have simple answers and sometimes don't have perfect answers. Many times when it comes to foreign affairs and geopolitics, you're not choosing between a perfect answer and a bad answer; you're choosing between two less-than-ideal approaches, and you're trying to figure out which one of the two is least harmful to the interests of the United States.
So I don't know if it's a worry, but I think the one thing I always focus on every single day is we have to understand that we cannot just deal with the immediate - like, what's right in front of us. That has to be dealt with of course, but you also have to be thinking long term. What's the world going to look like in two years, five years, even 10 years from now? And there are things you have to do now to either prevent bad things from happening down the road, or to get ahead of those things before they happen.
And so I wouldn't call it a worry, but I would call it a focus of this administration is not simply to deal with what's right in front of us, but also to deal with what will be in front of us at some point in the future, and make sure that our national interests are being protected.
So in the case of, like, just a perfect example is this arrangement in Venezuela with the oil. Obviously it will have some short-term benefits, but it also ensures that the United States - not China, not Russia, not Iran - will have a position, a position that - with regards to the largest oil producer in our hemisphere as a hedge against a future conflict or crisis that maybe is unforeseen right now but could threaten our energy security long term.
QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, with all that on your mind I know you have a lot to do today. Thank you so much for your quality time, too. We appreciate it.
SECRETARY RUBIO: Of course. Thank you.
QUESTION: Go get 'em.
