Sec. Marco Rubio: 'High Fidelity of Confidence' That Deported Individuals Are Known Criminals
Marco Rubio, the 72nd United States Secretary of State and former Senator from Florida, joined The Guy Benson Show to discuss why the U.S. is targeting Houthi militants in Yemen and why he believes it's in America's best interest. Sec. Rubio also explained why the war between Russia and Ukraine is closer to its conclusion than in years past under the Biden administration. Rubio responded to critics questioning whether a recent deportation flight of Venezuelans included gang members, emphasizing that all those deported were in the country illegally, and he also slammed district judges who attempted to block said flights, showing that they prioritize the rights of illegal criminals over everyday Americans. You can listen to the full interview below!
Listen to the full interview:
Watch the full interview:
Listen to the full podcast:
Read the full transcript below:
GUY BENSON, HOST, 'THE GUY BENSON SHOW': Well, it's my honor to welcome back to the show for the first time in his new capacity Marco Rubio, who is now the secretary of state of the United States of America, of course, a longtime U.S. senator from the great state of Florida.
Secretary Rubio, welcome back. It's great to have you here.
MARCO RUBIO, U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE: Thanks for having me on. It's good to be with you in this new role.
BENSON: I saw a report out of the Pentagon just minutes ago that day three of U.S. strikes against the Houthi terrorists in Yemen now under way.
I have seen some talk and chatter online from certain precincts wondering, why are we bombing Yemen? Is this in our vital national interest to be engaged in this? I think the answer is yes. Obviously, the president fully agrees and has issued these orders.
From the Trump administration, U.S. perspective, Secretary, why is this the correct course of action against the Houthis?
RUBIO: Well, first of all, it's wrong to think about it as we're bombing Yemen. We're bombing the Houthis. And they happen to be located in Yemen. They have taken control of parts of the territory of Yemen.
They claim to be the government, but they really aren't. It's basically a terrorist organization that over the last 18 months has attacked United States Naval vessels 174 times. So I would ask anyone who says what you just said, who raises that point, if we get attacked 174 times by any group in the world, what should our response to that be?
I ask anybody, if you get attacked, our Naval ships, 174 times, commercial vessels, all these things that people like to buy, whether you're ordering it on Amazon or buying it from a store or a product that you need, or maybe you're in a business that relies on these things for sales, they all come on cargo ships. They have been attacked 100 — close to 150 times in the last 18 months.
So what do you do with a group that attacks your Navy 174 times or this group that attacks commercial shipping 150 times? You just leave them there? You let them keep attacking? You go ahead and say, OK, well, I guess we just can't ship through there anymore because these guys are there?
No, I think the answer, everyone would say, is, you got to take them out. And that's what we're doing. We're going after their ability to attack our Navy ships and their ability to attack our commercial shipping, period. That's what we're doing. We're doing the world a favor by doing that, because it's not just our ships that they're attacking, but they're attacking us more than anybody else.
BENSON: Yes. No, I think it's clearly in our interest, but also the interests of the world and open trade and lowering costs of the goods that gets driven up if you have to ship around the Horn of Africa. So the reasons are plenty. And I'm glad that this is finally happening. I think it's really delayed from the Biden administration.
Now you guys are getting down to business and doing what should have been done a while ago. There's also a message here, not just indirectly, but, as of today, also directly from President Trump to the Iranian patrons of the Houthis. Talk about that message as well.
RUBIO: Well, the Houthis don't exist — I mean, first of all, the Houthis don't have the ability to do this without Iran helping them,OK? They don't — they don't — I mean, they have — they have learned how to make them, these drones and these sophisticated anti-ship drones. But this technology is coming from somewhere.
Iran is helping them. Iran is helping them make these things. Iran is providing them the money to do these things. Iran is providing them with targeting information that they can use against us. I mean, without Iran, there is no Houthi threat of this magnitude. I mean, there's a Houthi threat inside of Yemen, but not a Houthi threat against our Navy and against commercial shipping.
So, Iran owns this problem. And they created this Frankenstein monster. And now they got our own it. And I think we should hold them responsible. And that's — the president has said, if these guys keep doing this, we owe Iran responsible for having created it.
So I think that's the second point that I would make. I wouldn't go any further than what the president said today, but he's very serious about it. And I was — I was actually with him when he put that message out. He's very serious about it because he knows, unlike Joe Biden, that this is a group that was allowed to grow into the threat they become because the Biden administration didn't do anything about it.
BENSON: You have been intimately involved in trying to pursue President Trump's stated goal of ending Russia's war against Ukraine in a way that is sustainable.
It seems to me at least that the Ukrainians have taken a number of constructive steps now toward peace in a war where they have been victimized. You have got the aggressors, the Russians. They're willing to talk. I know you have had U.S. delegations sitting across from the Russians. There's a phone call coming up between President Trump and Putin as well.
Have you seen meaningful movement yet, to your satisfaction, from the Russian side of this?
RUBIO: Well, I don't think there's been movement to our satisfaction from anybody yet. I think what we have seen is that we're closer. We're not close to peace.
I mean, I think there's a lot to be worked on, but we're closer than we were two weeks ago. We're closer than we were six months ago. This war is going on three years. And the president wants it to end. I think everyone should agree that this war needs to end.
And the question is, how do you end it in a way that it doesn't restart again? So the plan basically was, can we get these guys to stop shooting at each other and sit down and have a negotiation over how to end it permanently? That's been the president's goal.
We got a good commitment from Ukraine last week in Saudi Arabia. I went there. I met with them. They agreed to stop shooting and freeze everything where it is, and we can get to talking about how to end this permanently. And now we got to get something like that from the Russians.
So there's been good meetings. Ambassador Steve Witkoff, the special envoy, met with Putin himself last week, had a productive meeting. It wasn't a waste of time, came back with some information. We will know more tomorrow after the president speaks to Putin, and hopefully we will be in a better place.
But I think the president needs to — President Trump needs to be applauded for trying to find peace. And, look, he's the only leader in the world right now that can do this. The Chinese can't do this, the Europeans. The only leader in the world right now that has any chance at all of bringing this thing to an end is President Trump.
And I think he needs to be applauded for even putting so much time and effort and dedicating so much attention to it.
BENSON: Here on the home front, Secretary Rubio, there's been a real point of emphasis from the Trump administration on protecting the American people from dangerous foreign gangs.
We have seen a lot of that infiltration over the course of a four-year border crisis that has finally been put to an end by President Trump. But there's still a lot of bad people here who came here illegally. And there's this process to remove a lot of them from the country. And that's causing, as you know, some controversy.
There was this deportation, a series of flights of alleged Tren de Aragua gang members, that a judge ordered those flights to basically turn around. And the administration said, nope, in international waters, out of U.S. airspace already, that doesn't apply. That might get fought out in courts and appealed further. I'd imagine that issue isn't over.
But some of those alleged Tren de Aragua gang members are now in prisons in El Salvador. I have seen some concern expressed that there is not concrete evidence that all of the people who were deported to those Salvadoran prisons are confirmed members of Tren de Aragua and there's no recourse if someone was incorrectly swept up, and that there's no due process for someone who might want to appeal that.
What's your response to that? Is that a legitimate concern?
RUBIO: Well, first of all, I would say that every single person that was on that plane was in the country illegally, one way or the other, in terms of the Venezuelans and the alleged — the Tren de Aragua guys.
So what was on that plane was MS-13, identified MS-13 criminals, wanted for crimes in El Salvador, where they came from. And when I met with President Bukele, he has a list of people he wants to put on trial in his country for committing crimes over there. And he's got a very safe and good prison system. So we sent them on that plane.
And then there were these people. Look, we have local intelligence authorities, police departments, FBI, others, that have spent now the better part of the year assembling a roster of known gang members, the people they know are part of Tren de Aragua. And so these people were part of that list.
Now, assuming — let's just assume, and I'm not saying this is the case, because I think there's high fidelity and confidence that in fact that's exactly what every single one of them was. But if one of them turns out not to be, then they're just illegally in our country, and the Salvadorans can then deport them from — to Venezuela, but they weren't supposed to be in our country to begin with.
They were here illegally. They were all here illegally with all the people that they're on that list. Important thing to note here is, we — our country was flooded with the — this is one of the most dangerous gangs. And I say gangs. It's really a terrorist organization. They have been designated as such.
I designated them terrorists, at the president's orders, and rightfully so. We have been asking for the stuff for over a year. This is one of the most dangerous groups that's ever been operating inside the United States of America, incredibly well-organized, violent, I mean, unbelievably violent.
When some of them were at the Guantanamo on their way to deportation, the military guards that were watching them were like, these are the worst people we have ever interacted with. It's a prison gang that broke out of Venezuela, flooded into our country, were flooded into our country by the Venezuelan regime.
And we got to get them out of our country. And they really should be going to Venezuela. Venezuela should be taking them, but they refuse to take them. And so we are fortunate to have a friend like President Bukele, who as part of my meeting with him said we will take them for a fraction of what it cost you guys to house them in your own prison system.
But these people need to be out of our country. These are people that are responsible for kidnappings, rapes, extortion, murders. And some of it — it is the single most dangerous — it's an enemy alien — an alien enemy group, I mean, that has infiltrated our country and is waging war on the United States of America.
And there's a lot of evidence that these groups were allowed to operate and grow by the regime in Venezuela, which I guarantee you has no problem pushing them towards the United States to undermine us here, because they don't them in their country doing these things.
So I think it was a great move by the president. And I think it was a very helpful thing that El Salvador did for us and President Bukele. And we're grateful to him for it. And, frankly, I feel like we should continue to do it.
BENSON: And the judge who said these had to stop and the administration saying, well, it actually doesn't apply, do you expect that to be appealed?
RUBIO: Oh, yes, it already has been appealed, and because, I mean, first of all, we're talking about an operation here that involves the Department of Defense, because these are alien enemies, and then been declared as such by the president.
Second, look, obviously, others will be more aware of sort of like where the planes were and the logistics of it, but I think there's a fundamental question to ask here, and that is, how can a judge sitting in Washington, D.C., have jurisdiction over three planes full of the criminals flying over the Gulf of America?
We have really gotten out of control here, where we have these judges, district judges anywhere in the country — you can find a district judge. All you have to do is go find a judge anywhere in America to issue these orders that apply nationally.
But when those orders touch on the president's right to set foreign policy, which is what this was in many ways, this is foreign policy, this is national security, you have got a big problem. You have got courts here that basically are completely out of control.
And can you imagine if those planes had turned around and come back? And you know what else is ironic to me? We have courts out there that had no problem, no problem with people being fired from the military, fired from their jobs for not getting vaccinated. They had no problem with that.
They had no problem with cities and counties and local governments telling churches, you cannot meet during the pandemic. You cannot exercise your religious liberties. But they will go bend over backwards to bring back and secure the alleged right of rapists and kidnappers and extortionists and dangerous enemies of the United States.
It's unbelievable to me, unbelievable.
BENSON: Yes, it's like kind of the Johnny-come-latelys as well on free speech, where they're trying to frame some of these deportations of Hamas supporters. They're saying, oh, well, this is punishing speech, when they have never seemed to have any interest in free speech for American citizens.
But, in this case, they're ignoring the criminal behavior of these people to try to turn it into a speech issue. I know that you have been on fire on that issue in the interviews that I have seen.
I do want to ask you. We only have a minute left together with you, Secretary Rubio. You just came back from Canada. You were up there for the G7 meetings. How was your reception in Canada, given the strains between our countries right now, the 51st state trolling, all of that? How did that go for you as a representative of the United States and the Trump administration?
RUBIO: Well, it went fine.
I mean, first of all, it was a G7 gathering, so it wasn't about the Canada issue. It just happened to be hosted by Canada in sort of a remote location or what have you. And, certainly, it came up. And I think, sometimes, it's dominating their news. And at the end of the day, it is what it is.
But, ultimately, I mean, we had a lot of other issues to talk about of great importance. I mean, we're aware of it. I mean, you — it dominates the Canadian news. It's like the only thing they talk about is this thing.
But, at the end of the day, when it comes to the trade piece of it, this is — ultimately, it's not about Canada, it's not about Mexico, it's not about the European Union. It's about everybody. The president rightfully states that the state of global trade is completely unfair to America, completely unfair.
So I get why all these countries are unhappy, because they got a great deal going on and they want to keep it going. The president says, no, we're going to reset the baseline, the baseline of trade, so that it's fair. Everyone, what you charge us, we're going to charge you. And then we can negotiate.
Countries that want to can negotiate with us on a one-on-one, bilateral basis, to see if we can come up with trade deals with them that are fair to both sides. But we have to negotiate from a new status quo. We can't negotiate from an old status — the existing status quo, which is completely — well, why would any of these countries negotiate with us new trade deals if the one they have now is unfair and benefits them?
Why would they give that up?
BENSON: Marco Rubio is the 72nd secretary of state of the United States of America. He's our guest here on 'The Guy Benson Show.'
Secretary Rubio, thank you so much for your time. We look forward to chatting again.
RUBIO: Absolutely. Thank you.
BENSON: That's Secretary Marco Rubio on 'The Guy Benson Show.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
38 minutes ago
- New York Post
Democrats are in the polling dumps — fighting America on this key demand
The Democratic Party has never been more unpopular — yet no Democrat seems to understand why. Some say they're not fighting President Donald Trump hard enough. Others say they aren't messaging their agenda well enough. In reality, they're fighting too hard for an agenda that Americans reject, with a central demand of welfare for all. Thirty-two years after President Bill Clinton promised to 'end welfare as we know it,' no idea unifies the Democratic Party more than the belief that welfare should be never-ending. This vision of government dependency spurred their most notable policies of recent years, and explains their intransigent opposition to Republican reforms. While some Democrats show an increasing willingness to compromise on other leftist priorities, such as biological men in women's sports, the party brooks no dissent on welfare — even though Americans want to fix the system's many failures. Consider the ongoing federal budget battle. House Republicans have put together a reconciliation bill that would slow the rate of Medicaid growth — from a projected 59.6% increase to 40% — over the next decade. Democrats oppose even that, including GOP attempts to end waste, fraud and abuse. Yet the latest federal data show that 22% of Medicaid payments and 12% of food-stamp payments went to ineligible recipients. More than 70% of likely voters want to protect taxpayers from fraud and abuse, polls show, yet Democrats essentially deny there's a problem that needs to be solved. In fact, when the Trump administration proposed a rule in March to end $11 billion in improper ObamaCare subsidies — aiming solely to curtail fraud — Democrats immediately opposed it. Democrats are just as adamant when it comes to work requirements for welfare recipients. My organization, the Foundation for Government Accountability, recently found that six in 10 able-bodied adults on Medicaid don't work at all, hoovering up resources that would benefit the truly vulnerable. When voters in purple Wisconsin were asked two years ago if welfare recipients should work as a condition of receiving benefits, nearly 80% said yes — but national Democrats now say no. They also reject Republican attempts to block Medicaid payments for illegal immigrants, which would save billions of dollars over the next decade. More than 70% of voters don't want illegal immigrants to receive government benefits, yet Democrats bizarrely disagree. But it's not just Congress; Democrats are striking the same strange tune in state capitols. Over the past 10 years, virtually all Republican-led states have taken steps to purge waste, fraud and abuse from welfare programs. By contrast, Democrat-run states have expanded illegal immigrants' access to Medicaid and pushed able-bodied adults onto welfare programs. In recent months, Democratic governors in Kansas and Arizona have vetoed Republican bills that would ban food-stamp purchases of soda and junk food — a reform that could lower state and federal Medicaid spending and encourage healthier choices. Democrats have a long history of supporting restrictions on consumers' options, but as soon as welfare enters the picture, they oppose it. Apparently limiting freedom is fine by them, but limiting federal welfare is unthinkable. The left's unwillingness to support even modest welfare reforms reflects the reality that government dependency is the biggest thing Democrats now offer Americans — even beyond limitless immigration and the Green New Deal. The Affordable Care Act, the central achievement of Barack Obama's presidency, dramatically expanded Medicaid while creating a new welfare system for the individual health-insurance market. Joe Biden enacted a work-destroying child tax credit and sought perpetual expansions of Medicaid and food stamps under the guise of pandemic relief. A slew of Biden regulations made it easier for people to abuse the taxpayer's generosity, from Medicaid to food stamps to free school lunches for rich kids. Democrats' end goal is clear: Get every American on the dole. Yet insisting that government dependency is always the answer means Democrats can't publicly admit that seemingly infinite welfare has any shortcomings. In fact, the left's agenda of welfare-for-all is profoundly harmful, and voters know it. Democrats have built a welfare system that taxpayers can't afford while pushing millions of people out of the workforce — a dual assault on the economic growth. They've left fewer resources for disabled children and the elderly by prioritizing able-bodied adults and illegal immigrants. And they're corrupting the foundational American belief that welfare is temporary assistance whose recipients should work to get back on their feet. No wonder Democrats are so unpopular: They're fleecing taxpayers, crippling the economy, hurting the truly needy and giving handouts to those who don't deserve them — none of which has Americans' support. The first Democrat who wakes up on welfare will be the hero their party desperately needs. Hayden Dublois is data and analytics director at the Foundation for Government Accountability.
Yahoo
41 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Smithsonian Goes to War With Trump Over His Attempt to Fire Staff
The Smithsonian has fired back at Donald Trump and declared itself a 'nonpartisan institution' after the president attempted to meddle in the operations of the prestigious research and museum complex. In a statement, the Smithsonian asserted its independence in a thinly veiled rebuttal of Trump's recent claim that he had fired Kim Sajet, director of the Smithsonian Institution's National Portrait Gallery. 'All personnel decisions are made by and subject to the direction of the Secretary, with oversight by the Board. Lonnie G. Bunch, the Secretary, has the support of the Board of Regents in his authority and management of the Smithsonian,' the statement said. 'Since its inception, the Smithsonian has set out to be a nonpartisan institution. As the nation's museum, the Smithsonian must be a welcoming place of knowledge and discovery for all Americans.' The Smithsonian, established by Congress in 1846, is not part of the executive branch and has operated as an independent entity for nearly 180 years. Among its treasured exhibits are the Space Shuttle Discovery and the original 'Star-Spangled Banner.' It is governed by a Board of Regents, with Bunch overseeing day-to-day management of its vast network of museums and the National Zoo. On May 30, Trump declared that he had fired Sajet, accusing her of being a 'partisan person and a strong supporter of DEI [Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion], which is totally inappropriate for her position.' Whether Trump has any legal authority to fire someone from an independent cultural institution is questionable. Sajet and the National Portrait Gallery have so far ignored the president's order, with Sajet continuing her work as usual, The Washington Post reported. The Board of Regents has also directed Bunch to 'articulate specific expectations' to museum directors and staff regarding content displayed in Smithsonian museums, allowing time to ensure all exhibits remain 'unbiased.' 'The Board of Regents will continue its vigilant, independent oversight of the Smithsonian and its museums to protect their rigorous scholarship and expertise, nonpartisanship, and accuracy, and ensure that the Smithsonian is welcoming to all Americans,' the statement added. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment from the Daily Beast. Before targeting Sajet, Trump signed an executive order in March directing the Smithsonian to stop presenting U.S. history as 'inherently racist, sexist, oppressive, or otherwise irredeemably flawed.' Trump's attempt to assert control over the Smithsonian is the latest example of the president trying to impose his will on, and extend MAGA influence over, Washington's cultural institutions. The Trump administration has already overhauled the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, with Trump installing himself as chairman and replacing waves of board members and other top roles. In February, Trump vowed on Truth Social that there would be 'NO MORE DRAG SHOWS, OR OTHER ANTI-AMERICAN PROPAGANDA' at the Kennedy Center. Since Trump's takeover, the Kennedy Center has seen plummeting ticket sales and a wave of artist boycotts.
Boston Globe
41 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Trump hails limited trade agreement with China after talks in London
Advertisement Less than two weeks after accusing China of violating a trade-war truce, Trump on Wednesday had nothing but praise for the Chinese leader. 'President Xi and I are going to work closely together to open up China to American Trade. This would be a great WIN for both countries!!!' the president wrote in a second Truth Social post. Under the renewed truce, the United States will impose a 55 percent tariff on Chinese goods, and China will hit American products with a 10 percent import tax, the president said. Those are both higher rates than before Trump took office, but lower than the triple-digit tariff levels that each nation imposed this spring. US and Chinese negotiators agreed late Tuesday to try again to implement the trade-war truce that collapsed amid recriminations on both sides just weeks after it was reached during an earlier round of talks in Geneva. Advertisement Speaking near midnight in London, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick announced what he called a 'handshake' deal to put into effect the terms of the May 12 US-China agreement that called for both nations to lower their tariffs and take additional steps to facilitate trade. 'We have reached a framework to implement the Geneva consensus and the call between the two presidents,' Lutnick told reporters, referring to a June 5 telephone conversation between Trump and Xi. 'I think it's really beneficial to the United States of America. It's very beneficial to the Chinese and the China economy.' Negotiators released no text of either the London framework or the earlier Geneva accord to de-escalate the US-China trade war. But Lutnick said both nations would remove new trade barriers they had erected as the truce broke down. That means China is expected to permit an increased flow of critical materials known as 'rare earths' for auto and defense production. As those shipments increase, the United States will lift measures that it imposed recently 'in a balanced way,' Lutnick said. 'We do absolutely expect that the topic of rare-earth minerals and magnets, with respect to the United States of America, will be resolved in this framework implementation,' Lutnick said. He did not specify which US measures would be lifted in response. But his department has implemented a number of restrictions on exports to China of aerospace technology and advanced semiconductor equipment, which Chinese officials urgently want removed. Lutnick described the diplomatic breakthrough as the first step toward expanding US-China trade, which topped $580 billion last year. The United States buys more than three times as much from China as Chinese customers buy from Americans, a trade deficit that the president has inveighed against for years as a measure of industrial decline. Advertisement 'We have an existing, significant trade deficit, and President Trump's fundamental goal is to reduce the trade deficit and increase trade. So this was the first step of the framework by which we will then approach and discuss growing trade . But first we had to sort of get the negativity out," Lutnick said. Briefing reporters outside Lancaster House, the 19th-century mansion in London's West End that hosted two days of talks, Lutnick credited the involvement of both presidents with producing quick results. 'You have to get things done if you're working for President Trump. I'm sure they felt they had to get it done because they were working for President Xi,' he said. The US delegation also included Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer. Bessent left the talks a few hours early to return to Washington in time to appear before Congress on Wednesday. The Chinese team was led by Vice Premier He Lifeng, a close associate of Xi. In China, Li Chenggang, China's vice commerce minister, said the talks were 'professional, rational, in-depth and candid,' according to Chinese state media, and Beijing hopes the discussions will 'be conducive to increasing trust between China and the United States.' Yao Yang, an economist at Peking University, said the fact that Beijing and Washington engaged in negotiations amid bitter trade tensions is positive. 'The Chinese government's stance has always been, if you want to fight, we are going to take it. But the purpose of fighting is not just for the sake of fighting, it is to prepare for negotiation or to bring the other side to the negotiation table,' he said. Advertisement Yet even as the latest attempt to put US-China relations on a sound footing moved forward, Greer nodded to the long list of issues that divide the two sides. The Trump administration has complained about Chinese policies that fuel what it sees as excess production of manufactured goods, which depress global prices and hurt American factory workers. 'There are some things that the Chinese and US economies, they just don't fit together very well. Other things, maybe they do. And there'll be a time for broader conversations on that,' he said. The 90-day pause on triple-digit tariffs that amounted to a de facto US-China trade embargo expires Aug. 12. In response to a question about prospects for an extension, Greer said that would be up to the president. Further talks are expected, though no date has been agreed to yet. The Trump administration notched a legal win Tuesday when a federal appeals court ruled that many of the tariffs the president imposed on China can remain while the government appeals a lower-court ruling that found they were illegal. The Court of International Trade, a little-known specialized court in New York, ruled last month that Trump exceeded his authority by invoking emergency powers to impose tariffs on imports from China and other nations. The Trump administration quickly appealed and the appeals court temporarily paused the lower court's decision. On Tuesday, it said that pause could stay in place while the appeal was decided. Advertisement 'The court also concludes that these cases present issues of exceptional importance warranting expedited en banc consideration of the merits in the first instance,' the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said Tuesday. The appeals court said it would expedite the issue and hear arguments July 31.
