Loading record
Public disputes concerning relations between states, including alliances, treaties, diplomatic recognition, and the terms on which countries associate with one another.
Counts show individual statements. They do not assign an overall position.
5 statements on this page. Dates: June 2, 2026 to October 17, 2026
5 matching statements. Dates: June 2, 2026 to October 17, 2026
5 published statements. Dates: June 2, 2026 to October 17, 2026
4 published statements. Dates: June 2, 2026 to October 17, 2026
4 statements on this page. Dates: June 2, 2026 to October 17, 2026
Role at the time: U.S. secretary of state
Statement summary
Rubio said Trump wants to use a 60-day period to analyze what imposing the Graham Act sanctions and tariffs would mean for the global and U.S. economies.
“I think the president wants to take the 60-day period of time to sort of analyze what imposing both sanctions and tariffs will mean to the global economy and even to the U.S. economy”
The Moscow Times republishes a Reuters report on Rubio's remarks to reporters before a trip to Uzbekistan, a day after the waiver.
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)The reference point is Trump's waiver of the Graham Act Russia measures. Rubio defends the waiver as a pause to study the economic effects of the sanctions and tariffs.
Role at the time: United States secretary of state
Statement summary
Rubio defended institutional sanctions as a means of preventing ICC prosecutions of Americans.
“President Trump will never allow the International Criminal Court to prosecute Americans. That is why, today, the United States is sanctioning the International Criminal Court. We will ban transactions with this rogue court, cutting off their resources and crippling its ability to operate.”
Rubio defends institutional sanctions and asks member states to address U.S. concerns. His description of the Court's jurisdiction is the administration's position.
The case examines sanctions against the ICC itself. Rubio expressly justifies that action as protection of Americans and U.S. sovereignty.
Role at the time: U.S. Secretary of State, in a statement to Fox News Digital and in a post on his official @SecRubio X account
Statement summary
In a statement given to Fox News Digital and posted on his official X account, Secretary of State Marco Rubio called the agreement with Denmark and Greenland a "huge win" for the United States and the American people. He said it "permanently guarantees U.S. security interests in the Arctic at zero cost to the U.S. taxpayer" and "permanently and completely addresses our national security concerns in Greenland." The text of the agreement has not been published.
“This historic deal is a huge win for the United States and the American people. Thanks to President Trump’s vision and leadership, this historic agreement permanently guarantees U.S. security interests in the Arctic at zero cost to the U.S. taxpayer. Greenland will forever be part of the strategic defense area of North America and exclude any adversary from it and the surrounding area. This deal permanently and completely addresses our national security concerns in Greenland.”
The post quotes Trump's X repost and carries the same three statements Fox News Digital printed at 5:19 PM EDT; it does not contain the two Fox-only lines about Denmark's and Greenland's means to defend Greenland.
Rubio calls the agreement a huge win, says it permanently guarantees U.S. security interests at zero cost to the taxpayer, says Greenland will exclude any adversary, and credits Trump's leadership, which endorses the deal on the terms Trump and Rubio describe. The closest competing label is “Challenged the characterization”, because Rubio frames the deal as guaranteeing U.S. security interests and a strategic defense area rather than repeating Trump's word control. That loses because he does not dispute or correct Trump's description and instead endorses the same features: permanence, zero cost and exclusion of adversaries.
Role at the time: Secretary of State, testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Statement summary
Rubio told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that "every strike has a legal officer on the deck that has to make a determination about whether the call is legal or not" and that targeting is "informed and infused by intelligence collection". He said the military has "walked away" from some strikes.
“So every strike has a legal officer on the deck that has to make a determination about whether the call is legal or not. And this is done by the Department of War the way it's been done in other theaters around the world. … all of it informed and infused by intelligence collection. In essence, they have to have true links. I can tell you they do walk away from strikes. … there have been strikes that they've walked away from because it doesn't meet the criteria or because there's doubts.”
PBS NewsHour clip of the June 2, 2026 Senate Foreign Relations Committee exchange about the criteria for targeting alleged drug boats. The quotations in this record are taken from the audio.
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)Measured against the campaign the September 19 strike belongs to and the intelligence basis given for such strikes, Rubio defends the process behind target selection, citing legal review of every strike and intelligence-based criteria.
1 published statement. Dates: October 17, 2026
1 statement on this page. Dates: October 17, 2026
Role at the time: U.S. secretary of state
Statement summary
Rubio said no one in the U.S. government ordered the Starlink speed restrictions, called the report of a White House order categorically false and said service had been restored.
“It’s just categorically false. No one at the White House ordered anyone to slow down internet or slow down speed so that certain drones couldn’t use it.”
State Department transcript of Rubio's remarks to reporters at Joint Base Andrews before his trip to Uzbekistan.
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)The reference point is responsibility for the October restrictions on Ukraine's satellite terminals. Rubio denies that the White House or anyone in the U.S. government ordered them.
