A 2028 Rubio rivalry? Nothing to see here, says JD Vance
WASHINGTON − A rivalry between potential 2028 competitors Marco Rubio and JD Vance? The vice president says it doesn't exist.
In an interview in Fox News, Vance laughed off reports President Donald Trump is stoking tension between them.
"Not all," Vance said. "Marco's probably my best friend in the administration. We hang out and talk all the time. He's doing a really good job."
Marco's moment: Rubio in the hot seat amid Trump team shakeup
Trump is term limited and has named both men as potential successors. Vance edged out Rubio for vice president, but Trump gave Rubio a spot in his Cabinet as secretary of state.
Trump recently handed Rubio more responsibility, making him interim national security adviser after the ouster of Michael Waltz. The appointment showed a growing trust in the former Florida senator, who ran against Trump for president in 2016.
In interviews since he resumed office, Trump has declined to put his thumb on the scale for Vance, a former Ohio senator who served alongside Rubio for two years on Capitol Hill before Trump's 2024 victory and Rubio's ascention to the cabinet.
In an NBC interview that aired on May 4, the president namechecked them both as he spoke about the future of MAGA.
"You look at Marco, you look at JD Vance, who's fantastic," Trump said. "I could name 10, 15, 20 people right now just sitting here."
Trump's MAGA Translator: VP JD Vance gains clout with Trump and MAGA with bombshell moments
Vance brushed off the comments in the Fox interview, as he's done in the past when Trump's non-endorsement has come up.
"The president's not going to name a successor 110 days into his administration, nor should he," Vance said.
He added: "I can see myself doing a really good job for the next 1,100 days, and then the American people can figure it out from there."
This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: A rivalry with Rubio? Not at all, says possible 2028 competitor Vance
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
13 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Wall Street futures slip after Trump's steel, aluminum tariff threats
(Reuters) -U.S. stock index futures dipped on Monday after President Donald Trump announced plans to double tariffs on imported steel and aluminum, amplifying concerns about trade- and tariff-related volatility. Trump said on late Friday he planned to increase tariffs on imported steel and aluminum to 50% from 25% starting Wednesday, just hours after he accused China of violating an agreement. The increased levies would deepen Trump's global trade war and douses some enthusiasm stemming from a softening in his trade stance. Last month, a temporary relief on some levies on China and a rollback of steep tariff threats on the European Union, along with strong earnings and improving economic data helped the benchmark S&P 500 log its best monthly performance in 18 months. Shares of U.S. Steel companies rose in premarket trading, with Cleveland-Cliffs jumping 26.2%, Nucor up 14.1% and Steel Dynamics 13.4% higher. "It is really hard to keep up or predict what's going to happen on trade at the moment, and that's before we factor in the full ramifications from the court ruling last Thursday night, and then subsequent brief stay of execution for them on appeal," Jim Reid, global head of macro and thematic research at Deutsche Bank, said in a note. A federal appeals court on Thursday temporarily reinstated most of Trump's 'Liberation Day' tariffs blocked by the Court of International Trade, the day prior. "For now, it seems likely that the tariff uncertainty will linger for a long time ahead even if we're still likely past the peak aggressiveness of U.S. policy," Reid said. At 5:22 a.m. ET, Dow E-minis were down 218 points, or 0.52%, S&P 500 E-minis were down 34 points, or 0.57%. Nasdaq 100 E-minis were down 156.5 points, or 0.73% Most megacap and growth stocks were down, with Tesla leading losses after it reported lower monthly sales in Portugal, Denmark and Sweden. The stock was last down 2%. Focus would be on comments from Fed Chair Jerome Powell later in the day as he presents opening remarks before the Federal Reserve Board International Finance Division's 75th anniversary conference at 1:00 p.m. ET (1700 GMT). Federal Reserve Governor Christopher Waller said on Monday that interest rate cuts remain possible later this year even with the Trump administration's tariffs likely to push up price pressures temporarily. On the data front, a reading of S&P Global U.S. manufacturing PMI is due at 9:45 a.m. ET and an ISM Manufacturing index reading is scheduled for 10:00 a.m. ET. Ahead in the week, investors await a crucial nonfarm-payrolls report due on Friday to ascertain strength in the U.S. economy amid tariff volatility. Among other stocks, Moderna rose 4.6% after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved its next-generation COVID-19 vaccine for everyone aged 65 and above. Separately, RBC Capital Markets raised its year-end target for the S&P 500 index to 5,730 from 5,550, citing modestly improved U.S. economic outlook and stronger-than-expected corporate earnings.
Chicago Tribune
21 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
Ashley Nunes: Outrage over President Donald Trump's electric vehicle policies is misplaced
Electric car subsidies are heading for the chopping block. A tax bill recently passed by House Republicans is set to stop billions in taxpayer cash from being spent on electric vehicle purchases. If embraced by the Senate and signed into law by President Donald Trump, the bill would gut long-standing government handouts for going electric. The move comes on the heels of another climate policy embraced by Republicans. Earlier this year, Trump announced plans to roll back burdensome rules that effectively force American consumers to buy electric, rather than gas-fueled, cars. The Environmental Protection Agency has called that move the 'biggest deregulatory action in U.S. history.' Not everyone sees it that way. Jason Rylander, legal director at the Center for Biological Diversity's Climate Law Institute, assailed Trump's efforts, noting that his 'administration's ignorance is trumped only by its malice toward the planet.' Other similarly aligned groups have voiced similar sentiments arguing that ending these rules would 'cost consumers more, because clean energy and cleaner cars are cheaper than sticking with the fossil fuels status quo.' Backtracking on EV purchasing mandates seems to have hit Trump haters particularly hard. That mandate — established by President Joe Biden — would have pushed U.S. automakers to sell more EVs. Millions more. Electric cars currently account for 8% of new auto sales. Biden ordered — by presidential fiat — that figure to climb to 35% by 2032. If you believe the hype, the result would be an electric nirvana, one defined by cleaner air and rampant job creation. I'm not convinced. For one thing, cleaner air courtesy of electrification requires that EVs replace gas-powered autos. They're not. In fact, study after study suggests that the purchase of EVs adds to the number of cars in a household. And two-thirds of households with an EV have another non-EV that is driven more. Hardly a recipe for climate success given that EVs must be driven — a lot — to deliver climate benefits. Fewer miles driven in an EV also challenges the economic efficiency of the billions Washington spends annually to subsidize their purchase. Claims of job creation thanks to EVs are even more questionable. These claims are predicated around notions of aggressive consumer demand that drives increased EV manufacturing. This in turn creates jobs. A recent Princeton University study noted, 'Announced manufacturing capacity additions and expansions would nearly double US capacity to produce electric vehicles by 2030 and are well sized to meet expected demand for made-in-USA vehicles.' Jobs would be created if there were demand for EVs. Except that's not what's happening. Rather, consumer interest in EVs has effectively cratered. In 2024, 1.3 million EVs were sold in the United States, up from 1.2 million in 2023. This paltry increase is even more worrying given drastic price cuts seen in the EV market in 2024. Tesla knocked thousands of dollars off its best-selling Model 3 and Model Y. Ford followed suit by cutting prices on its Mach-e. So did Volkswagen and Hyundai. Despite deep discounts, consumer interest in electrification remains — to put it mildly — tepid at best. So, when people equate electrification with robust job creation, I'm left wondering what they are going on about. Even if jobs were created, EV advocates are coy about how many of those jobs would benefit existing autoworkers. Would all these workers — currently spread across large swaths of the Midwest — be guaranteed jobs on an EV assembly line? If not, how many workers should expect to receive pink slips? For those who do, will they be able to find new jobs that pay as much as their old ones? Touting job creation for political expediency is one thing. Fully recognizing its impact on hardworking American families today, another. Some Americans may decry Trump's actions on climate, but they have only themselves to blame. Many of the pro-climate policies enacted, particularly during the Biden era, deliver little in the way of climate benefits (or any benefit for that matter) while making a mockery of the real economic concerns businesses and consumers have about climate action. No more. In justifying climate rollbacks, the president says many of his predecessor's policies have hurt rather than helped the American people. He's right and should be commended for doing something about it. Ashley Nunes is a senior research associate at Harvard Law School.
Chicago Tribune
23 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
Forrest Claypool: Can bond vigilantes save Chicago?
What if Chicago government tried to issue more debt to pay for unaffordable budgets, but no one bought the city's bonds? Far-fetched as it sounds, it's not inconceivable. In fact, economist Ed Yardeni coined the term 'bond vigilantes' to describe investors who sell or refuse to buy bonds to force governments to abandon irresponsible fiscal practices. Responding to a preliminary U.S. House budget adding trillions to the national debt, bond vigilantes recently withheld purchases at a routine auction of U.S. Treasury notes, forcing yields to the highest levels in 18 years. Investors demanded a risk premium against inflationary spending. When the House passed the final budget, it added hundreds of billions in spending cuts. When President Donald Trump paused his tariffs for 90 days, he blamed 'yippy' bond investors who had reacted by jacking up interest rates and sending the dollar lower. James Carville, a former adviser to President Bill Clinton, famously quipped that he wanted to be reincarnated as the bond market because 'you can intimidate anybody.' If bond vigilantes can alter the policies of the federal government, can they force Chicago to face up to its unsustainable debt practices? Each Chicago family is responsible for $85,000 in public debt, roughly half each from the city and state. No other city resident's debt burden comes close. More than 43% of Chicago's budget is consumed by debt service and pension payments, by far the highest in the nation. (The median nationally is 12%.) And pension debt is accelerating, rising $24 billion in the last decade even as taxpayers poured an extraordinary $20 billion into the city's five funds. By increasing pension benefits during a 20-year period when household incomes barely doubled, the Illinois legislature sent Chicago down a path to eventual financial ruin. Pension and debt payments consume nearly every dollar from property taxes — levies that are among the highest of American cities. Property taxes are so high that they have become the third rail of local politics. When Mayor Brandon Johnson tried to raise them, the City Council rebelled. Instead, the city simply borrowed more money. Escalating debt payments have forced reductions in police positions despite elevated violent crime. Businesses and taxpayers have left in droves, further reducing the city's ability to keep up. Annual migration reports from Allied Van Lines and Zillow consistently show the Chicago area as a national leader in departures. 'The word bankruptcy has been hanging over Chicago like a storm cloud about to burst,' bankruptcy expert Andrew Biggs wrote in The New York Times. Biggs is a presidential overseer of Puerto Rico's bankruptcy. Chicago Public Schools is the canary in the coal mine. Its exorbitant debt is junk-rated, the poorest credit rating among major U.S. school districts. Yet CPS has increased staffing 20% since 2019 while losing 10% of its students. It recently inked an irresponsible four-year teacher contract that adds $1.5 billion in expenses with no apparent means to fund the contract's last three years. Average Chicago teacher salaries will reach $114,000, the highest in the nation. The Civic Federation, a fiscal watchdog, warned the state may have to take over the school district, despite its own massive debt and multibillion-dollar budget shortfalls. Although Illinois law does not provide for municipal bankruptcy, it can't prevent one from occurring. Biggs warns bondholders that bankruptcy courts in places such as Detroit have prioritized pensioners, leaving bond investors at risk of losing most or all of their investments. With Chicago and CPS unable to keep up with soaring pension costs, and cowardly state and local leaders with their heads rooted firmly in the sand, bond vigilantes could be the city's last best hope, forcing a crisis that demands a restructuring of debts, protecting ordinary retirees but capping the runaway six-figure pensions benefiting the political class. Absent a forced crisis, Chicago may follow the path of many other once-great cities, cutting services and raising taxes each year and slowly bleeding residents and jobs. On May 10, 1981, the Tribune warned that Chicago risked such a fate, calling it a 'city on the brink.' Reporter R.C. Longworth wrote: 'Often, cities stricken in this way become irrelevant. Business moves away. So do the best young people. The population ages. The city becomes a backwater.' A multidecade revival, largely led by the 22-year mayoralty of Richard M. Daley, prevented the city from such a fate. Now, however, Chicago stands on the brink again. But no political savior waits on the sideline. If the economy enters a recession, a reckoning could come sooner than later. For five years, Chicago and CPS have helped cover deficits with billions of dollars from the pandemic bailout issued by President Joe Biden's administration. The money runs out next year. Will bond vigilantes be the force that saves Chicago from the city and state politicians unwilling to restore fiscal sanity? Forrest Claypool is author of 'The Daley Show: Inside the Transformative Reign of Chicago's Richard M. Daley.' He served twice as Daley's chief of staff and was CEO of Chicago Public Schools from 2015 to 2017.
