This show proudly sponsored by Real American Freestyle Wrestling. Ryan Reynolds here from Mint Mobile. With the price of just about everything going up, we thought we'd bring our prices down.
So to help us, we brought in a reverse auctioneer, which is apparently a thing. Mint Mobile Unlimited Premium Wireless! Give it a try at mintmobile.com slash switch. Upfront payment of $45 for three-month plan equivalent to $15 per month required. New customer offer for first three months only.
Speeds low after 35 gigabytes of networks busy. Taxes and fees extra. See MintMobile.com. Welcome back, everybody. It's my privilege to be the National Security Advisor and Secretary of State, Marco Rubio.
Mr. Secretary, welcome. Good morning. How are you? I'm doing great.
So far, you have a lot on your plate. I can't imagine what it's like on your things to do list. I know the President of the United States talked about one of the top priorities now. Within 10 days, he's going to make a decision on what's going to happen with Russia because he does not believe that they want a ceasefire. Here's what he said.
I'm not so interested in talking anymore. He's a. He talks, we have such nice conversations, such respectful and nice conversations, and then people die the following night in a With a missile going into a town and hitting, I mean, recently I guess the nursing home, but they hit other things. Whatever they hit, people die.
So he's obviously changed Dramatically since he first took office. What do you think is going to happen after 10 days, Mr. Secretary?
Well, first of all, let me say the President has waited over six months now. And given the best efforts possible, we continue to engage with the Russian side as early as this week. Earlier this week on Monday or Tuesday, we had a whole conversation with them as well, not with Putin, but with some of Putin's top people in hopes of arriving at some understanding on a path forward that would lead to peace. And we've not seen any progress on that. And I think what bothers the President the most Is he has these great phone calls where everyone sort of claims, yeah, we'd like to see this end if we could find a way forward, and then.
He turns on the news and another city has been bombed, including those far from the front lines.
So at some point, he's got to make a decision here about what how much to continue to engage in an effort to do ceasefires if one of the two sides is not interested in one.
So the President has a lot of options. I mean, he has options, as everyone knows, to sanction secondary sales of oil, secondary sanctions on oil sales of Russian oil, which is a huge part of their revenue. There's banking sectoral banking sanctions that would also be very powerful. Again, I think our hope is to avoid that and to sort of figure out a way that we can get the fighting to stop. We think that's the best path forward.
We're open to some different paths, but the best path forward is to have the shooting stop and the talking start. But so far, there's not been what we feel at least sincere interest on the Russian side in achieving that objective.
So we'll continue to be available and willing to participate in something like that if it becomes available. But obviously the president's not going to wait forever.
So Medvedev, the former president, threatened you guys, threatened our country and said basically your ultimatums that's going to lead to confrontation, if I could just paraphrase, and he says, with your country. And Donald Trump last night said to went back at Medvedev and said, tell Medvedev, the failed former president of Russia, who thinks he's still president, to watch his words. He's entering very dangerous territory. Do you take him seriously, Medvedev?
Well, you can't ignore anything someone's saying, and you always wonder is that approved as but he basically is not a relevant player in Russian politics. He does not a decision maker. He's not in any of the meetings or conversations we've ever had. If you recall. He was the president there for about four years.
During the time when Putin didn't run again, and then he obviously came back, so he was a placeholder.
So I wouldn't call him a relevant. decision maker. But by the same token, Obviously, he's someone who once held office there and is still in a role in government. And his words. are going to have impact in terms of being a provocateur and things of that nature.
So I think the the I'm not sure he's speaking for the official Russian position, but he's certainly someone in an official position in Russia. Who's saying things that are inflammatory, but that's okay. I don't think that's going to be a factor one way or the other. Do you think Russia's in a position to confront America militarily?
Well, that's not even a fathomable thing. I mean, understand the a war between the United States and Russia. is not something we can ever see. These are the two largest nuclear weapons uh militaries in the world. and that the danger would just be too great.
I don't think there's any doubt that from a conventional military capability, the Russians could not take on the United States or, frankly, many other countries in Europe, for that matter. I think they would struggle. They've struggled with Ukraine. who now is the largest army in Europe, but at the time being invaded was not. I think they would struggle on conventional front greatly.
So that's not a, I think what you worry more about is not an all-out war with Russia. I think what you worry more about. is A skirmish or a miscalculation that leads to the start of conflict because that that escal so Since the Russians are not Very good at conventional weaponry, they would almost invariably have to rely On some other means, like a tactical nuclear weapon on the battlefield, to sort of escalate in an effort to de-escalate a fight.
So you would worry about that, but we shouldn't even think about it because that's not plausible or, frankly, feasible for either side.
So, as you know, the trade deals are coming down. That's not really your purview. You have enough on your plate. But one thing the president said last night on Truth Social: he goes, Russia continues to be the top oil supplier to India during their first six months. They make up 35% of the overall supplies.
Quote, India will therefore be paying a tariff of 25% plus a penalty for the above starting on August 1st. He's upset, maybe you're upset, that India continues to get, instead of a small portion, a great portion of their discounted oil from Russia, which is fueling their war machine. How disappointed are you in a so-called ally? Look, global trade India is an ally, it's a strategic partner. Like anything in foreign policy, you're not going to align 100% of the time on everything.
India has huge energy needs. And that includes the ability to buy oil and coal and gas and things that it needs to power its economy, like every country does. And it buys it from Russia because Russian oil is sanctioned and cheap, and meaning they have to, in many cases, are selling it under the global price because of their sanctions. And that, unfortunately, that is helping to sustain the Russian war effort.
So it is most certainly a point of irritation in our relationship with India. Not the only point of irritation. We also have many other points of cooperation with them. But I think what you're seeing the President express is the very clear that with so many other oil vendors available. India continues to buy so much from Russia which in essence is helping to fund the war up and allowing this war to continue in Ukraine.
So, Mr. Secretary, I have to tell you that they're doing an investigation. You're John Radcliffe, the CIA, FBI director and assistant director, deputy director, doing a heavy investigation of what's going on in 2016 when you were in the Senate about leading up to Russian meddling in the election. And Matt Taibbi and others have led the investigation along the way, and they're finding out new revelations. But every time a Democrat's asked about the investigation into 2016 and the role of John Brennan and James Comey and others, they point to an investigation you did as senator.
I want you to hear Democratic Congressman Jason Crow. There have been four. Four investigations, including a bipartisan Senate investigation led under the first Trump administration and led in part by Marco Rubio, that was very, very clear on these findings. These have been investigated and reinvestigated and reinvestigated, and nothing has changed up until this past month.
So, do you think anything has changed since you did that thorough investigation, Russia meddled in our election period? Yes, but that's not what the question was. I don't think that the issue is whether Russia did things to try to influence American public opinion and or drive wedges. I think here's the thing that they leave out when they talk about this. And they're so dishonest about it.
What they leave out is: the issue here was not that. The issue here was they claimed that they did it not just to help Trump, but that Trump was in on it. For a year and a half, almost two and a half years, they put this country through this notion, this fake fraud. Scheme lie that Trump was somehow in cahoots collaborating with Russian and Russian intelligence officials to help his campaign. And what my investigation that I, you know, I was the acting chairman of the intelligence committee, what that investigation showed is that there was zero zilch proof whatsoever, any evidence of any kind, that Uh the Trump Campaign in any way colluded with the Russians.
That's number one, that's clear.
So, I think what they should be saying is that there was a bipartisan study done by the Senate committee that found that the narrative that all these people were putting out there was a lie. Here's the other thing that the report found: that the way they handled the dossier, understand this dossier. This dossier was a piece of campaign disinformation, it was paid for by political campaigns. They hired the equivalent of a private investigator, and then they laundered it. Usually they take that and leak it to the media.
In this case, they laundered it through our intelligence agencies.
So you had some of the highest level officials in our intelligence agencies in the country taking that fake, ridiculous dossier. and using it to influence and inform an official intelligence assessment of what happened in this campaign. The report that we put out pointed to this. My statement at the time pointed to this. And I think we've learned even more about how hard what we've learned over the last, you know, with these new revelations is how hard the FBI and pe some people not all, but some people at the CIA worked.
to make that dossier a part of their intelligence assessment. It is a huge outrage because it was fake. It was a lie and they used it to mislead the American public. It cost millions of dollars in investigations, all chasing a hoax.
So that's the part they leave out because they're trying to play cute with words and the media is either uninterested or too lazy. To understand those nuances and that reality. I think both. They were too busy getting their awards for running that story. Literally, all these New York Times, Washington Post, these reporters are getting rewards for being a stenographer for John Brennan and others who are clearly leaking even when out of office.
This is Jason Chaffetz from the Jason in the House podcast. Join me every Monday to dive deeper into the latest political headlines and chat with remarkable guests. Listen and follow now at Foxnewspodcast.com or wherever you download podcasts. It's Will Tane Country. Watch it live at noon Eastern Monday through Thursday at Foxnews.com or on the Fox News YouTube channel.
And don't miss the show. Listen and follow the podcast five days a week at foxnewspodcasts.com or wherever you download your favorite podcasts. Another big thing on your plate is what Steve Witkoff's doing today. He's heading over to Israel. Then he wants to possibly go to Gaza.
We have allies, UK, Canada and France, all either threatening to or already done, recognizing a Palestinian state. That's over 140 in the UN. How does the U.S. view this move? Irrelevant?
It's irrelevant. I mean, it's annoying to some, but it's irrelevant. It doesn't mean anything. First of all, none of these countries have the ability to create a Palestinian state. There can be no Palestinian state unless Israel agrees to it.
Number two, they can't even tell you where this Palestinian state is. They can't tell you who will govern it. And I think, number three, it's counterproductive.
So think about it now of your Hamas. You're Hamas, you're still holding 20 innocent people as hostages. You're holding the bodies of over 50 of the people you massacred, raped, and killed. during this on october seventh of twenty twenty three, you're sitting there hiding in some tunnel somewhere as cowards, and then you're reading or hearing in the press that all of these countries are rallying to your side because this is the Hamas side. At the end of the day, the Hamas side is the Palestinian statehood side.
So you are creating this reward. And by the way, they are hurting ceasefire talks. Because Hamas is sitting there saying, that's the problem with the UK statement. The UK is like, well, if Israel doesn't agree to a ceasefire by September, we're going to recognize the Palestinian state.
So if I'm Hamas, I say, you know what? Let's not allow there to be a ceasefire. If Hamas refuses to agree to a ceasefire, it guarantees a Palestinian state will be recognized by all these countries in September.
So they're not going to agree to a ceasefire. I mean, it's so clumsy. But what this really is, in many of these countries' case, is their domestic politics.
Some of these countries have huge constituencies now that are pressuring them domestically to line up on the side, irrespective of its geopolitical ramifications. That's what they're doing here. But they're hurting they're actually hurting the cause. They're not helping because A, their statement isn't going to change anything other than it encourages and rewards Hamas, who now has every reason in the world not to agree to ceasefire and not to release the hostages. I wish all these countries would get together for once and maybe in one clear voice say, you must release these 20 living hostages who are there.
That's what they are. They're hostages. You must release them immediately. I wish there was as much attention paid to that as some of the other factors here. Great point.
The Arab League came out. Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt are demanding Hamas lay down its arms and agree to a two-state solution.
Now, the two-state solution, you just reg, it's folly. I got it. But for Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt, they have the sway, don't they? Especially Qatar. Yeah, I mean, over, they host the Hamas external people in their country.
And look, I want to be fair, okay? I know the Hamakata is not always. You know, it's a source of controversy among some. When it comes to this negotiation, they've been very helpful, they've been very forceful, they've put a lot of time and energy into this, and frankly, they've expressed their own frustrations with Hamas. I think the moment of truth has to arrive, however, where there has to be consequences if Hamas continues to disagree.
Understand, there was a ceasefire agreement in principle in place. Israel actually made a bunch of concessions that Hamas had asked for, hard concessions for Israel to make. And then Hamas came back and just rejected the deal. And by the way, rejected it on the same day that Macron from France. made his announcement.
Because at the end of the day, Hamas is sitting there saying, we're winning the PR war. We've got all these countries lining up on our side of this argument. We've got leverage now. We shouldn't agree to anything. We should keep this thing going.
That that's how they don't care about how many people die in Gaza. And they certainly they've got hostages that they think is what their shield. And now they've got all these countries sort of lining up on their side. And and and so as they view this anti-Israel narrative building internationally, it's emboldening Hamas. And I do think, however, it's interesting how forceful these Arab countries are about demilitarizing Gaza.
I think that's a very important thing because if Gaza is not demilitarized, if Hamas is not demilitarized, there will never it a lasting peace is impossible in Gaza or anywhere. No, I hear you. The other thing is you're talking about the huge Muslim population in France and the UK, where people find those cities almost unrecognizable because of what they've allowed to happen with immigration into their country. I assume that's what you were saying, right? You don't mean liberal unity.
I mean, look, I'm not an act, you know, their internal politics may be influenced by a combination of things. We have seen this unity of these pro-Islamist. Anti-Western, anti-capitalism left sort of merger, and they sort of join forces on everything from attacking ICE officers to you've seen in some of these immigration riots, immigration enforcement riots that you've seen with these protesters in California and other places, and many of these things, it's the same people. They're waving the same flags, wearing the same headscarfs. And it's the same people that shut down our universities.
That's what we've experienced domestically, and this has become a factor in many of these countries as well. They're under tremendous domestic pressure. And you watch the programming of things like the BBC, ninety five percent of their coverage is about how evil in their narrative Israel is. Very little coverage paid to the hostages, the families, Uh uh it's totally been forgotten because you know why? There The United States is not insensitive, and we have done a lot.
We've done more than, frankly, anybody else in terms of providing funding necessary for humanitarian relief in Gaza. And the cameras capture the images of the human suffering there. You know what the cameras don't capture? The suffering of 20 people living in tunnels right now, taken hostage by Hamas for almost a long time. No one's covering that.
And no one's talking about that. Mr. Secretary, people have talked about changing tone with China. The Taiwan president came here. We said, don't walk across the country.
It's going to aggravate China. We seem to be going more towards Pakistan than India as of late. Do you think we're more in deal mode with China? How would you describe our approach as we push forward on trade with China and also ask them to help us with Ukraine?
Well, we have plenty of issues that we disagree with China on, and they happen every day. I mean, in terms of those things continue. We remain as committed as ever to freedom of navigation in the region. We remain as committed as ever to our partners in the Philippines and in places like Taiwan and other things of this nature. We are also entering a period of some sort of strategic stability.
In the end, we have two big, the two largest economies in the world, an all-out trade conflict between the U.S. and China. I think the U.S. would benefit from it in some ways, but the world would be hurt by it. It would have a huge impact on the world and on our economy, and especially on the Chinese economy.
So I think as much as anything else, a mature foreign policy requires strategic balancing of equities as we move forward. We don't have a trade deal with China. What we have is an agreement in the short term that was just recently extended after a very hard negotiation. That occurred with our trade negotiators just a few days ago. Gotcha.
So I think it's. At the end of the day, two things are true. We have a lot of irritants long term with China that we need to confront. There are vulnerabilities that we need to close. Mr.
Secretary, I guess I have to stop you there against a hard break. Thanks so much for your time. Listen to the all-new Brett Baer podcast, featuring common ground, in-depth talks with lawmakers from opposite sides of the aisle, along with all your Brett Baer favorites like his all-star panel and much more. Available now at FoxNewsPodcasts.com or wherever you get your podcasts.
