FULL REMARKS: Marco Rubio Speaks After Meeting Pope Leo Amid Trump Clash Over Iran War — AC1G

[0:00] this morning, Mark. Okay, let's just go to questions. You ready? [0:03] Mr. Secretary. Go ahead. [0:06] Hi, thanks for doing this. I wanted to ask you first about your meetings yesterday with the Pope Leo. [0:12] President Trump has had very harsh language and words for the Pope. [0:16] He gets the backdrop of the war in our hand. Did you make amends with the Pope yesterday? [0:22] No, we had a very good meeting. I mean, ultimately, it's important. First of all, [0:26] there's a lot that we work together with, with the church, and we talked about those areas that [0:30] we're working together on different parts of the world. I know everyone's interested in, you know, [0:34] the other aspects of it, but I expressed, you know, updated them on the situation with Iran, [0:39] expressed our point of view about why this was an important and the danger that Iran poses to the [0:43] world, which is largely recognized. So obviously the, you know, the, the, the Holy Father is a, [0:49] is a spiritual leader. He's the first and foremost. I mean, that's, that's his role to play. And [0:54] obviously the church has always interacted on behalf of a mission for peace and, and, and a respect for [1:01] all of humanity. And, and, and, but at the end, it was very cordial and important meeting. And it's [1:06] important to share our points of view and an explanation and an understanding of where we're [1:10] coming from. And I thought it was very positive. [1:13] Secretary Rubio, you also mentioned talking about the Western hemisphere with the Pope, [1:19] and of course the Catholic church is instrumental in delivering humanitarian aid to Cuba. I wondered [1:26] if you discussed that and whether there was any disagreements on U.S. policy towards Cuba. [1:32] Oh, we discussed, I mean, we, we've provided $6 million of humanitarian aid, U.S. humanitarian aid [1:38] that was distributed by Caritas, the Catholic church agency. We're prepared to do more. In fact, [1:43] we've offered the regime there a hundred million dollars of humanitarian aid that unfortunately so [1:47] far they have not agreed to distribute to help the people of Cuba. So we did the, the hurricane [1:52] relief, but we're offering more. And it's the regime that's not accepting it. It's the regime [1:56] that's standing in the way of it. So we discussed that and we hope we can do it because we do want [2:00] to help the people of Cuba who are being, you know, hurt by this incompetent regime that's destroyed the [2:05] country and the, and the economy. Secretary, can I ask about the, the meeting with the Pope? I mean, [2:10] after this meeting with the Pope, which you've described as, as cordial and productive, are you going to [2:15] recommend to the president that he stops criticizing the Pope and social media? [2:19] Why would I tell you what I'm going to recommend to the president? But beyond that, the president [2:22] will always speak clearly about how he feels about the U.S. and U.S. policy. The president of the United [2:26] States is always going to act in what's in the best interest of the United States. I think we can do [2:30] that and, and continue to also have a very productive and fruitful and important relationship [2:36] with the church because it plays an important role in the world as well. [2:39] Secretary Rubio, were there any themes from your conversation yesterday with Pope Leo that resonated [2:48] with you personally? Well, if it was personal, what would I tell you? No, I, here's, here's the bottom [2:55] line on that is that the church is an important global institution. It has a presence all over the [2:59] world. I know you guys are fixated on who said what about who at what time. I understand all that, [3:04] okay, because media, you guys have headlines, you have editors, you have people that want you to post, [3:07] and these are interesting stories. But at the end of the day, the Pope just returned from Africa, [3:11] a very important continent with growing Christian populations, many of whom are, who are threatened [3:15] or feel threatened by the spread of radical Islamic terrorism. So we care about that. The Pope and the [3:22] church has an interest in Christian communities in Lebanon, a place that we're very involved in trying [3:26] to establish a peace between Israel and Lebanon. The church obviously has a very important presence [3:30] in Latin America. The bishops from Venezuela had just been here a few days earlier, so we shared thoughts [3:36] about those sorts of things. I think it's an opportunity to personally express, you know, [3:40] our point of view from the standpoint of foreign policy and the areas we're involved in and share [3:45] insights, but also to gain insights, because the church has a unique role in many of these countries [3:49] in terms of the insights and information that they're receiving. In some cases in the past, [3:53] the church has been an important interlocutor, not just with governments, but with societies. [3:57] And then, of course, on the practical level, the church plays an important role in humanitarian efforts [4:02] in different parts of the world, and in many places has served as a facilitator of U.S. humanitarian [4:07] assistance, such as I highlighted a moment ago when it comes to Cuba. Yes, go ahead. [4:11] I'll get to that problem. Go ahead. [4:13] Mr. Secretary, can you say in your meeting with Prime Minister Maloney whether you talked [4:16] about the possibility of withdrawing U.S. troops from Italy, as well as the possibility of the [4:20] United States withdrawing from NATO altogether? [4:21] No, we didn't discuss any specifics like that, and that's a decision for the president to make. [4:25] It's a decision every president makes. The fact of the matter, though, is, and I said, you know, [4:31] publicly, and I've said repeatedly, I've been a strong supporter of NATO throughout my career [4:36] in the Senate and even now, and one of the advantages of being in NATO is that it allows [4:40] us to have forces deployed in Europe and bases that allow us a logistical ability to project [4:46] power in case of contingencies. Well, we had a contingency, and some countries in Europe, [4:52] some countries in Europe, like Spain as an example, denied us the use of those bases for [4:55] a very important contingency that, in some ways, the denial of those bases actually impeded [5:00] the mission, not severely, but had a cost and, in fact, even created some unnecessary dangers. [5:07] So if one of the main reasons why the U.S. is in NATO is the ability to have forces deployed [5:13] in Europe that we could project to other contingencies, and now that's no longer the case, at least [5:17] when it comes to some NATO members, that's a problem and has to be examined. But ultimately, [5:22] that's a decision for the president to make. His team and people like myself and others will [5:26] provide him what those potential options are. But ultimately, he'll have to make that decision. [5:30] He hasn't made those decisions yet. As far as recent news of deployments, like, for example, [5:35] those were all already ongoing. For example, in Germany, the troops that were withdrawn, [5:40] which represent less than 14 percent of our total troop presence there, that's already [5:44] pre-programmed. And in fact, all it did is take us back to where we were in 2022. And [5:49] so there was there was always a plan to do some shifting within NATO. As far as broader [5:54] changes, that that's I don't have an announcement for you on that today. But that's a decision [5:58] for the president to make. Certainly, you know, we'll present both options and perspectives. [6:02] But we're you know that I don't have anything new to announce on that today. [6:05] Oh, yes, Mr. Secretary, your former colleagues on the Hill, Republican senators, believe that [6:09] troops withdrawal will embolden Putin and will benefit Russia. Do you agree with that? [6:13] We'll do what? I'm sorry? [6:14] Troops withdrawal will embolden Putin and benefit Russia. Do you agree with that assessment? [6:18] Well, in the end, the United States is always the president is going to always [6:22] do what's in the national interest. We have global obligations all over the world. We [6:25] have troop deployments all over the world. And those are constantly shifting and changing. [6:29] For example, we increased true presence in NATO in the aftermath of the invasion of Ukraine. [6:35] So we're always making these decisions. And there were some already previewed in before [6:39] any of this that happened in terms of the base denials. But in the end, look here, the [6:44] bottom line is the we always, you know, while we may be the most powerful country in [6:48] the world, and we may have the most resources, our resources are not unlimited. We have to [6:53] always assign resources around the world, including military resources, on the basis [6:57] of what serves the national interest. That's a decision the president has to make, especially [7:01] within the context of recent developments by some countries within NATO and the stance [7:06] they've taken towards the United States. But, you know, with no decisions been made on [7:10] that yet, that's something the president's still working through. [7:13] Yeah, I mean, I think everybody agrees that Iran having a nuclear weapon is unacceptable. [7:23] I mean, I don't know of anyone who thinks it's a good idea for Iran to have a nuclear [7:27] weapon except the Ayatollah. So I think the question is, what do you do about it? And the [7:32] president's actually trying to do something about it. And so, I mean, that's – I don't [7:37] know what the – I don't think there's any disagreement that they can't have a nuclear [7:41] weapon. I think the question is, what do you do about it? And, you know, we've had [7:44] every American president says, oh, they can't have a nuclear weapon. This is the first American [7:48] president that's actually trying to do something concrete about it. I don't know who would [7:52] disagree with that. I mean, it's an important thing that has to be confronted. [7:55] Can you give us an official – Can you give us an update on the status of negotiations [8:00] with Iran right now? [8:01] Well, we should know something today. I mean, we're expecting a response from them. We'll [8:03] see what the response entails. The hope is it's something that it can put us into [8:07] a serious process of negotiation. Obviously, we've seen the reporting [8:11] overnight that Iran has established or trying to establish some agency that's going to [8:16] control traffic in the straits. That would be very problematic. That would actually be [8:19] unacceptable. I mean, we're – the normalizing of their controlling of international waterways [8:25] is both illegal and it's just something that's unacceptable. And the world has to start [8:28] asking itself, what is it willing to do if Iran tries to normalize a control of an international [8:34] waterway? I think that's unacceptable. So – but we're expecting a response from them [8:39] today at some point. We have not received that yet as the last – in the last hour, but [8:43] perhaps that will come. Their system is still highly fractured and a bit dysfunctional as [8:47] well. So that may be serving as an impediment. I hope it's a serious offer. I really do. [8:53] Can you confirm – can you confirm there's a resume of talks between Israel and Lebanon next week? [8:59] Do you expect – We expect talks. I can't – I don't know if we've set the exact date yet, [9:04] but we expect that there'll be additional talks. Look, the – we – it's one of the areas that I [9:08] think we can work with Italy on. They can play a very productive role and a constructive role [9:12] in providing resources to the Lebanese government. In the end, we all share the same goal. And by all, [9:17] I mean including the Lebanese government and the Israeli government, that we want the relations [9:22] between Israel and Lebanon, its legitimate government, to be very strong. The impediment to that [9:27] is Hezbollah. Again, an Iranian agent, Hezbollah, who is victimizing not just Israelis, but Hezbollah [9:33] is also victimizing Lebanon. The reason why Lebanon faces bombings, the reason why Lebanon faces [9:39] violence is because of Hezbollah. It is Hezbollah that's imposing this on them. So I think we all [9:43] share the same goal, which is a strong Lebanese government that doesn't have an armed Hezbollah [9:48] operating within its national territory, imposing a threat to any of its neighbors. And to do that, [9:53] we have to empower and equip the Lebanese government to be able to confront that threat. [9:56] And I think Italy and other countries, but Italy in particular, can play an important role [10:00] in not just helping equip the government, but in cutting off the illicit financing that supports, [10:05] helping them to cut off the financing that supports Hezbollah and the danger they pose. [10:09] Is it possible to get a peace deal on Lebanon without first solving the conflict with Iran? [10:16] How linked are those two conflicts right now? [10:18] I mean, Hezbollah is an Iranian agent, 100%. I mean, Hezbollah wouldn't exist without Iran's support. [10:23] So — but I think it's possible. I mean, Hezbollah has been both weakened but still [10:30] capable of inflicting damage and doing terroristic activities, as we've seen. [10:34] So I think the way I would phrase it is we're not going to negotiate with Iran over Hezbollah, [10:38] because Hezbollah is a dangerous — other than if they're willing to stop funding them and supporting [10:44] them. I think our negotiations with the Lebanese — our role is with the Lebanese government. [10:48] Lebanon should be governed by the Lebanese government. It should not have a terrorist group [10:52] operating within its national territory that poses a threat both to its own people, [10:56] including the Shia population, and to the government and to Israel and to its other neighbors. [11:01] So that's what we're going to focus on. [11:03] Mr. Secretary, can we come back to Cuba a little bit? [11:07] The United States, including yesterday, are ramping up sanctions against Cuba, the regime and all that. [11:14] With the exchange with the Pope, did you feel any convergence of views on that and on the U.S. policy? [11:21] Let me clarify something for you. Our sanctions are against a company named Gaisa. [11:25] Yeah. [11:25] Okay? This is a holding company set up by generals in Cuba that has generated billions of dollars [11:31] of revenue, none of which benefits the Cuban people. Not one cent of it benefits the Cuban people. [11:35] You understand this, right? I don't know if you know this. There's the Cuban government, [11:40] and they have a budget, and then there's this private company that has more money than the [11:44] government does. None of the money in that company goes to build a single road, a single bridge, [11:49] provide a single grain of rice to a single Cuban, other than the people that are part of Gaisa. [11:54] So that's what we're sanctioning, is a company that basically is taking anything that makes money [11:58] in Cuba and illegally putting it into the pockets of a few regime insiders. So that's not sanctions on [12:04] the Cuban people, because the Cuban people don't benefit from Gaisa. It's a sanction against this [12:08] company that is stealing from the Cuban people to the benefit of a few. And we didn't discuss [12:14] those sanctions yesterday, but we imposed them yesterday, and we're going to be doing more, [12:17] by the way. [12:18] Many people thought that Europe was a mission impossible after the Trump's attacks, [12:26] heavy attacks. [12:27] Which mission? I'm sorry. [12:28] The visit. [12:29] Mission impossible. [12:30] The mission, yes. What's your judgment at the end of the visit mission accomplished? [12:35] We work with the Vatican on a lot of things. Our relationship between, you know, for example, [12:38] our mission here in the Vatican, like I told you, I mean, we're working together on humanitarian issues. [12:42] We're focused on other issues as well. The president's perspective is clear. [12:48] He thinks that Iran is a threat and it needs to be addressed. And that position remains unchanged. [12:54] And I think we're capable of having that position and expressing that position clearly, [12:59] and also working cooperatively. And as we have for centuries, as we have for decades, [13:05] with the Vatican and with the Catholic Church, who has a global presence. [13:07] Did you explicitly ask the Pope to stop his criticism of the Iran war? [13:13] I'm not going to discuss when I talk about the Pope, but I'm not going to ask him. [13:16] That's not the purpose of it. I told you guys before I even came here. And that is that we have a [13:21] very strong relationship with the Vatican. We work with them on a lot of things around the world. [13:25] This was a trip that had been planned even before all these things that happened. So just as an [13:30] example, why would I not want to hear the perspectives of the most important, in many cases, [13:36] a far-reaching religious leader in the world on his perspectives about what he saw on his trip to [13:41] Africa, or what his bishops and others and agencies are hearing in the Western Hemisphere, or the plight of [13:48] Christians in Africa, but also those in Lebanon. So of course we're going to engage with him on these [13:53] things. That was the purpose of our meeting. And in that realm, it was very, very productive. [13:56] And it was a good meeting because we were able to talk about these different areas of the world [14:00] where they have a presence, where they are engaged, and we are as well. And of course, [14:04] find opportunities to either continue cooperating where that already exists, like in Cuba, [14:08] or expand our cooperation in other places where it makes sense. [14:11] Is it fair to expect a phone call between the President and the Pope anytime soon? [14:14] I don't know. Maybe. I don't know. I mean, it could happen. [14:18] May I ask you about Iran, if possible? You declared that Operation Epic Fury was over. [14:25] Now, given all these military actions that we have seen on the ground, what does over mean militarily? [14:31] No, no. Operation Epic Fury was an offensive operation designed to destroy their missile [14:35] launches, their navy, their air force, and it achieved that, and their factories, and it achieved that. [14:40] What you saw yesterday was U.S. destroyers moving through international waters being fired upon [14:45] by the Iranians, and the U.S. responded defensively to protect itself. That's what you saw. [14:52] That's separate and distinct from Operation Epic Fury. [14:58] If you fire a drone or a missile at our destroyer, what are we supposed to do? Let it hit it? [15:02] We have to respond to it. We have to knock down the missile, and we have to knock out whatever [15:05] it is that launched that missile. The alternative is to let it sink one of our ships. That's crazy. [15:10] So, of course, we responded to it. [15:11] Well, yes, but the point is, if there's not much seizing in the firing, because we've [15:17] Well, you should ask that to the Iranians. Don't ask me. We didn't fire. They fired on us. [15:20] My point is, if you fire at a U.S. Navy ship, what are we supposed to do? Say, [15:24] Oh, there's a ceasefire. We're not going to shoot down your drone. That's a stupid question. [15:27] That's a stupid position to take. Of course we fired back at them. They were shooting at us. [15:32] That's what I would expect to do. Only stupid countries don't shoot back when you're shot at, [15:36] and we're not a stupid country. [15:37] Do you expect that there, or have you conveyed any red lines to Iran where, you know, if the [15:43] ceasefire or whatever you call it, if they cross certain red lines? [15:46] Well, the red line is clear. If they threaten Americans, they're going to get blown up. I mean, [15:49] that's the, that's how much clearer can you be than that? If you fire on, if you are a missile launching [15:54] guy, whatever they call that job, and you're sitting there and you fire a missile at the United [15:58] States and we saw you fire it, we're going to hit you. Of course we are. Who doesn't do that? Unless you want [16:03] to get your ship sunk. I mean, we're not going to let our ships get sunk by the, by the Iranians [16:07] with their little, you know, their drones that they're firing. You know, they don't have a navy [16:11] anymore, but they bring out these little Boston whaler fishing boats and they try to swarm you. [16:15] We're going to blow those boats up if they're coming towards our boats. I don't know if that's a red [16:18] line, but I hope they know it is by now. So if I were one of these Iranians on a fast boat and they tell [16:23] you, hey, your mission is to go after a U.S. destroyer, you're probably not going to survive. I think that's a red line. [16:28] The president has expressed disappointment in support or lack thereof in Europe. Was there any [16:43] discussion today in your meeting with Prime Minister Maloney or Foreign Minister Tahani about them providing [16:48] escorts in the Strait of Hormones or. No, we didn't get to that level of specificity about what they, [16:51] here's the bottom line, okay. Everybody says Iran is a threat. Everybody says that Iran can't have a nuclear [16:56] weapon. Okay, but you got to do something about it. The president's trying to do something about it, [17:02] and I don't understand why anybody would not be supportive of that, and he doesn't understand [17:06] and rightfully so are somebody would be supportive of that. But here's a more fundamental problem. [17:09] Iran now claims that they own, that they have a right to control an international waterway. [17:15] They claim that they have a right to control it. What is the world going to do about that? Is the world [17:20] going to accept that Iran now controls an international waterway? Because if the world is prepared to [17:24] accept that, then be ready, because there's like 10 other countries that are going to start doing [17:28] the same thing in their international waterways, or in international waterways near their countries. [17:33] That's an unacceptable thing that they're trying to normalize. So if the answer is no, we don't think [17:38] Iran should be able to control the Straits of Hormuz, then the next question is going to be for everyone, [17:42] but what are you going to do about it? What is the world prepared to do about it? And we're trying to do [17:47] something about it diplomatically. We have a resolution at the United Nations that we're trying to move forward, [17:51] in which the world and the UN will have an opportunity through the Security Council to vote and say, [17:57] we are not going to allow them to mine the Straits. We're not going to allow them to try to control [18:01] the Straits. And by the way, you have a bunch of humanitarian aid that's trapped inside the [18:05] Persian Gulf and needs to be released and has not been able to move. We're going to give the world a [18:10] chance to pronounce itself on it. And if Russia or China or some other country decide to veto it, [18:14] then you know what the impediment is. But the fundamental question every country, not Italy, [18:18] every country needs to ask themselves is, are you going to normalize a country claiming to [18:23] control an international waterway? Because if you normalize that, you've set a precedent [18:26] that's going to get repeated in a dozen other places. And if the answer is, no, we don't want [18:30] to normalize it, then you better have something more than just strongly worded statements to back [18:34] it up. And that's the point I've made in all of my visits, not just here. I didn't come to Italy [18:39] just to make that point. I would say that to any country that complains about the Straits, [18:43] because that's what we potentially are facing unless we get a good deal from the Iranians, [18:47] and we're waiting to hear that today. Mr. Secretary, can I move to Taiwan, [18:52] actually? Sorry to geographically go around the world. [18:56] Parliament just approved a pretty big massive defense bill today or last night. [19:04] There was a little bit less than what the president of Taiwan was asking for, but nonetheless, [19:09] it's a big bill, including money to buy U.S. arms. What is your reaction to that, if any, [19:17] and specifically in the context of the trip you will be doing with the president [19:21] next week in China? Well, all I would say in context of the trip next week, [19:24] in Taiwan in specific, is the United States, our policy remains unchanged. [19:29] We don't want to see any forced or compelled change in the situation now. I think we'd be [19:34] destabilizing to the world. It's our position on that has been, you know, we've heard obviously the [19:40] Chinese position, but we've made our position on that clear as well. And I imagine that will be [19:46] discussed in the trip, but I don't think it'll be a feature of our trip, but it'll certainly be an [19:51] item that's discussed. We think it's to the benefit of China, the United States, and the world writ large [19:55] that there'll be stability in the straits there. And that continues to be our position. That's the one [19:59] we'll continue to stand by and advocate for. All right, I have time for one more. We've got to leave. [20:03] For Ukraine, before you go, you spoke with Lavrov recently and, you know, they targeted [20:07] kindergarten in Ukraine, even after they advocated for ceasefire. Where does the negotiations stand? [20:14] Well, right now, the negotiations aren't, we're not, we've played, we've tried to play a mediator [20:18] role in that. So far, it has not led to a fruitful outcome for a variety of reasons. We remain prepared [20:26] to play that role if it can be productive. We don't want to waste our time and invest time and energy [20:30] and an effort that's not moving forward. But if we see an opportunity to act as a mediator that [20:35] brings both sides closer to a peace deal, we'd like to see it. Our position at the end of the day [20:39] is that this war is a tragedy. Both sides are paying a very heavy price for it, both economic [20:45] and obviously at a human level. It's destructive. We're against it. And any time you tell me about [20:49] strikes and people, or every time I hear about these things, it just reminds us of why this war needs [20:53] to end. And while we're prepared to play whatever role we can to bring it to a peaceful diplomatic [20:58] resolution. Unfortunately, you know, right now, those efforts have stagnated, but we always stand [21:03] ready if those circumstances change. Okay, guys. Yeah, and then I got to go and I apologize. [21:07] One on Africa. I mean, the President committed last year to personally intervening to help try to end [21:13] the war in Sudan. The Pope, in one of his addresses, called this one of the world's greatest tragedies. [21:20] Did this come up at all in your discussions? Did you see any movement? [21:23] Well, we discussed Africa broadly and, of course, Sudan being an incredible tragedy. We've been [21:28] heavily engaged through that quad process. Obviously, Sudan has become, in some way, [21:32] sort of a proxy engagement between multiple countries who are behind some of the elements [21:36] that are fighting. There are other countries that are not directly involved, but have allowed their [21:40] national territories to be used as a way to ship weaponry. We recently had a pretty positive [21:46] announcement for the first time on a statement of principles, but we have to give it some action. [21:50] What we've really been focused on in Sudan is sort of establishing a humanitarian ceasefire [21:54] that allows us to provide aid to people that are suffering tremendously there, [21:58] but not doing so at the expense of a broader deal. So we do want the humanitarian ceasefire, [22:02] where we can identify a number of communities that are safe havens for the distribution of [22:06] humanitarian aid for what is one of the world's worst humanitarian crises ever. But you can't do that [22:12] unless you have the security to be able to provide the aid. But we don't want that to be the final [22:18] outcome. In addition to the humanitarian corridors and the humanitarian sites, we need to bring this [22:25] conflict to an end. And the way to bring this conflict to an end is for the countries and the [22:29] parties who are supporting the fighting elements to force these elements toward a peace deal that [22:34] ends this conflict. And as I said, we've been very involved in that quad process, invested a lot of [22:39] time in it, continue to be engaged on a daily basis, and in fact have people in our bureau in Africa, [22:43] as well as our special envoy, Sadbulos, involved almost daily on this topic. So okay, guys, [22:49] I got to run. I apologize. Were you surprised by your Italian origins? Mr. Secretary, were you surprised [22:55] by your Italian origins? Well, not surprised today. I learned about it in 2017 when PBS did a Finding [23:03] Your Roots special. That's where I found it. Okay. Okay. How about the 2028 Buzz? Any comment on that, [23:08] sir? We're going to have to go quickly and jump in.