Rubio Defends Trump Amid Conflict Accusations

Secretary of State Marco Rubio vehemently rejected claims from Democratic lawmakers suggesting that President Donald Trump may have prioritized his personal financial interests in the recent conflict with Iran. He labeled these allegations as “completely false” and asserted he had never heard Trump discuss his financial situation in relation to war or foreign policy.

This exchange unfolded during a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing, where Representative Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.) asked Rubio if he had cautioned Trump about the potential rise in costs for Americans due to military action against Iran, and if Trump’s stock holdings presented a conflict of interest.

Rubio firmly responded, “Not once. Let me be clear: not once, not for one millisecond,” emphasizing that he has attended nearly all of Trump’s foreign policy meetings and has never heard him connect his financial situation to matters of war or policy.

Questioned further by Meeks about whether Trump had been informed that “personal stock purchases and companies profiting from the wars he started could pose a conflict of interest,” Rubio maintained, “I am not aware of the president’s stock purchases.” He indicated that he would not assume anything about Trump’s financials without proper context.

Meeks, in an effort to press the issue, mentioned that Trump’s financial information is public, to which Rubio countered, “That’s what you say. I haven’t read the president’s financial information, but I don’t believe that.” This line of questioning followed the release of Trump’s annual financial disclosure, including over 3,600 securities transactions managed for him.

The White House did not provide immediate answers to Meeks’ queries. Representatives for Trump clarified that these accounts are managed by external experts and that Trump does not individually handle transactions.

Throughout the hearing, Meeks repeatedly asked Rubio if he had warned Trump about possible increases in everyday costs like gas and food due to military conflict. Rubio deflected, stating, “I don’t give yes or no answers.” As the questioning continued, his frustration grew, ultimately asserting, “Five minutes are up. Right? I’m not going to say yes or no. Be quiet.”

Rubio became increasingly agitated with the tone of the hearing, voicing his concerns about the chaotic exchanges between Democratic lawmakers and himself regarding Trump’s finances and administration policies. “Is this a Foreign Affairs Committee or some kind of circus? What is this?” he questioned during one of the discussions.

In another instance, Representative Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) accused Rubio of misleading Congress and attempted to critique Trump’s focus, showing a video of Trump that implied he was dozing off. Rubio countered, saying, “I’ve never seen him fall asleep” and defended Trump’s commitment to his work, asserting, “He literally doesn’t sleep.”

Moreover, Lieu questioned Trump’s cognitive abilities, to which Rubio remarked, “Years ago, we had a president who was cognitively impaired,” an apparent jab at former President Joe Biden.

Later in the hearing, Representative Sidney Kamlager Dove from California accused the administration of being nontransparent about Venezuelan oil contracts related to corruption among Trump’s allies. Rubio vehemently denied these allegations, labeling them “false” and “defamatory,” while expressing his frustration at how lawmakers were not allowing him adequate time to respond to their questions.

“What does this mean? What is this? You know, you get five minutes of questions and you don’t have time to answer them. This is not a hearing,” Rubio commented. The intensity of his irritation was apparent as he added, “Is this a dunk tank? What is this?”

His remarks about the atmosphere of the hearing came during a different exchange with Democratic Representative Sarah Jacobs, who criticized Rubio’s approach to foreign policy and mentioned Trump gifting him shoes. Rubio responded somewhat incredulously, “Are you kidding me?” as he expressed disbelief that such trivial matters were being discussed in a serious setting.