Secretary of State Marco Rubio on "Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan"

And joining us now is Secretary of State Marco Rubio from Rome. Mr. Secretary, you've had a very busy week. I know you have been at the Vatican and they have offered to host a direct meeting between Ukraine and Russia. Given that Vladimir Putin was a no show at the talks, he called for an Istanbul this past week. Is there reason to believe that he will take up Pope Leo on the offer? Well, I think if you saw again, I'm not the spokesperson for the Kremlin, but if you saw their statements, I believe yesterday where they said that they would be open to such a meeting under the right conditions. So we'll wait and see if that's possible. Obviously, the Vatican has made a very generous offer to host anything, by the way, not just the meeting between Zelensky and Putin, but any meeting, including at a technical level, you know, any meetings that that need to be hosted. They've expressed a willingness to do so. So it's a very generous offer that may be taken up on. I mean, it would be a site that all parties would feel comfortable. So hopefully we'll get to that stage where talks are happening on a regular basis and that the Vatican will have the opportunity to be one of the options. The Russian foreign ministry is saying that you initiated a call to your Russian counterpart, Sergei Lavrov, on Saturday. What was that about? Are you talking about lining up that face to face meeting between President Putin and President Trump? Well, we talked about a variety of things we did talk about. I wanted to get his readout on his view of how the talks went yesterday. They were they were not a complete waste of time. For example, there were a thousand prisoners that are going to be exchanged. And that, from a humanitarian standpoint, is very positive. He explained to me that they are going to be preparing a document outlining their requirements for a ceasefire that would then lead to broader negotiations. So obviously, the Ukrainian side is going to be working on their own proposal and hopefully that'll be forthcoming soon. And if that does happen and the proposal that comes forward from the Russian side and to that matter from the Ukrainian side are proposals that are serious and viable, then there's been real progress and we can work off of that. So we'll have to wait and see. But he wanted me to know and he communicated in our call that they are their side will be working on a series of ideas and requirements that they would have in order to move forward with a ceasefire and further negotiations. So we'll await that. And hopefully it's one that's a document that is close enough to what the Ukrainians want to be able to get to that point and maybe work out those differences. You've said repeatedly, it's just a matter of days, though, in terms of the waning patience that the U.S. has for this diplomacy to succeed. So are they just tapping you along, as President Trump has said? Are they just seeking to talk? Are they just seeking to continue to talk to buy time? Well, that's what we're testing and that's what we'll know. Look, at the end of the day, what I've said and it's happening now, we're no longer flying all over the world trying to set up meetings. We're responding to meetings that are set up and we're willing. We always said we're willing to do whatever it takes to bring them together, the opportunities present themselves. So I think your question is, are they tapping us along? Well, that's what we're trying to find out. We'll find out pretty soon. They met last yesterday or the day before in Turkey. From that, they agreed they're going to exchange paper on ideas that get to a ceasefire. If those papers have ideas on them that are realistic and rational, then I think we know we've made progress. If those papers, on the other hand, have requirements in them that we know are unrealistic, then we'll have a different assessment. So we're going to try to find that out. And it's a combination here. On the one hand, we're trying to achieve peace and end a very bloody, costly and destructive war. So there's some element of patience that is required. On the other hand, we don't have time to waste. There are a lot of other things happening in the world that we also need to be paying attention to. So we don't want to be involved in this process of just endless talks. There has to be some progress, some movement forward. And if at the end of this, in the next few days, we get a document produced by both sides and it shows that both sides are being making concessions and being realistic and rational in their approach, then I think we can feel good about continuing to remain engaged. If, on the other hand, what we see is not very productive, perhaps we'll have a different assessment. I also agree that ultimately one of the things that could help break this logjam, perhaps the only thing that can, is a direct conversation between President Trump and Vladimir Putin. And he's already openly expressed a desire and a belief that that needs to happen. And hopefully that'll be worked out soon as well. You're planning on that? Well, I don't know. We're certainly made the offer. The president's made that offer already publicly. The mechanics of setting that kind of meeting up would require a little bit of work. So I can't say that's being planned as we speak in terms of picking a site and a date. But the president wants to do it. He wants to do it as soon as feasible. I think the Russian side has also expressed a willingness to do it. And so now it's just a question of bringing them, bringing everyone together and figuring out where and when. And that meeting will happen and what it will be about. Yeah, I want to move on to other topics. But lastly, your former Senate colleague, Lindsey Graham, was next to you in that meeting with the Ukrainian foreign minister. He has a he has a veto proof majority on this bill to put sanctions on Russia. How quickly do you want the option for more sanctions on Russia or are you asking him to wait? No, we're not. Look, the Senate is going to act ultimately. I mean, I think in the past we've acted to give us a little time to see if we can make some progress on our talks. But we've also been pretty clear with the Russian side for weeks now, going back six or seven weeks. We've been communicating to the Russian side that this effort was was being undertaken, that we anticipated that when all was said and done, it would have close to 80 co-sponsors in the Senate. And I imagine a comparable percentage of support in the House that that was an effort we couldn't stop and don't control, that ultimately Congress and in particular the Republicans in the House and Senate have tried to give the president space and time to negotiate something here. But we've we've advised the Russians repeatedly now for almost two months that this was coming if no progress was made. So I think that's just coming to fruition now. And it's one of the one of the things that I confirmed again, being with Lindsey Graham this week in Turkey, is they're now up to 77. He thinks they could get close to 80 or more. And that's just that's just a fact. And it's something we've told the Russians about for weeks was coming. I want to move on to another part of the world. You've been very involved in the administration's efforts to crack down on this Venezuelan gang TDA that has been designated as a terror group by the US. Do you accept the intelligence community's assessment that the Venezuelan gang is not a proxy force of the Maduro government? That was the National Intelligence Council assessment. Yeah, that's their assessment, they're wrong. In fact, the FBI agrees with me that they are. We the FBI agrees that not only is trained at Agua exported by the Venezuelan regime, but in fact, if you go back and see a trained at Agua member is all the evidence is there and it's growing every day was actually contracted to murder an opposition member, I believe, in Chile a few months ago. So one of the warnings out there by the FBI is not simply the train that Agua are a terrorist organization, but one that has already been operationalized to murder a to murder a an opposition member in another country. But that's a different thing than being a proxy force controlled by the Maduro government. Part of this is at the heart of the legal arguments the administration is having over its ability to continue to deport suspected gang members. That's why this assessment is so key. You completely reject that intelligence. Yeah, I agree 100 percent with the FBI's finding. This is a prison gang that the Venezuelan government has actively encouraged to leave the country, a prison gang that in some cases they've been in cooperation. And by the way, trained at Agua members that have been returned to Venezuela on some of these planes that have gone back, I've been greeted like heroes at the airport. So we have no doubt. I have no doubt. And the FBI has made clear this is the gang that they hired in order to to murder an opposition member in another country. So they they there's no doubt in our mind and in my mind and in the FBI's assessment that this is a group that the regime and Venezuela uses not just to try to destabilize the United States, but to project power like they did by murdering a member of the opposition in Chile. South Africa's president is traveling to the United States this week to meet with President Trump. The administration has prioritized bringing some white South Africans, Afrikaners to the United States, despite the increased restrictions on refugees. President Trump claims there's a genocide underway in South Africa. That's a legal determination. The State Department would make it. Are you trying to determine that now? I was determined that these people are having their properties taken from them. You can you can call it whatever they want. But these are people that on the basis of their race are having their properties taken away from them and their lives being threatened and in some cases killed. These are people that applied and made these claims in their applications and seek to come to the United States in search of refuge. We've often been lectured by people all over the place about how the United States needs to continue to be a beacon for those who are oppressed abroad. Well, here's an example where we're doing that. So I don't understand why people are criticizing it. I think people should be celebrating it. And I think people should be supporting it. If in fact, there are evidence of a genocide that you are in favor. I think there's evidence, absolutely, that people have been murdered, that people have been forcibly removed from their properties, both by the government in some cases because of the law they passed, but also because of independent groups encouraged by political parties inside inside of South Africa. So listen, to move here from half a world away and leave behind the only homeland you've ever known. That's not something people do lightly, especially people who have spent generations farming their land and developing their property. That's not something that you take lightly and do. These people are doing it for a reason. So we welcome them to the United States. And I think there may be more coming soon. We will stand by to see if that determination of genocide is made. I want to ask you about the Middle East. The president says he wants to end wars, but Israel's prime minister has said he is expanding this ground operation inside of Gaza. The IDF says is to seize strategic areas. Does the U.S. fully support expanding this war? We expand the destruction of Hamas, the ending of Hamas. We support a future for the people of Gaza that is free of Hamas and full of opportunity. That's what we support. And this is a group that came across on October 7th and carried out one of the most vile series of attacks, kidnappings, rapes, murders and hostage taking that we've ever seen. That's what we support. Now, that said, we also support an end to the conflict, a ceasefire. We don't want people obviously suffering as they have. And we blame Hamas for that. But nonetheless, they're suffering. And so we are actively engaged. Even as I speak to you now, we are actively engaged in trying to figure out if there is a way to get more hostages out through some ceasefire type mechanism. We're not going to do anything to undermine Israel and its security. But by the same token, if there is a possibility here to find a way forward that frees more hostages, including those who are alive, but also the bodies to their relatives, and potentially bring about an end to this war in a way that puts the people of Gaza on a pathway of peace and prosperity and being free of Hamas, we're going to explore that. We think we've made some progress. But there's more work to be done. Ambassador Witkoff is working on that on an hourly basis. It's something we're all very focused on and continue to be very supportive of. And I hope we'll have good news soon in that regard. But I think some impediments remain. Are you asking Israel to slow down this military push? And the Qatari prime minister told Fox News that there was a deal being put together for all hostages or many hostages to be released after Edan Alexander, that American Israeli, was released recently. But then the Israeli military bombed a hospital, killing 70 civilians and everything went sideways. Is that your understanding of what happened? It was this lack of care of collateral damage. Now, the way I would characterize it is that this war could end immediately. And Israel's made that clear. It could end immediately if Hamas surrenders and gives up their weapons and demilitarizes and releases all the hostages, including the deceased ones. They did that. This conflict would end. That's been true from the very beginning. It's been true for months now. They're the ones that have chosen not to accept that offer. That said, we continue to work and do everything we can through diplomatic channels and private means to bring about an end to this conflict in a way that ends Hamas and provides the people of Gaza the opportunity at a prosperous and peaceful future that also ensures Israel's security. So we're working on that. We've never stopped working on that. We've never stopped taking efforts to make that possible. And that continues. Even as I speak to you now, there are people working on that. So we're going to continue to do that. And that's the outcome we want to see. And hopefully the sooner the better. Well, the president has said Prime Minister Netanyahu didn't want to end the war. So the views are quite well, I think what the president know what the president. No, no, I think what the president is saying is he doesn't want to end the war until Hamas is defeated. This is a group that is a threat. If an ember survives, it will spark again into a fire. And that is the view of there is no future. There can be no peaceful and prosperous Gaza as long as Hamas governs it by rule of arms. And that's a that's a fundamental truth. Now, that doesn't mean that there isn't some way that we can achieve that through a ceasefire and some peace mechanism. And that's what we're trying to accomplish here. Ending Hamas, ending its governance of Gaza, ending the conflict, freeing all of the hostages, including the bodies of those who have passed away and been killed and murdered by the Hamas terrorists, and then beginning the work of a future for Gaza and also of ensuring Israel's security. That's always been our goal. That remains our goal. And that's what we continue to be focused on. But in the absence of that such agreement, we anticipate that, you know, Israel will continue forward with their operations. But that doesn't mean we stop working on trying to achieve a peaceful outcome that also protects Israel's security and ends Hamas's governance of Gaza so that Gaza can have a free and prosperous future moving forward. That's what the president wants to see as the end goal here. That that is the end goal. And that's what we're working on through every means at our disposal. You have said that Iran is, in your view, a threshold nuclear state, and we're at a critical moment. The U.S. and Iran are talking again. Can you clarify what the U.S. policy is here? It is the bottom line that Iran cannot enrich any uranium, even if it is at low levels for civilian purposes. Do they need to fully dismantle the program? Well, look, if you're able to enrich at any level, you now are basically able to enrich that weapons grade very quickly. I mean, that's just a fundamental fact and everyone knows it. And that was the problem with the Obama deal. But the end goal here is simple. Iran can never have a nuclear weapon. And the president's preference, because he doesn't like war, the president's preference is to achieve that through a peaceful negotiation. In fact, the president's preference is not not only that Iran not pursue nuclear weapons, but that Iran be a rich, peaceful and prosperous country where people can be happy. He wants them to have a better future. He has said this. He's a builder, not a bomber. That's what he views himself as. And that's what he is. He's a president that wants peace. And so he's offered that route. And that's when we hope the Iranians will take. But he's been very clear. Iran is never going to have the capability. They're never going to have a nuclear weapon. It's not going to happen. And we hope that that is achieved. That outcome is achieved through peaceful diplomatic means. And that's what we're engaged on. We're not going to negotiate it in the media because it makes it difficult to get an outcome. But that is the ultimate goal here is to have an Iran that does not have a nuclear weapon or the ability to threaten its neighbors, particularly Israel. Mr. Secretary, I know you have a busy schedule. Thank you for your time this morning. Thank you.