Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., is widely expected to have one of the smoothest confirmation hearings among President-elect Trump’s Cabinet picks on Wednesday. Yet in a reasonable world, his record of ultra-hawkish neoconservatism would make his nomination for secretary of state controversial. The issue is that the U.S. foreign policy establishment is still eager to welcome warmongers with open arms, provided they are perceived as buttoned-up.
Some of Trump’s other picks for foreign policy posts have garnered huge amounts of negative attention from across the political spectrum. For example, Trump’s pick of former Fox news host Pete Hegseth for defense secretary received skepticism from not just Democrats but also, at least initially, some Republicans. An allegation of sexual assault (which Hegseth denies and for which he was not charged) his background as a former cable news host and his retrograde position on women in combat roles (which he has since softened) contributed to the narrative that he was not a shoo-in. (Republicans did, disappointingly, appear to rally in Hegseth’s favor during his confirmation hearing on Tuesday.)
Rubio has been able to skate by as one of the “normal” Trump picks.
And Trump’s pick of former Democratic Rep. Tulsi Gabbard for director of national intelligence has also raised eyebrows and objections across both parties. Her track record of parroting pro-Kremlin and pro-Assad talking points has caused members of both parties to doubt her commitment to U.S. security interests. “The former congresswoman from Hawaii is overly friendly with U.S. enemies and cannot be trusted to be an honest broker when the president makes major national security decisions,” The Washington Post editorial board wrote in its assessment of why Gabbard should be considered “unacceptable” for her position.
But whereas Hegseth and Gabbard have been the subjects of withering Washington media critiques and bipartisan lawmaker suspicion, Rubio has been able to skate by as one of the “normal” Trump picks. That speaks to how twisted the old Washington consensus’ notion of normal is.
As secretary of state, Rubio would be the nation’s top diplomat. His job would be to manage U.S. foreign policy and pursue U.S. interests without the use of force. But his hawkish record and history of surrounding himself with neoconservative advisers make him a poor fit for the position: His career in national politics has been spent clamoring for war instead of diplomacy.
Rubio not only was a vociferous supporter of the Iraq War, but he also pushed the narrative that it made the world safer — even after it was revealed that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction. He opposed the U.S. military withdrawal from Afghanistan. He was an opponent of the now-defunct Iran nuclear deal and floated the idea of war with the country. He has signaled support for regime change in Venezuela. He attacked the Biden administration from the right on Israel policy and openly opposed a ceasefire deal, despite Biden’s extraordinary support for its government’s brutal operation in the Gaza Strip. The list goes on. One of Trump’s biggest breaks from Republican orthodoxy has been to shun the neoconservative movement’s endless appetite for regime change and nation-building, and Rubio would, of course, be taking orders from him. Rubio has already tempered his usually hawkish posture toward Russia with his Trump-aligned rhetoric about negotiating with Russia over a ceasefire deal in Ukraine. He also voted against a Ukraine aid package last year. Still, one has to ask why Rubio would be the right choice for a president who has promised to put “America First” and withdraw from involvement in wars abroad and obligations to allies. Rubio’s job would entail ignoring many of his usual instincts to use American military power to reshape the world. And to the extent that he would be able to channel his instincts on the job in signaling to or in negotiations with adversaries such as Russia, Iran and North Korea, he is liable to push negotiations in a more hard-line direction rather than one of strategic compromise. Rubio is not dogged by questions of personal misconduct. He has not been a purveyor of Russian misinformation. But he has long supported discredited policy ideas that have killed or would kill many innocent people in the name of American empire. At one point these ideas had a ton of purchase in Washington, and they still do among a significant set of policymakers and pundits. But a growing number of Americans on the left and the right have started to see how morally and strategically disastrous the forever war mindset has been. As one of the loudest proponents of that worldview, Rubio should face some accountability at his confirmation hearing.
Zeeshan Aleem is a writer and editor for MS NOW. Previously, he worked at Vox, HuffPost and Politico, and he has also been published in, among other places, The New York Times, The Atlantic, The Nation, and The Intercept. You can sign up for his free politics newsletter by clicking the link at the top of this bio. 
