Report: Possible GOP 2028 presidential contenders
'Marco Rubio made a big impression here - and a lot of friends,' a well-connected Republican strategist in Iowa told the Daily Mail. 'People warmed to him, he's very likeable. He was humble, thoughtful and did pretty damn well. People remember him. Vance has been here one or two times, I think.' The prospect of a 2028 run-off between Vice President JD Vance and Rubio is a rumor that refuses to go away, despite Rubio's own efforts to dismiss it.
He recently told Lara Trump on Fox News that he wants to remain Secretary of State through January 2028 and 'would be satisfied with that as the apex of my career.' Vance 'would be a great nominee,' he said. 'He's a close friend and I hope he intends to do it.' The persistent talking up of Rubio as a potential nominee is fueled partly by widespread praise for the role he has played in Trump's administration.
In addition to Secretary of State, he held down three other posts. He has even been described as the 'new Kissinger.' This week, CNN analyst Eric Bradner reported that Rubio was polling particularly well in Iowa, and that he was 'surprised' how often his name came up there. Ultimately, insiders who spoke to the Daily Mail agree there would be no path for Rubio unless Vance decided he didn't want the nomination.
Even in Iowa, Vance is a prohibitive favorite and would win any contest, they say. 'Vance has name ID off the charts,' said the Iowa Republican strategist. 'He'd have the imprimatur of a sitting president, and he'd have the MAGA mantle. 'Vance is truly connected and has an extremely important role with the MAGA base.'
The strategist said Vance would have 'a big head start' against any challenger, should he choose to run. Still, Vance's biggest threat could be a newcomer not yet on anyone's radar. 'It could be someone like Marco Rubio was eight years ago,' the insider continued. 'A new senator or governor throwing their hat into the ring simply to become better known.'
A Republican strategist in Washington agreed and said there would be no need for Trump to weigh in on the matter. 'I think JD Vance is the nominee 100 percent,' he said. 'He's an incredibly gifted political athlete. Marco Rubio is a great guy as well, but JD Vance is the vice president, he's going to be the party's nominee. The vice president's the nominee, that's how it goes.'
The source said voters would see more of Vance on the road in the run-up to next year's midterm elections. 'They'll really realize that he's an incredibly gifted individual. He happens to be a great guy as well, so, on a retail level, he's incredibly charming.' However, there could be a third possibility in 2028, according to some, with Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem being a name that comes up.
On Tuesday, Trump again declined to explicitly declare Vance his successor, but said he was 'most likely' to take over. 'In all fairness, he's the vice president,' Trump said. 'I think Marco is also somebody that maybe would get together with JD in some form.' That raised the possibility of a potential Vance-Rubio ticket.
But, Trump added, 'I also think we have incredible people, some of the people on the stage right here.' One of those people was Noem, who is thought to have higher political ambitions. She is a former member of Congress and a former governor of South Dakota.
'She's now, arguably, the most qualified person to be president,' said pollster Frank Luntz. 'She's done the issues that people care about in a way that Republican primary voters will appreciate. 'She's got a perfect resume and she communicates the Trump philosophy with a Midwestern sensibility, and that's perfect in states like Iowa.'
But Luntz said Vance had one of the best vice presidential debate performances of any candidate in modern times, in which he 'destroyed' Kamala Harris' running mate, Tim Walz, during the 2024 campaign. According to focus groups conducted by Luntz, that performance made Vance a 'major player'.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
a few seconds ago
- The Independent
The hard work on a peace deal has only just begun
Despite the excitement about the first US-Russia summit since 2021 – and the first between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin for seven years – the meeting in Alaska was never going to produce a 'deal' in the sense of a detailed treaty addressing claims of sovereignty, borders, security guarantees, prisoners, kidnapped civilians, mineral rights and much else. That will, eventually, be required to secure something like sustainable peace in the region, albeit with the constant and well-founded suspicion that Putin is less than a man of his word – even if it is given to President Trump. As Volodymyr Zelensky has said on occasion, 'All wars end with negotiations. It's not the soldiers in the trenches who decide when.' If Ukraine is not to be allowed into the negotiations, there can be no deal and no peace, even if a ceasefire holds. The exclusion of President Zelensky from participating at this early stage is perhaps intended, at least on the part of President Trump, as a way to get the process moving. For Putin, it is more calculated – highlighting the superiority of his position, as leader of a superpower supposedly co-equal to the United States, over that of the president of Ukraine. Partly for reasons to do with his own imperialist ideology, and partly for tactical purposes, Putin doesn't accept that Ukraine has a right to exist as an independent democratic nation. Also, he cynically disputes Mr Zelensky's position as Ukraine's president, because his term of office has expired and there have been no new elections. This, of course, is because no free elections can be held in Ukrainian territory occupied by Putin's forces, and a state of martial law currently prevails. For a change – and with some useful pressure being applied by Ukraine's European allies – Mr Trump doesn't agree with the Russians on this, and wants bilateral (or trilateral) talks to include Mr Zelensky, and quickly. The US president tacitly acknowledges that even he, self-declared master of the art of the deal, can't confidently redraw the borders of, say, the Kherson oblast, much less find Mariupol on a map, and that his officials shouldn't have to do so as proxies for the Ukrainian government. Mr Zelensky and his team will have to be involved. President Zelensky is right to demand a seat at the table, and he is also right to say that no final deal can be agreed without a referendum, as is required by the constitution of Ukraine. It is not for him to sign away millions of his citizens to a foreign power. How such a vote could be conducted in occupied territory, or whether it would only apply to 'free Ukraine', is just one of the major details that will need to be settled before this war can be declared over. As many governments have found before – including the British government during Brexit – it is axiomatic in treaty-making that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. This is also a moment for political imagination and diplomatic innovation. If Ukraine agrees not to join the EU or Nato, could it have some kind of associate status? How could the presence of private and federal US personnel in the rare-earth and minerals mining areas help to maintain order? More radical proposals could also be tabled. If neither the US nor Europe is prepared to back Ukraine unconditionally, then some unpalatable options must be contemplated. Successive British prime ministers, for example, had the attitude that 'Ukraine can win, Ukraine must win, Ukraine will win.' That mantra is not heard now. So other alternatives – and this, shamefully, does mean appeasement – have to be explored. The eastern provinces of Ukraine, in certain circumstances, might not have to be returned to Ukraine or absorbed into the Russian Federation if a different status as a neutral 'buffer' region could be established. The Donbas and other areas would be controlled neither by Moscow nor by Kyiv, demilitarised, and 'Finlandised', in the way that Finland was during the Cold War and until last year. Citizens might be free to choose their citizenship, or opt for both, and the various cultures, religions and language rights would be respected. In quieter times, the peoples there could be asked in an internationally supervised referendum whether they wished to join Ukraine, or Russia, or to stay independent. That would surely be preferable to simply freezing the border along the present front line. The histories of Korea since 1950, and Cyprus since 1974, shows how unstable, if long-lived, such a non-solution can turn out to be. Both Ukraine and Russia feel that their security is threatened in some way – whether sincerely or not, and whether or not the notion is justified – and the wider international community will have to be involved in providing what Sir Keir Starmer calls a 'reassurance force' in Ukraine. President Trump, an avowed 'America First' isolationist, is allergic to joining such a force – but if 'his' deal is ever going to stick, it is difficult to see how it can do so without the United States offering some kind of pledge to Ukraine to defend any new de facto, or de jure, frontiers with Russia. Sadly, the 'coalition of the willing' assembled by Sir Keir and Emmanuel Macron seems to be more like an alliance of the unwilling when it comes to fighting for Ukraine. Europe also wants a seat at the top table, but past proposals brokered by France and Germany have proved unsuccessful. If Europe wants to have a say in any settlement, it will need to earn it through military and economic commitment. Indeed, it will be essential, given America's express desire to wind down its presence on the continent and its role in Nato. A quadrilateral structure for a long period of detailed peace-conference work, in some suitable neutral location, should comprise teams from Ukraine, Russia and the US along with a joint European presence. The real hard work on the peace deal has only just begun. As someone once put it, the Ukrainian peace process is, at best, only at the 'end of the beginning' stage.
The Independent
a few seconds ago
- The Independent
Bad diets, too many meds, no exercise: A look inside the latest 'Make America Healthy Again' report
A report that U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has promised will improve the health of America's children does not call on the government to make significant changes to its food or farming policies, according to a draft document obtained by The Associated Press. The 'Make America Healthy Again' strategy report is supposed to be one of Kennedy's signature achievements as the nation's health secretary, giving the government a roadmap to help its citizens lose weight, reduce chronic diseases and exercise more. Before coming to Washington, Kennedy had spent much of his career decrying the harms of chemicals sprayed on crops, prescription drugs, ultraprocessed foods, and vaccines. His coalition, then, has expected him to take bold action as the nation's top health leader. But a draft of the so-called 'MAHA' report, first reported by The New York Times Thursday night, mostly calls on the government to further study chronic diseases, bad air quality, Americans' diets and prescription drug use. The report lays out four problem areas – poor diet, chemical exposure, lack of physical activity and overuse of medications -- that are to blame for chronic diseases in the U.S. The White House has held off on publicly releasing the report, which was submitted to President Donald Trump on Tuesday. The latest report is the policy companion to a 'MAHA' report released in May, which was found to have several errors in it. White House spokesman Kush Desai refused to confirm whether the copy obtained by the Associated Press was a final version, though HHS officials have insisted the report has been finalized since Tuesday. 'President Trump pledged to Make America Healthy Again, and the Administration is committed to delivering on that pledge with Gold Standard Science,' Desai said. 'Until officially released by the White House and MAHA Commission, however, any documents purporting to be the second MAHA Report should be considered as nothing more than speculative literature.' Some in the agricultural industry had warily anticipated the report, fearing it would call for bans or investigations into the use of pesticides and herbicides that farmers in the U.S. regularly spray on crops to control weeds and enhance yields. Other farmers were concerned about how the report may target the use of corn syrup, a common sweetener, in American foods. Both products have been a central talking point in Kennedy's 'MAHA' movement, which has attracted a diverse coalition of suburban and rural moms, Trump supporters and liberals concerned about the nation's food supply. Instead, the report calls for an 'awareness' campaign to raise confidence in pesticides. Concerns from the agricultural industry waned as the report hit the president's desk, with one of Kennedy's closest advisers, Calley Means, calling for MAHA supporters to work with major farm companies on Tuesday. Means also acknowledged that the 'pace of political change' can be frustrating. 'We need to build bridges,' Means said, adding that: 'We are not going to win if the soybean farmers and the corn growers are our enemy.' Means did not respond to a request for comment on Friday. A spokesman for Kennedy also declined to comment. The report urges the National Institutes of Health – which is facing a 40% cut to its budget under the Trump administration – to undertake several studies on Americans' health, including research on vaccine injury, autism, air quality, water quality, prescription drugs, and nutrition. The report also calls for changes to the foods served in schools and hospitals, something that will be hard to deliver with the Trump administration's funding cuts, said Kari Hamerschlag, the deputy director of the food and agriculture at the nonprofit Friends of the Earth. Earlier this year, the Republican-led administration wiped out $1 billion set aside that helped food banks and schools procure food directly from local farmers. 'This is not going to transform our food and farming system,' Hamerschlag said. 'This is not going to make people healthier. They need to put resources behind their recommendations.'
The Independent
a few seconds ago
- The Independent
The US plans to build a $750M fly factory in Texas to stop a flesh-eating cattle parasite
The U.S. plans to build a $750 million factory in southern Texas to breed billions of sterile flies, ramping up its efforts to keep flesh-eating maggots in Mexico from crossing the border and damaging the American cattle industry. Secretary Brooke Rollins announced Friday that the U.S. Department of Agriculture hopes to be producing and releasing sterile male New World screwworm flies into the wild within a year from the new factory on Moore Air Base outside Edinburg, Texas, about 20 miles (32 kilometers) from the border. She also said the USDA plans to deploy $100 million in technology, such as fly traps and lures, and step up border patrols by 'tick riders' mounted on horseback and train dogs to sniff out the parasite. In addition, Rollins said the U.S. border will remain closed to cattle, horse and bison imports from Mexico until the U.S. sees that the pest is being pushed back south toward Panama, where the fly had been contained through late last year through the breeding of sterile flies there. The U.S. has closed its border to those imports three times in the past eight months, the last in July, following a report of an infestation about 370 miles (595 kilometers) from the Texas border. American officials worry that if the fly reaches Texas, its flesh-eating maggots could cause billions of dollars in economic losses and cause already record retail beef prices to rise even more, fueling greater inflation. The parasite also can infest wildlife, household pets and, occasionally, humans. 'Farm security is national security,' Rollins said during a news conference at the Texas State Capitol in Austin with Texas Gov. Greg Abbott. 'All Americans should be concerned. But it's certainly Texas and our border and livestock producing states that are on the front lines of this every day.' The pest was a problem for the American cattle industry for decades until the U.S. largely eradicated it in the 1970s by breeding and releasing sterile male flies to breed with wild females. It shut down fly factories on U.S. soil afterward. The Mexican cattle industry has been hit hard by infestations and the U.S. closing its border to imports. Mexico's Agriculture ministry said in a statement Friday that Mexico Agriculture and Rural Development Secretary Julio Berdegué Sacristán and Rollins signed a screwworm control action plan. It includes monitoring with fly-attracting traps and establishing that livestock can only be moved within Mexico through government-certified corrals, the statement said. And on the X social media platform, Berdegué said, 'We will continue with conversations that lead to actions that will permit the reopening of livestock exports." The new fly-breeding factory in Texas would be the first on U.S. soil in decades and represents a ramping up of the USDA's spending on breeding and releasing sterile New World screwworm flies. The sterile males are released in large enough numbers that wild females can't help but mate with them, producing sterile eggs that don't hatch. Eventually, the wild fly population shrinks away because females mate only once in their weekslong lives. In June, Rollins announced a plan to convert an existing factory for breeding fruit flies into one for breeding sterile New World Screwworm flies, as well as a plan to build a site, also on the air base near Edinburg, for gathering flies imported from Panama and releasing them from small aircraft. Those projects are expected to cost a total of $29.5 million. The Panama fly factory can breed up to 117 million flies a week, and the new Mexican fly factory is expected to produce up to 100 million more a week. Rollins said the new Texas factory would produce up to 300 million a week. She said President Donald Trump's administration wants to end the U.S. reliance on fly breeding in Mexico and Panama. 'It's a tactical move that ensures we are prepared and not just reactive, which is today what we have really been working through,' Rollins said. ___
