Marco Rubio: A presidential candidate?

By: Ricardo Israel - 04/05/2026

He would be the first Latino with a real chance of reaching the White House, somewhat like Obama was for African Americans in 2008. Today, his chances far surpass what he achieved in 2016, when he was more of a token candidate in the Republican primaries, simply to gain political stature. In fact, he didn't have a good relationship with Trump back then, who ridiculed his hands, and now he has privileged access to him.

His current position is due to his performance as Secretary of State, which has exceeded even the most optimistic expectations. He also assumed the responsibilities of National Security Advisor, and he has fulfilled them so well that Trump has exaggerated, comparing him to Kissinger. In any case, it is understood that his final assessment will be determined more by what happens in Iran or China, where he has had little decision-making power, than by his success with Cuba or Venezuela. Although a considerable amount of time has passed in the latter country, there is still no clear roadmap, a public timetable from the outset for democratization with election dates—a feature that has been present in every successful transition. However, everything is clear regarding oil. The truth is that the dictator is gone, but the dictatorship remains, and if this process deviates from its goal, he can undoubtedly be held responsible, rightly or wrongly.

A blond candidate? Even more than the polls, the outcome may depend on whether he decides to run soon for 2028 or wait until 2032. Given his age, he could even run in 2036, but as every politician is a master of timing, he knows that favorable moments can appear and disappear, sometimes very quickly. Nothing guarantees that the future will bring the expected result.

If it's the next election, we have to talk about JD Vance, who is currently the frontrunner among Republican presidential hopefuls. Since the opposing party doesn't yet have a nominee, the Democratic candidate is still of secondary importance, as the Republican primary comes first. And of course, Trump is a kingmaker, since he currently has the power to influence his successor. When Reagan, Clinton, and Biden did so, it was always in favor of their respective vice presidents. Regarding Trump, I think he'll hold back until the end, and his decision will surely be linked to the outcome of the midterm elections. If he's defeated, he'll also lose power, and much of his energy would then be focused on avoiding another impeachment trial, should the Democrats win a majority.

Undoubtedly, Rubio shares Trump's "America First" ideology as a major objective of his political activity, but as is well known, he frequently changes his mind about achieving it, sometimes even on the same day. For now, the senior candidate, Vance, holds the top spot among Republicans, although I think Rubio has some advantages, such as appearing more flexible and moderate. Added to this is a significant group of voters whose support is assured for him, such as Latinos, now the largest minority group in the U.S. And it is my impression that after these years of polarization, both under Trump and Biden, moderation and the pursuit of agreements will be valuable assets in those seeking to occupy the White House.

Therefore, even if he doesn't compete in the primaries against Vance, he could still be on the 2028 ballot as a vice-presidential candidate, as Trump has proposed more than once—a kind of "dream team" for Republicans. But in politics, even a week can be a long time, since scenarios change rapidly, and nobody knows for sure what might happen in the near future.

The only certainty is that, as a presidential or vice-presidential candidate, he will have to answer questions that could create internal conflict, even friendly fire, such as the fact that Vance appeared to be the one in this administration who was concerned with Europe, defending US companies while also criticizing the EU leadership on issues like attacks on freedom of expression and the rise of Islamism in some European Union countries. However, a well-received performance at the Munich Security Summit led to Rubio's unexpected rise to prominence due to his articulate defense of the idea of the West as the foundation of any alliance with the US.

However, in parallel, Rubio lost prominence on other issues, such as Iran, where Vance was the Iranian interlocutor in the negotiations held in Pakistan. Both situations are inverted reflections of how easily positions can be gained or lost, a phenomenon that intensifies during electoral processes, since their dynamic nature allows for rapid gains and losses. Why was Rubio left out of the most visible and public aspects of the negotiations with Iran? These were the kinds of questions asked in the US before the polarization, when its press was the best in the world. Not today, since propaganda is sometimes more prevalent than journalism on both sides, but it will be inevitable that Rubio will face similar questions when he becomes a candidate.

Since assuming the role of Secretary of State last year, Rubio has demonstrated responsibility, discipline, vision, and a deep understanding of international relations, the fruit of his years as a senator. This has led to some stellar moments, although, as Hillary Clinton's case demonstrates, it is not easy to jump from that position to a presidential candidacy. Furthermore, her failure underscores the inherent complexities of winning elections, starting with the fact that the U.S. Electoral College system differs from the typical democratic system of one elector, one vote. Ultimately, for some time now, the winner has been decided in no more than seven or eight states that change their minds from one election to the next, since, based on past results, it is generally known in advance whether the Republican or Democratic candidate will win.

In other words, those living abroad do not always fully understand how electoral competition unfolds in the U.S., since they tend to apply the parameters of their own countries to those elections, when in reality they are completely different. In fact, in rankings compiled by specialists regarding reliability and compliance with international standards, compared to strong democracies, the US ranks mediocre. This is compounded by the fact that, for political reasons, half the country now distrusts official results, as demonstrated by the fact that Trump was not harmed, and even benefited, from his campaign alleging fraud, despite the lack of evidence. Furthermore, at both the federal and state levels, there is a lack of an electoral justice system specialized in elections or in the swift resolution of claims or disputes. This leads to situations like those in California and other states where results are delayed, with days passing and the outcome of the House of Representatives still unknown. Consequently, for many years, television projections have been presented as if they were official results, when they are just that: projections. This has led to claims of illegitimacy in many places.

Moreover, no one from outside the two major parties has ever been elected president. However, at the presidential level, there are usually several candidates from third-party political forces. Because these parties are small and have little chance of winning, they receive very little media coverage and don't participate in televised debates, making these alternatives largely unknown. As a result, the race always ends up being narrowed down to just two candidates, and occasionally one or two others. In the case of representatives, there are few changes from one election to the next, so there is a greater possibility of succession.

to challenge the incumbents in the party primaries rather than in the election itself.

To put it simply, the most profound change for the next House of Representatives election won't happen on election day. Rather, the outcome, and therefore whether the next president will have a majority, is being decided now. Ten years after each census, every state has the option to redistrict, a modification of electoral districts. In practice, this means that the political force controlling that state rearranges the electoral map by adding or subtracting districts, always with the aim of underrepresenting the other party and increasing the number of elected officials for their own, thus altering the will of the voters. This is what is happening these days in Democratic states like California and Republican states like Texas, to name just two.

This reaffirms what has always been said: that what characterizes the U.S. more than democracy is that it is a republic—a democratic republic, but one where the law and institutions prevail over the will of the people. Hence the institutional weight of the Supreme Court and also of the presidency. Consequently, in the 2028 election, Trump's figure will still be very present, not only for Republicans but also for Democrats, who, lacking a clear leader and without defined proposals, will likely face that election with arguments similar to their current ones: opposition to everything the current president does and says. Today, the U.S. lacks a true opposition party, given the political wilderness the Democrats are experiencing, without a program or a platform. They may win, but essentially an election in a democracy is a selection of alternatives. Lacking primaries to define the internal Democratic struggle between liberals and radicals, for now, the greatest opposition to Trump in the US comes from the courts, mainly local and district judges, almost always from the same states, generally appointed by Obama, an action that ties the government more than opposition activity in Congress or on the street.

Therefore, presumably, the current presidential activity, both what Trump does and doesn't do, will continue to influence the next election. However, the most decisive factor in the outcome will be the amount of money each candidate spends, their organizational strength, and their ability to use legal resources. The question is whether Rubio will possess these in time to compete effectively. In this regard, everything indicates that what was so important in Trump's return in 2024 will remain relevant, the main reason, or one of them, being the economic situation of each voter, which clearly hurt Biden as much as it did Bush Sr. in 1992. All the data indicates that, currently, this will also be decisive in the upcoming midterm elections, so an economic platform will be as important as a political one for Rubio, who lacks credentials in this area that is so important to voters.

As Secretary of State, Rubio has developed a distinctive style, speaking frankly but without being offensive. He challenges real-world issues such as an increasingly irrelevant Europe that is abandoning its own history and traditions, or a United Nations that has lost its focus and is riddled with corruption, failing to fulfill its primary mandate of guaranteeing peace. Representing the United States, Rubio has been both doctrinaire and pragmatic, restoring the importance of American diplomacy, not only internationally but also domestically and within the White House itself.

With Rubio, the U.S. speaks to the world more in terms of freedom, ethics, and values than in terms of interests, the fundamental issue being the battle for the greater meaning of the West, especially since the Enlightenment. He has demonstrated in his current position how valuable his experience as a senator has been to the realignment the world is undergoing today. Rubio has been part of what may be the most important political transformation since the end of the USSR, where the U.S. is now modifying its own creation: the rules established after World War II.

We don't know how much of what's being attempted will survive a change of government, since it has been implemented through executive orders—that is, decrees—and not through laws, Supreme Court rulings, or bipartisan agreements. Much will depend on whether Trump is replaced by someone with similar ideas, even if their style is different. There's the case of Reagan, equally criticized and resisted, but who, with the passage of time, was recognized as a president capable of setting trends that continued through successors who championed the same principles. There are also cases of presidents who failed to be re-elected for a second term, such as Jimmy Carter, who, nevertheless, contributed to human rights policy to this day.

In the US today, Machiavelli is still followed—not the caricature created by those who haven't read him, but the man who wrote advice to the prince, useful for any ruler, such as the idea that a ruler should seek to be respected rather than loved. Although in this administration, roles have been divided, with Rubio as the good cop and Vance as the bad cop. The US is regaining its lost deterrence, and Rubio, as a candidate, offers the possibility of also commanding respect.

Apparently, he has understood that the world is offering him an opportunity, a great opportunity, because if he succeeds, and if he has a realistic chance of winning the 2028 election, he could also improve the role of the US not only as the necessary power, the one that does in the Middle East what no one else wants or can do, but also as the undisputed superpower, something that Chinese competition is making increasingly difficult. Therefore, the US will continue to need someone at the helm of the country who hasn't always had what in classical Greece was called the Great Helmsman, that is, someone capable of steering the ship of state with a steady and firm hand, allowing decisions to reach their destination, both in calm seas and in storms, and moving away from what has been happening in Washington, where much of the world is bewildered by abrupt changes every four years.

I am convinced that this is what the US needs from 2028 onward: someone capable of convening bipartisan decisions that can be sustained over time. The difference Rubio could make is the understanding that there will be no lasting successes if the country does not recover the unity it possessed during the Cold War. To lead other countries, to provide leadership, internal unity is essential, since foreign policy should always be a matter of state, not party, to demonstrate that more than China, the sleeping giant was the US.

As Secretary of State, Rubio has been what the Romans demanded, Verba et Facta, Words and Deeds, since the U.S. is a country from which more is always expected than from others, and to fulfill this, it has what Alexis de Tocqueville highlighted in the 19th century: “the health of a democracy depends on the quality of its institutions.”

And after this period of polarization, a leader capable of healing wounds and convening a great national agreement is needed, and in the current scenario, Rubio has demonstrated that he has the skills that Winston Churchill demanded of the person who leads foreign policy, that is, “In war, resolution. In defeat, defiance. In victory, magnanimity. In peace, goodwill.”

From 2028 onward, something even more difficult will be required for a superpower, but with a "house divided"—the very thing Lincoln warned against. It is seeking agreements, because for the elusive national unity, a leader is needed; this, and nothing else, is what Marco Rubio faces. Is this his moment, or not yet?

@israelzipper

Master's and PhD in Political Science (University of Essex), Bachelor of Laws (University of Barcelona), Lawyer (University of Chile), former presidential candidate (Chile, 2013)

«The opinions published herein are the sole responsibility of its author».