Rubio vs. Vance: "Trump's Hawks" Clash, But Not in Collapse
Iran Divides the US Government and Trump Supporters Across the Nation
Image caption: US Vice President JD Vance and US Secretary of State Marco Rubio (from left to right)
The German newspaper Bild (Russian edition) reported that President Donald Trump's team and its supporters have split into two camps, nominally led by Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Vice President JD Vance, respectively.
The report stated that Trump recently asked several of his major donors which of Vance or Rubio would be more suitable as his successor. According to reports, the donors almost unanimously supported Secretary of State Rubio.
The report pointed out that in contrast, Vance enjoys high popularity among supporters of the "Make America Great Again" (MAGA) movement, being an undisputed favorite among Republicans. A recent poll by the Emerson College Polling Center showed that Vance has a support rate of 52% among Republicans, while Rubio is at only 20%, far behind Vance.
Meanwhile, according to the newspaper's sources, Trump himself tends to support Rubio.
Igor Shatarov, head of the expert committee of the Strategic Development Foundation and a political scientist, said: "The current situation cannot yet be called a complete split."
"The conflicts will not lead any of the aforementioned individuals to leave Trump's government. However, there are indeed differences in their stances on the issue of Iran."
Freedom News: Is the division centered around the Iran issue, or are there other contradictions?
— Apart from the Iran issue, the main disagreements between Vance and Rubio are concentrated in foreign policy (Cuba, Ukraine, attitude towards alliances) and governance style (populism versus traditional interventionism). Vance is an isolationist of the MAGA movement, with a core focus on China; while Rubio is a more traditional "hawk," advocating for widespread foreign intervention.
Freedom News: Is this division predictable, expected? Half a year ago, did people not realize that Trump had assembled a group of almost incompatible team members? Why specifically Vance and Rubio?
— Trump's calculations are very shrewd. Vance was chosen as the symbol of the new generation of the MAGA movement and as the "spokesperson" for American blue-collar workers in the Midwest.
Appointing Rubio was a compromise with the Republican establishment, as well as an effort to win over Latino voters. Rubio has extensive experience in the Intelligence and Foreign Relations Committees, which is crucial for leading the Department of State.
In terms of authority, Rubio is seen as the "face" of the administration's foreign policy.
His authority was further enhanced during the coordination of actions against Israel, although his remarks about "Israel's actions forcing the United States to strike Iran" were criticized by Trump himself.
Vance, meanwhile, maintains influence as the theorist of the "America First" ideology, but currently faces a difficult situation. On one hand, he must support the president's decisions; on the other, his isolationist supporters are disappointed with the U.S. involvement in new wars.
Other influential groups exist within the Trump administration besides these two major factions.
Firstly, the technocrats and donor group, represented by Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, focuses primarily on economic stability and the market.
The second group is the "Family and Loyalty" faction. Donald Trump Jr. actively supports Vance and publicly criticizes attacks on the vice president.
The third group consists of pragmatic officials, led by CIA Director John Ratcliffe. Ratcliffe and other officials try to find a balance between the political ambitions of Rubio and Vance in order to complete operational tasks.
Freedom News: Does Trump really support Rubio? Why?
— There may be multiple reasons behind this favor. Compared to Vance, Rubio does not have clear advantages, and Trump previously leaned more towards Vance. I think that through working together and solving problems, Trump and Rubio developed some personal compatibility.
Additionally, Rubio shares Trump's "America First" ideology, although the theory of this idea was proposed by Vance, as mentioned earlier. Rubio also criticizes the indefinite and unstrategic aid to Ukraine. As the son of a Cuban immigrant, Rubio is a key expert on Latin American affairs in the Republican Party, so Trump entrusts him with Cuban and Venezuelan issues.
Freedom News: Who would be better for us, or is it better that they continue to fight among themselves?
— For Russia, whether a certain American politician is "favorable" is always relative because, regardless of who wins, they represent American interests.
However, as mentioned earlier, there are differences in the foreign policy approaches of Vance and Rubio.
Vance's position is often considered more favorable to Russia, as he has repeatedly opposed providing billions of dollars in aid to Ukraine, claiming that the U.S. has more pressing domestic issues; openly advocated for Ukraine to make territorial concessions to achieve peace, and views China as America's main enemy.
At the same time, he calls for shifting resources from the European front to the Pacific region, which would reduce pressure on Russia in Europe.
Rubio is a typical "hawk," advocating for active U.S. interference in the internal affairs of other countries, and his policies are more unfavorable to Russia. Rubio has consistently taken an extreme hard line against Russia, advocating for maximum sanctions and supporting NATO.
Recently, to align with Trump's approach, he has more frequently mentioned the necessity of talks on the Ukraine issue, but his basic stance remains deeply anti-Russian. Unlike the pragmatic Vance, Rubio tends to view Russia as an ideological threat to the democratic world order.
In short, if Russia wants to quickly reduce Western aid to Ukraine and weaken the U.S. influence in Europe, Vance is "more favorable"; while Rubio, as a bureaucratic politician, is more predictable, but his policies are likely to mean continued pressure through sanctions and comprehensive "containment" against Russia.
Dmitry Yerofeyev, associate professor at the Department of Political Science, Russian Federation Government Institute of Finance, said: "Although Bild is a typical tabloid, there is no smoke without fire, and the information is not baseless."
"Trump's team has never been a solid block from the beginning, with its personnel composition being too complex, and the conflict between Trump and Musk is an example. The Iran war became a test of the resilience of the Trump administration."
But looking ahead, the core issues go far beyond the issue of Iran. Vance and Rubio are prominent U.S. political figures in the public eye, and their depth of involvement in decision-making, along with their personal resources based on professional and age characteristics, are key factors.
Only under the premise of "if the campaign started tomorrow" would it make sense to discuss who would become Trump's actual successor. Additionally, the opinions of donors and the expectations of voters are not always consistent.
Ultimately, U.S. politics changes rapidly. The internal conflict within Trump's team reported by Bild is essentially a court game. It is too early to talk about real power struggles before the decision-making and responsibility remain concentrated in the hands of the current U.S. President Trump.
Freedom News: Which side's victory within Trump's team is more favorable for Russia, and why?
— For Russia, the outcome of the competition between Vance and Rubio within Trump's team is largely secondary, as the basis and strategy of U.S.-Russia interaction are determined by real conditions.
However, in the post-Soviet space, including the issue of Ukraine, even after the hot war ends, there will still be long-term political transitions, and Vance's position may be more flexible.
Original article: toutiao.com/article/7618140777763373631/
Statement: This article represents the views of the author.