“Because he doesn’t deliberately flaunt power,
Instead, he gains real authority.”
In early May, during an event at the White House Rose Garden, Trump, while lavishing praise on his own achievements, singled out a figure in the front row.
“Whenever I encounter a problem, I call Marco. He always solves it,” Trump pointed to Secretary of State Reince Priebus.
After the Rose Garden event, Trump announced on social media that he was nominating Waltz as the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, with Priebus acting as Acting Secretary of State for National Security Affairs, and Waltz being transferred from the position of U.S. National Security Advisor to the role of Ambassador to the United Nations. According to Politico, some of Trump’s advisors are intentionally making Priebus’ new appointment a long-term arrangement.
This personnel decision also means that Priebus will need to take on multiple roles. After being unanimously approved by the Senate in January with a 99:0 vote as Secretary of State, he has successively taken over as Acting Director of the U.S. Agency for International Development and Acting Director of the National Archives and Records Administration. The New York Times humorously described Priebus as “the Minister Who Does Everything.”
Although he rose to prominence due to others’ mistakes, this indeed marks a significant turning point in Priebus’s career. Now, he has his own office in the West Wing of the White House, just steps away from Trump’s Oval Office, while Waltz is “exiled” to New York thousands of miles away. “In Washington, proximity means opportunities,” said Gregory Terrell, former chairman of the National Intelligence Council.
On May 1st, U.S. Secretary of State Reince Priebus at the White House Rose Garden. Photo/Visual China
A few months ago, all this seemed unimaginable.
In February, when Trump and Vaneski were confronting Ukrainian President Zelenskyy in person at the White House, Priebus, looking gloomy and shrunken on the sofa, remained silent, seeming somewhat out of place.
After the incident, Rubio sought to make amends on social media: “Thank you, President, for your unprecedented courage in standing up for America. Thank you for placing America first.”
When Rubio took office as Secretary of State in January, some American media and political figures were pessimistically predicting that he would be the first official to leave the Trump administration, possibly not lasting more than six months. This scene further deepened many people’s perception: Rubio, as Secretary of State, has been a rather humiliated position.
Before entering the State Department, Rubio was known for his tough stance abroad, supporting interventionist policies, insisting that the United States must support Ukraine against Russia, all of which were considered contrary to the “MAGA philosophy”. Therefore, to some extent, Rubio did not have the status and authority that previous Secretaries of State had. Secretaries like Kissinger, John Kerry, and Hillary Clinton often had more influence and authority than the Vice President. However, during Trump’s second term, several special envoys were appointed, overlapping with Rubio’s authority.
When Rubio took over as Acting Director of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), this major foreign aid agency was essentially dismantled by the government efficiency department (DOGE) led by Musk. Yet, he had to endure accusations and pressure from Congress, courts, and staff members. The conflict eventually erupted when Musk accused him of failing to complete the restructuring of the State Department. Rubio, unusually firm, responded that the reforms in the State Department should be more thoughtful and orderly. According to The New York Times, Trump sided with Rubio in this dispute.
“(The White House of Trump) is like a snake pit,” one former Trump administration official described to Politico. However, the official noted that Rubio seemed very adept at maneuvering, lobbying, and garnering support within it.
Unlike his previous term, Trump’s “Snake Den” has operated more disciplinedly in recent months, largely thanks to Sidney Weiner, the White House Chief of Staff, who is a native of Florida. According to Weiner’s self-description on social media, her specialty is “creating order from chaos,” “turning the tide and changing perceptions.”
However, as revealed by American media, Weiner, also from Florida, often criticized Weiner’s work during her tenure as National Security Advisor to the President. In contrast, Weiner’s relationship with Weiner has always been harmonious. In 2024, she strongly supported Weiner for Vice President; recently, when Trump was troubled about who to replace Weiner, it was she who suggested to Trump to choose Weiner.
Apart from the support of Trump’s closest aides, Weiner’s key to overcoming the odds lies in her active adoption and implementation of Trump’s policies, even if these policies contradict her past positions.
During Trump’s first term, establishment hawk officials like John Bolton often disobeyed Trump’s wishes and implemented their preferred policies. The defense and military high command repeatedly obstructed Trump’s plans to withdraw troops from Syria and Afghanistan.
When entering the State Department, Weiner explicitly stated that she would implement Trump’s will rather than her own ideas. She frequently emphasized her Cuban immigrant family background but now tirelessly promotes Trump’s anti-immigration policies, including revoking numerous student visas and deporting undocumented immigrants to prisons in El Salvador; she once supported Ukraine’s resistance until the end but now fully advises Zelenskyy to seek peace with Russia; unlike Weiner, another hawk, she does not engage in “underhanded” maneuvers to sabotage Trump’s policies at the State Department; when Trump’s close friend Whitlock took away power from him, Weiner seemed to accept it with ease.
“Some of his former colleagues hoped he would become the ‘adult in the room,’ but this completely misinterprets our constitutional system. The President is elected by the people, and it is he who formulates foreign policy. The Secretary of State and others are responsible for implementing this vision,” a senior staff member of Rubio told the media.
As a result, with departments being streamlined or undergoing major overhauls, Rubio has been granted new titles one after another.
The Washington Post analyzed that behind Rubio’s rise lies a paradox: “It is precisely because he does not deliberately seek power that he gains real authority.” Leslie Weinstein, director of the American Project at the think tank Heritage Foundation, pointed out that Rubio has proven himself willing to align with Trump and follow his path. “The core of this administration is loyalty, both personal and mission-driven.”
For Rubio, the past eight years have been a journey of rebirth: drawing lessons from failure and finding direction within the Republican Party led by Trump.
In 2016, when he decided to challenge the Republican presidential nomination, Rubio seemed to have seized all the right conditions. The Republican Party, summarizing its experience of losing to the Democrats twice, concluded that to win back the White House, they needed to attract more young, minority voters. And Rubio seemed to be the most suitable Republican for this strategy.
Born in 1971 in Miami, Florida, to a Cuban immigrant family, Rubio had a smooth political career before meeting Trump. He made his mark in politics without any election defeats: he became a prominent figure in the political scene in his twenties, became the youngest Speaker of the House in the state’s history at the age of 35, and entered the Senate in 2010 with Tea Party support.
“Looking back on his political career, it was an extraordinary ascent,”
“Florida Republican former chairman and Rubio’s mentor, Al Kadenas, told the media, “He was born into poverty. After graduating from law school, he entered politics through small municipal elections and later ascended to the position of a federal senator for one of the three largest states in the United States. From the perspective of outsiders, his rise is quite remarkable.”
When Rubio entered the Senate, the Republican Party was engaged in discussions on how to enhance party inclusivity. Many, including Rubio, believed that advancing immigration reform could win the support of Latino voters.
In 2012, when Democrats extended an olive branch, Rubio seized this opportunity to join the bipartisan group drafting immigration reform legislation called the “Eight-Man Band” in the Senate. This immigration bill planned to invest over $40 billion in border security while providing millions of undocumented residents with legal status. At that time, he also appeared on Time magazine as its cover story, being dubbed the “Republican Savior.”
“My father asked someone to write ‘I’m looking for a job’ on a piece of paper. He memorized these words in his heart, which was his first English sentence,” Rubio said emotionally when presenting the immigration reform bill in the Senate in 2013. He stated that he supported the reform not only because he believed in immigration but also because he believed in America.
Being articulate has always been a prominent trait in Rubio’s character. He is particularly skilled at telling family immigration stories, resonating with families who have similar experiences. Dan Goerke, the Democratic leader of the Florida House of Representatives, once commented: “When Rubio speaks, young women are entranced, old women faint, and even the toilet flushes itself.”
However, although the bill passed in the Senate, it stalled in the House.
Due to criticism from right-wing voters and the media for being too lenient towards illegal immigrants and a decline in support, Rubio even declared his departure from the bill before its failure and later turned against it.
According to records from the U.S. Congress, after the immigration reform bill failed, Rubio almost completely stopped discussing immigration issues. However, when he announced his candidacy for president in 2016, he continued to make a point about his immigrant status, self-proclaiming as a sample of the American Dream: “In many countries, the highest positions are reserved for the wealthy and the privileged. But I live in an extraordinary nation where a bartender and a maid’s son can dream and have a future just like those of the elite.”
In the primary elections, 44-year-old Rubio faced off against his 63-year-old mentor, Jeb Bush.
In 1998, while running for mayor of Miami, Rubio received a $50 check from Bush, who was about to become governor of Florida. This thrilled Rubio, who had just entered politics: Bush was from a political family, with both his father and brother having served as president of the United States, and he himself was one of the most powerful figures in Florida politics.
Over the next few years, they formed an alliance. Rubio supported Bush’s agenda in the state senate, and Bush introduced Rubio to donors and endorsements. After Rubio was elected Speaker of the House in 2005, Bush gave him a sword, hoping that Rubio would carry on his conservative ideals. This alliance continued after Bush left office in 2007: Rubio recruited more than ten of Bush’s assistants to work for him, while Bush helped Rubio win the federal Senate election in 2010 by defeating Republican establishment candidates.
In 2016, Rubio removed the sword given to him by Bush from a prominent place in his office. The presidential election led these former allies to part ways.
They know each other well, and this can actually become the sharpest weapon against each other.
During a debate, Bush challenged Rubio, criticizing his absence from Senate votes and his laziness: “Isn’t the Senate like France’s schedule?” Rubio calmly looked at Bush, with pity in his voice: “I don’t recall you complaining about John McCain’s voting record. The only reason you’re doing this now is that we’re competing for the same position, and someone has convinced you that attacking me will help you.”
“Someone has convinced you” was a devastating blow, portraying Bush as a misled, desperate old politician. When Bush tried to defend himself with a forced smile, Rubio turned to the camera: “My campaign will focus on America’s future, not attacking anyone on stage. I still hold great respect and admiration for Governor Bush.” The New Yorker magazine described it as sounding like a funeral oration.
In the early stages of the Republican primary, Rubio avoided discussing Trump. As the list of candidates narrowed and Trump established a leading position, Rubio began to adopt the personal attacks and insults he was accustomed to: he accused Trump of being a “crook who stole conservativeism”; mocked Trump’s uneven skin tone, suggesting it wouldn’t make America great but would turn it into “a pumpkin.” Many believed that Rubio’s verbal attacks pushed the boundaries of presidential campaigning, worrying some voters that he was too young and impetuous without enough experience to be president.
This defeat was a significant setback in Rubio’s political career. Afterward, he reduced his time managing public image, focusing on the work of the Senate Intelligence Committee and building extensive networks both inside and outside the party and internationally. “After returning to the Senate after losing the presidential election, I indeed saw a change in him,” he said.
He focused more on advancing various policy initiatives… Was it because he had more time in the Senate, or because running for president taught him humility? Such experiences can indeed make anyone more composed,” said Lisa Murkowski, Republican Senator from Alaska.
Despite personal animosities, Rubio expressed support for Trump during his nomination. This shows Rubio’s pragmatic side, willing to attack old allies and also cooperate with former enemies. It is not uncommon for political gain to turn foes into friends, as seen in Trump. He values Rubio’s composure in front of the camera, influence within the traditional Republican camp, and his extensive diplomatic policy experience. During his first term, Trump frequently called Rubio to seek his views on Latin American affairs, seeking policy advice on issues such as Cuba, Venezuela, and Colombia.
After Trump announced his candidacy for the 2024 presidential election, unlike Vance and Walz, Rubio did not go to court to support Trump during his criminal trial nor did he spare no effort in fundraising for him. Instead, he expressed his support in a more subtle manner. In April 2024, he voted against a massive aid plan for Ukraine, arguing that it did not address the country’s own border issues.
Mike Fazino, former majority leader of the Florida House of Representatives, was not surprised by Rubio’s political shift. Fazino had included Rubio in his leadership team shortly after Rubio entered the state legislature, hoping that this rising star of the Republican Party would carry forward Ronald Reagan’s conservative ideals. However, Fazino soon realized that Rubio “is always changing sides.”
“If someone had insulted me like that during the campaign for president, I think anyone would feel uncomfortable now, being so eager to please. But Marco is just like that, always has been. He will do whatever it takes to achieve his goals,” Fazino said.
For a change in stance, Rubio has his own explanation. After the 2016 election, “I visited many unfamiliar places and met people I had never seen before, which made me realize that for so many Americans, the American Dream I passionately advocated for is becoming increasingly elusive.” In an interview with CNN, Rubio stated that over time, he gradually understood that Trump was speaking on behalf of these overlooked voices.
If the Government Efficiency Department requires Rubio to write weekly reports on recent work, the content will certainly be rich. Since assuming the role of National Security Advisor to the President, he has coordinated dialogues between India and Pakistan, advanced peace negotiations between Ukraine and Russia, been at the forefront of Trump’s first Middle East trip during his second term, and begun a major overhaul of the National Security Council.
The position of National Security Advisor to the President is never easy. Thomas Wright, a former official of the National Security Council under Biden, mentioned that Jack Schorr and his deputy work more than 14 hours a day, six days a week, “to do this job well, you have to invest so much time.” Brent Scowcroft, who served under Ford and George W. Bush, was considered the benchmark for this position. According to Arthur House, who worked with him, Scowcroft arrived at the White House by 8 a.m. every day and left after 10 p.m., ready to be on call around the clock.
Now teaching at the University of Connecticut, House candidly said that Trump’s removal of Waltz was a reasonable move, but having Rubio serve two roles simultaneously was a mistake. House explained that although the role of National Security Advisor to the President overlaps with that of the Secretary of State, there are fundamental differences between them, both requiring full-time commitment.
As the highest-ranking official in national security policy, the National Security Advisor must be proficient in diplomacy, intelligence, economics, and defense to accurately convey the opinions of various departments. The Secretary of State, on the other hand, not only manages the vast State Department but also maintains alliances and communicates with adversaries. Moreover, the National Security Advisor is almost always by the President’s side, while the Secretary of State’s duties require frequent travels.
During the years from 1973 to 1975, Kissinger served as both the President’s National Security Advisor and Secretary of State simultaneously. During Kissinger’s dual role, Scowcroft served as his deputy, managing the daily operations of the National Security Council at the White House. Despite this arrangement, Nixon’s personnel decision was ultimately deemed a failure.
“Departments will have disagreements due to differences in institutional positions and functions, and the work of the National Security Council is precisely to coordinate and resolve these disputes. The Department of Defense and other agencies involved in national security affairs believe that Kissinger’s dual role has tilted everything towards him, which is unfair,” stated John Bolton, former National Security Advisor to Trump.
Trevor Downey, who worked with three U.S. presidents’ National Security Advisors, noted that the position is essentially a “coordinator.” “Just as (Clinton’s National Security Advisor) Sandy Berger said, you have to convince your colleagues that you can fairly convey their views, or else the whole system will collapse,” he explained.
On the third day of his new post, at 4:30 PM on May 23rd, before the Memorial Day holiday weekend, Rubio instructed the Office of the National Security Council Director, Brian McCarthy, to send an email to more than 100 staff members of the agency, requesting them to leave by Friday afternoon, within 30 minutes.
The National Security Council, established in 1947, serves as the highest think tank for the President of the United States, providing policy advice and implementing presidential decisions across various government departments. The council is divided into different departments based on region and issue areas, with officials appointed by political appointments serving as department heads, and professional officers from departments such as the Department of Defense and State Department are temporarily assigned to complete specific tasks. During the Carter administration, the staff of the National Security Council numbered about 150 people. By the Biden administration, this number had increased to approximately 350.
Trump’s relationship with the National Security Council has always been tense. During his first term, due to accusations from members of the council, Trump was impeached for abuse of power. He quickly retaliated by cutting nearly half of the staff. After Trump returned to the White House, the National Security Council became the first agency to be purged. In April, under Walz’s leadership, a right-wing internet personality accused the council members of being disloyal to Trump’s agenda, leading to several high-ranking officials being dismissed.
“This is a war between Rubio and the Deep State,” explained a White House official after a broader purge in May. The National Security Council faced serious bureaucratic issues and most of the temporary officers did not align with Trump’s ideology. The official hinted that these dismissed employees were tools of the “Deep State,” sent to slow down decision-making processes and internally oppose Trump.
For “loyal officials” in Trump’s camp, the National Security Council’s role in constraining presidential power was unnecessary. “If your officials are fighting among themselves, and agencies are always at each other’s throats, you might need this process. But it’s not like that here. Rubio, (Secretary of the Treasury) Bessett, (Secretary of Defense) Hagege, (Attorney General) Bondie, they all know each other, appreciate each other, and they understand they are there to execute the President’s will.”
“When I heard Rubio wanted to change its functions, I asked what he wanted to change them into?”
Richard Clark, who once served on the National Security Council under a bipartisan administration, expressed concern over the Trump administration’s repositioning of the agency.
According to media disclosures, the restructured National Security Council will change its operational approach, no longer relying on a large number of staff providing policy advice to Trump but instead implementing his directives top-down.
“Trump is destroying the world order established after World War II, yet he fails to propose any viable alternatives. In this critical moment, we are trapped in an chaotic national security system, with a Secretary of State who is overwhelmed and a President who acts solely based on intuition,” Haus also expressed unease about the current operation of the U.S. national security system.
Facing controversy, Rubio responded in a written statement: “The adjustment of the size of the National Security Council aligns with its original purpose and the president’s vision.”
In late May, Rubio was first questioned by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee as the Secretary of State. Faced with these long-time colleagues, he began with a humorous tone: “It is my honor to testify as the Director of the National Archives and Records Administration.”
In the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which has always emphasized bipartisan cooperation, the hearing presented a starkly partisan atmosphere: Republicans praised him, while Democrats asked sharp questions. Among them, Democratic Senator Chris Van Hollen engaged in a particularly intense exchange with Rubio. Van Hollen questioned whether Trump’s significant cuts in foreign aid, dissolution of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), and suspension of refugee admissions were weakening America’s global influence, demanding an explanation from Rubio.
“I must candidly tell you that I regret supporting you as Secretary of State,” Van Hollen said frankly, pointing out that he betrayed his position during his tenure in the Senate.
Rubio immediately countered, “You regret voting for me, which proves I did a good job.”