logo
Transcript: Secretary of State Marco Rubio on "Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan," March 16, 2025

Transcript: Secretary of State Marco Rubio on "Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan," March 16, 2025

CBS News16-03-2025
The following is the transcript of an interview with Secretary of State Marco Rubio that aired on "Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan" on March 16, 2025.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Let's get straight to it this morning with Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, who joins us from Miami, Florida. Mr. Secretary for our audience, just to explain, this Red Sea area is a really important transit point for global shipping. The Houthis out of Yemen have been disrupting transit there for some time. President Trump cited these concerns when he announced the strikes. I'm wondering, how long will this campaign last, and will it involve ground forces?
U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE MARCO RUBIO: Well, first of all, the problem here is that this is a very important shipping lane and in the last year-and-a-half, the last 18 months, the Houthis have struck or attacked 174 naval vessels of the United States. Attacking the U.S. Navy directly 174 times, and 145 times they've attacked commercial shipping. So we basically have a band of pirates, you know, with guided precision anti-ship weaponry and exact- exacting a toll system in one of the most important shipping lanes in the world. That's just not sustainable. We are not going to have these people controlling which ships can go through and which ones cannot and so your question is, how long will this go on? It will go on until they no longer have the capability to do that.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, what does U.S. intelligence tell us at this point? Because the U.S. had been construct- conducting strikes for some time, but has not stopped the Houthis–
SECRETARY RUBIO: No.
MARGARET BRENNAN: –So what's going to be different right now? Do you have more fidelity in the intelligence that would make this more successful?
SECRETARY RUBIO: Well, those strikes were a retaliation strike. So they launched one missile, we hit the missile launcher, or we sent something to do it. This is not a message. This is not a one off. This is an effort to deny them the ability to continue to constrict and control shipping, and it's just not going to happen. We're not going to have these guys, these people with weapons, able to tell us where our ships can go, where the ships of all the world can go, by the way, it's not just the U.S. We're doing the world a favor. We're doing the entire world a favor by getting rid of these guys and their ability to strike global shipping. That's the mission here, and it will continue until that's carried out. That never happened before, the Biden Administration didn't do that. All the Biden Administration would do is they would respond to an attack. These guys would launch one rocket, we'd hit the rocket launcher. That's it. This is an effort to take away their ability to control global shipping in that part of the world. That's just not going to happen anymore–
MARGARET BRENNAN: and it could–
SECRETARY RUBIO: –So, this will continue until that's finished.
MARGARET BRENNAN: It could involve ground raids?
SECRETARY RUBIO: Well, those are military decisions to be made, but I've heard no talk of ground raids. I don't think there's a necessity for it right now. I can tell you that as of last night, some of the key people involved in those missile launches are no longer with us, and I can tell you that some of the facilities that they use are no longer existing, and that will continue. The- look, it's bottom line, easy way to understand it, okay, these guys are able to control what ships can go through there. They've attacked the U.S. Navy 174 times. They've attacked the United States Navy. We're not going to have people sitting around with the missiles attacking the U.S. Navy. It's not going to happen, not under President Trump.
MARGARET BRENNAN: The President also referenced Iran in his statement. Iran provides some support for the Houthis as you know. Put this in context for me, because U.S. intelligence has been suggesting for some time that Israel has the desire and intent to conduct an attack on Iran's developing nuclear program in the coming months. President Trump has extended an offer for negotiations. Have you heard anything back from Iran? Is this strike in Yemen a signal to Iran?
SECRETARY RUBIO: This strike in Yemen is about their ability, the ability of the Houthis, to strike global shipping and attack the U.S. Navy, and their willingness to do it. 174 times against the U.S. Navy, 145 sometimes against global shipping. That's what the strike is about. What we can't ignore, and the reason why the President mentioned Iran is because the Iranians have supported the Houthis. They provided them intelligence, they provided them guidance, they provided them weaponry. I mean, there's no way the Houthis, okay, the Houthis would have the ability to do this kind of thing unless they had support from Iran. And so this was a message to Iran, don't keep supporting them, because then you will also be responsible for what they are doing in attacking Navy ships and attacking global shipping.
MARGARET BRENNAN: They also get support from Russia, potentially, which you leveraged sanctions in regard to, but I want to ask you about tariffs because you were just in Canada this past week. China is Canada's second biggest export market, Mexico's third. In this ongoing trade back-and-forth, the U.S. is having, isn't there a risk that China will ultimately be the winner? If it's too costly to deal with the United States, won't they benefit?
SECRETARY RUBIO: Well, actually, China and Canada are involved in a mini trade war right now. In fact, the Chinese have imposed a bunch of tariffs, reciprocal or retaliatory tariffs on Canada after Canada imposed tariffs on them. So here's the way everyone needs to understand this, okay? The president rightfully believes that the balance of global trade is completely off gilt- kilter. For 30 or 40 years, we have allowed countries to treat us unfairly in global trade, much of it during the Cold War because we wanted them to be rich and prosperous because they were our allies in the Cold War, but now that has to change. You look at the European Union. The European Union's economy is about the same size as ours. It's not a low wage economy. It's very comparable to ours in terms of its composition and so forth. Why do they have a trade surplus with us? So what the President is saying is two things. Number one, there are critical industries like aluminum, like steel, like semiconductors, like automobile manufacturing, that he rightfully believes, President Trump rightfully believes, the U.S. needs to have a domestic capability and the way you protect those industries and build that capability is by ensuring that there's economic incentives to produce in the United States. The second is global, and that is, we are going to put tariffs on countries reciprocal to what they impose on us. And so this is a global, it's not against Canada, it's not against Mexico, it's not against the EU, it's everybody. And then from that new baseline of fairness and reciprocity, we will engage, potentially in bilateral negotiations with countries around the world on new trade arrangements that make sense for both sides. Fairness, but right now, it's not fair. We're going to reset the baseline, and then we can enter into these bilateral agreements, potentially, with countries so that our trade is fair. What's not going to continue is, of course, these countries are upset–
MARGARET BRENNAN: So this is all just about leverage to get bilateral, not free trade- not North American Free trade deals–
SECRETARY RUBIO: No, it's not leverage–
MARGARET BRENNAN: re- renegotiation–
SECRETARY RUBIO: – No, no, it's not leverage, it's fairness. It's resetting baseline fairness. And then from there, we can work on deals and- and so forth, because they'll have products we don't make, we have products they don't make. That's where trade works the best. It has to be free, but it has to be fair, and right now it's only free on one side, and it's not fair for the other side–
MARGARET BRENNAN: Well you know, sir, that–
SECRETARY RUBIO: –It's an unsustainable position.
MARGARET BRENNAN: –the ad hoc nature of these policy announcements and pull backs are causing concern in the marketplace, as we saw this past week. So I heard you describe what seemed like a strategy to get to negotiations on a bilateral front. You also seem to negotiate- say this was national security minded. But then we also see comments by the President of like, 200 percent tariffs on champagne. That's not a critical industry for the United States, that seems more emotional.
SECRETARY RUBIO: No, that means that's- that's called retaliation that's what happens in these trade exchanges. They're going to increase tariffs on- they already have high tariffs. They're going to add more to their tariffs? Fine, then we'll have to find something to- I mean, you tell me? I mean, Canada is going after whiskey and orange juice and you know I mean–
MARGARET BRENNAN: In retaliation.
SECRETARY RUBIO: Yeah, exactly. So that sounds pretty petty to me as well. So what's the difference? The point is, I get it. I understand why these countries don't like it, because the status quo of trade is good for them. It benefits them, they like the status quo. We don't like the status quo. We are going to set a new status quo, and then we can negotiate something, if they want to, that is fair for both sides. But what we have now cannot continue. We have de-industrialized this country. De-industrialized the United States of America. There are things we can no longer make and we have to be able to make in order to be safe as a country and in order to have jobs. That's why we had a rust belt, that's why we've suffered all these important jobs that once sustained entire communities wiped out by trade that basically sent these factories, these jobs, this industrial capability, to other places that cannot and will not continue. I don't- President Trump, this is no mystery, he's been talking about this since the 1980s actually, even before he was a political figure. This is going to happen, and it's going to happen now.
MARGARET BRENNAN: I want to ask you about Russia. You said envoy Steve Witkoff's meeting with Vladimir Putin that happened last week would answer the fundamental question of whether we're moving towards a ceasefire, or whether Putin is using a delay tactic? You spoke with Sergey Lavrov, the Foreign Minister, yesterday. Is this a delay tactic?
SECRETARY RUBIO: Well, I think that was a pro- promising meeting. As I've said repeatedly, we're not going to negotiate this in the public. Hopefully we'll have something to announce at some point fairly soon. I can't guarantee that, but I certainly think the meeting was promising, the exchange was promising. I don't take away from Steve's meeting, from Ambassador Witkoff's meeting, negativity. There are some challenges. This is a complex, three-year war that's been ongoing along a very long military front, with a lot of complexity to it. So no one's claiming that it's easy, but I want everyone to understand, here's the plan. Plan A is, get the shooting to stop so that we can move to Plan B, phase two, which is have everybody at a table, maybe not- maybe with some shuttle diplomacy, to figure out a way to permanently end this war in a way that's enduring and it respects everybody's needs and so forth. No one is saying that that second part is easy, but we can't get even to that second part until we get past the first part. It's hard to negotiate an enduring end of a war as long as they're shooting at each other, and so the president wants a ceasefire. That's what we're working on, assuming we can get that done. That won't be easy in and of itself. We move to the second phase, which is negotiating something more enduring and permanent. That will be hard. It will involve a lot of hard work, concessions from both sides, but it has to happen. This war cannot continue. The president has been clear about that, and he's doing everything he can to bring it to an end.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Okay, we'll talk about that later in the program as well with Envoy Witkoff. I want to ask you about a decision you made to revoke a student visa for someone at Columbia University this past week. The Wall Street Journal editorial board writes, "the administration needs to be careful, it's targeting real promoters of terrorism not breaking the great promise of a green card by deporting anyone with controversial political views." Can you substantiate any form of material support for terrorism–
SECRETARY RUBIO: Yes.
MARGARET BRENNAN: –specifically to Hamas, from this Columbia student–
SECRETARY RUBIO: Yes.
MARGARET BRENNAN: –or was it simply that he was espousing a controversial political point of view?
SECRETARY RUBIO: Well, not just the student, we're going to do more. In fact, we- every day now we're approving visa revocations, and if that visa led to a green card, the green card process as well and here's why, it's very simple. When you apply to enter the United States and you get a visa, you are a guest, and you're coming as a student, you're coming as a tourist, or what have you. And in it, you have to make certain assertations and if you tell us when you apply for a visa, I'm coming to the U.S. to participate in pro-Hamas events, that runs counter to the foreign policy interest of the United States of America. It's that simple. So, you lied. You came- if you had told us that you were going to do that, we never would have given you the visa. Now you're here. Now you do it. You lied to us. You're out. It's that simple. It's that straight forward.
MARGARET BRENNAN: But, is there any- but is there any evidence of a–
SECRETARY RUBIO: Yes. Sure.
SECRETARY RUBIO: Yeah, they take over. I mean, do you not- I mean, you should watch the news. These guys take over entire buildings–
[CROSSTALK]
MARGARET BRENNAN: We covered it intensely. I'm asking about the specific–
MARGARET BRENNAN: –They vandalized colleges. They shut down colleges–
SECRETARY RUBIO: –well then you should know that this is–
MARGARET BRENNAN: –justification for the revocation of his visa–
SECRETARY RUBIO: Well, this specific individual was the spokesperson–
SECRETARY RUBIO: –was the negotiator- on negotiating on behalf of people that took over a campus? That vandalized buildings? Negotiating over what? That's a crime in and of itself, that they're involved in the being the negotiator, the spokesperson, this that the other. We don't want- we don't need these people in our country that we never should have allowed them in in the first place. If he had told us, I'm going over there, and I'm going over there to become the spokesperson and one of the leaders of a movement that's going to turn one of your allegedly elite colleges upside down, people can't even go to school, library buildings being vandalized. We never would have let him in. We never would have let him in to begin with. And now that he's doing it and he's here, he's going to leave, and so are others, and we're going to keep doing it. We're here- and by the way, I find it ironic that a lot of these people out there defending the First Amendment speech, alleged free speech rights of these Hamas–
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes.
SECRETARY RUBIO: –sympathizers, they had no problem, okay, pressuring social media to censor American political speech. So it's, I think it's ironic and hypocritical. But the bottom line is this, if you are in this country, to promote Hamas, to promote terrorist organizations, to participate in vandalism, to participate in acts of rebellion and riots on campus. We never would have let you in if we had known that and now that we know it, you're going to leave.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Is it only pro-Palestinian people who are going to have their visas remote- revoked, or other points of view as well?
SECRETARY RUBIO: No, I think anybody who's here in favor- look, we want to get rid of Tren de Aragua gang members. They're terrorists too. We, the president, designated them, asked me to designate and I did, as a terrorist organization. We want to get rid of them as well. You're- we don't want terrorists in America. I don't know how hard that is to understand. We want people- we don't want people in our country that are going to be committing crimes and undermining our national security or the public safety. It's that simple, especially people that are here as guests. That is what a visa is. I don't know what we've gotten it in our head that a visa is some sort of birthright. It is not. It is a visitor into our country, and if you violate the terms of your visitation, you are going to leave.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Okay. Secretary Rubio, like to have you back. Talk to you about a lot more on your plate another time, but we have to leave it there.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Deep Reads: Cracks in the dream
Deep Reads: Cracks in the dream

Washington Post

time26 minutes ago

  • Washington Post

Deep Reads: Cracks in the dream

The Vitals had settled in Springfield from Haiti during President Donald Trump's first term and saved money through the Biden administration. Business leaders in their reliably red county praised immigrants for reviving the local economy. Americans struggled to pass drug tests, one factory boss told a TV news crew. Not Haitians. Fernande Vital earned $21 an hour at a Japanese automotive plant, monitoring robots forging car parts, while her husband, Rocher, led a strip-mall church. Even as the GOP and some of their neighbors called for mass deportations, the Vitals were sure nobody meant them, immigrants here legally. So inJuly of last year, they made a down payment of $8,000, their entire nest egg. In August, they moved in, installed lace curtains and hung a family portrait in the dining room. One month later came the cracks. This story follows the Vitals after they dealt with the structural woes in their home and their feeling of belonging in this country. Danielle Paquette reported, wrote and narrated the piece. Bishop Sand composed music and produced audio. Subscribe to The Washington Post here.

American Victims of Hamas and Hezbollah Attacks Sue U.N. Agency
American Victims of Hamas and Hezbollah Attacks Sue U.N. Agency

New York Times

time10 hours ago

  • New York Times

American Victims of Hamas and Hezbollah Attacks Sue U.N. Agency

Victims and relatives of people killed or injured in attacks by Hamas and Hezbollah have sued the United Nations agency dedicated to Palestinians, accusing it of aiding the armed groups and fueling terrorism. The lawsuit suit was filed on Thursday in federal court in the District of Columbia by American citizens living in Israel and the United States and their family members. A similar case has been playing out since last year in federal court in Manhattan. Both suits are attempting to hold the United Nations Relief and Work Agency, known as UNRWA, responsible in some measure for violent acts by Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon, groups dedicated to the destruction of Israel that have been designated terrorist organizations by the United States. The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified monetary damages, both compensatory and punitive. Israel has long maintained that UNRWA has been infiltrated by militants and is biased against Israel in the war in Gaza, an accusation U.N. officials have denied. The agency has been at the center of controversy during the conflict, which was set off by the Hamas-led attack on Israel on Oct. 7, 2023. In the New York case, lawyers for the U.N. agency have argued it is exempt from such suits because it has diplomatic immunity. The Biden administration supported that position, but in April, lawyers in President Trump's Justice Department reversed the government's stance, paving the way for the latest lawsuit. Some analysts say the Justice Department's new position could open the door not only to more civil cases seeking damages from the agency, but also to the Treasury Department's imposing sanctions on it. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.

Crypto regulation: SEC Chair Atkins previews the agency's efforts
Crypto regulation: SEC Chair Atkins previews the agency's efforts

Yahoo

time20 hours ago

  • Yahoo

Crypto regulation: SEC Chair Atkins previews the agency's efforts

Under the Biden administration, many in the crypto community were frustrated with how they were being treated by the Securities and Exchange Commission. That frustration turned into hope when President Trump picked Paul Atkins to lead the agency. Chair Atkins sits down with Yahoo Finance Senior Reporter Jennifer Schonberger to discuss some of the things the SEC is working on to when it comes to crypto. To watch more expert insights and analysis on the latest market action, check out more Market Catalysts. Director Atkins, thank you so much for sitting down with me. It's wonderful to have you on Yahoo Finance. Thank you very much. It's great to be here. I think this is my first time on Yahoo Finance. And hopefully the first of many appearances. I'd be happy to come back. Thank you. The President's working group on Digital Assets has directed the Securities and Exchange Commission to immediately enable the trading of digital assets at a federal level, specifically asking for greater clarity on trading, custody, registration. Could you offer more details on what we could expect to see in terms of customized rules for crypto from the SEC? Well, thank you. That's a a great topic and uh you know, I could go on for hours on that one, but uh because it's complex and we are taking a new uh path than what's been done before here at this agency. But basically, what we've done is establish uh a crypto task force and that started back in uh as soon as inauguration happened with my colleague uh Commissioner Hester Peirce uh was leading that. And so now we are formalizing that task force into what we're calling project crypto. So mobilizing the full uh extent of the SEC's uh staff here in the various uh rule making divisions to start uh putting together proposals to go to the public uh and and make proposals as far as uh making rules more streamlined and fit for purpose with respect to the crypto world. So it stems from initial registration and and how or how intermediaries are registered or not and how they can deal with crypto assets. During the last administration, I heard routinely from crypto companies how difficult it was to just merely register with the SEC. How could we see that change? What does the path to registration look like for crypto companies? Can you offer any insight into how that would change? Well, I think that the the trouble was in the past, uh the SEC didn't make any accommodations for things that clearly don't fit with respect to either a crypto company, crypto-related company, so like a broker dealer equivalent, one who's trading crypto assets or the assets themselves. And so there are many questions and it was just hard for crypto companies to shoehorn into a set form that's been around for decades and decades. So you know, kind of fit for purpose for an industrial era, but not necessarily for a digitized uh company or digitized assets. So we're out to make that. Our goal is to make that clearer. So there's no more question and people don't have to try or try to have their lawyers interface with SEC, if lawyers don't get any answers, so they can't give an opinion to their client as to how to go forward. So we want to cut through all of that and make things, you know, very straightforward so that people have certainty. And so innovators need certainty in order to bring their products to market because the because investors who are interested in investing in that innovation need and have certainty that everything is legal and that it's not going to get tied up in litigation or lawsuits or whatever. What about the custody side? Can you offer any details on what changes we could see there? Well, with that, we will uh we have certain authority on our own respect to investment advisors and and whatnot. But generally, we will be working with our colleagues at the bank regulatory agencies um and with the states to get some, you know, set rules down that then are consonant with the rules that apply that are in statute right now. We can we have authority to interpret those statutes um uh to to make them fit for purpose for the current environment. So I look forward to working with the bank regulators as being outlined in that PDVG report. And how quickly could we see these rules implemented? What's the timeline on this? Well, we can do some things uh just uh, you know, through the normal course um but uh but for to have to make sure that things are stable for the future and, you know, not still in question, um we will go out, we have to have rule proposals that go out for notice and comment from the public uh and to make sure that we've gotten it right, which is just the best way to do things obviously rather than, uh, you know, go ahead and shoot first and then ask questions later. You want to ask questions first and have people give input to make sure things are are correct and there are no loopholes in it or whatever. So that process will take a while. So people shouldn't think all this will happen here in the next two months, but well, we're going to start, we've been working on this for a while. We'll be start uh starting to roll out proposals and here this year within the next few months. And so it will proceed a pace into the next year and perhaps into the following year, but you'll start seeing things come out. Last month, you said you're considering an exemption for innovations to help companies who want to experiment with moving stocks onto the blockchain. Subsequently, we heard from your colleague, SEC Commissioner Hester Peirce, who sent a statement that tokenizing a security creates a token that is a security. So could you offer a bit of clarity there? What can we expect if stocks are trading on the blockchain are are tokenized? Will securities laws that are still on the books apply? Well, as as Commissioner Peirce said, I mean we the way the law is written now, we'll see how that develops with Congress, but the tokenization of securities uh just in is a wrapper around the security itself. So that's still in most cases uh probably would be a security. But we need to have again to get back to clarity, we need to have um, you know, set out straightforward rules so that people can see like, okay, is this a commodity, is this a security? And then if it's a security, then what do I need to do to make sure that I can issue it and that it can be traded properly under the law. The blockchain adds so much advantages to some of the other um aspects of the current financial system, but part of that is transparency. You know, on the blockchain, you can follow the transactions back to inception. And so there's uh because of that openness, I think we can use that as a as a lever to to help uh, you know, make sure that things are consonant with the securities laws. So just to clarify, if a stock is tokenized, the securities laws that are still on the books would comply, what would apply rather. Those those those stocks would still be governed by the current securities laws. Right. I don't think that we we will study this and and make sure that, you know, we can have a straightforward answer. But a lot of times, there are different ways to tokenize things. And so some of that will be um, you compare it to say a mutual fund or an ETF. So the ETF is still a security even though and it has securities also in it. It's a basket of securities. So that's the similar thing with the tokenized um asset. And so, so but we need to make sure that that the rules that apply for disclosure and issuance and all that can accommodate, you know, the special features of tokenization. And it's much more efficient perhaps to have a tokenized security than some other sorts of things, but we need to make sure that we have a level playing field that people are certain uh how to go forward. So that's going to be unfolding as we address these issues. Related Videos Bad news flurry, IPO market, crypto dive: Market takeaways Trump Moves Two US Nuclear Submarines on Russia Threat Trump says new tariff rates are final, but people are skeptical SEC chair talks tokenization & how securities should be defined Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store