“When a diplomat says ‘yes,’ he’s often hinting at ‘maybe,’ or so goes the saying attributed to Charles-Maurice de Talleyrand. A diplomat who mentions ‘maybe’ usually means ‘no,’ and if someone flat-out says ‘no,’ well, they’re not really playing the diplomatic game. Whether he actually said that is beside the point. What’s important is how accurately it reflects the nature of diplomacy, which, like politics, is about making the possible achievable.
So, in simpler terms, diplomacy is about getting what you want while ensuring that you don’t make it overly difficult for the other party to agree.
For the first time in decades, we’ve seen the U.S. Secretary of State propose a credible strategy.
By that measure, the United States hasn’t produced many remarkable diplomatic feats over the last fifty years. There have certainly been skilled secretaries of state and significant treaties, but when it comes to lasting achievements comparable to the bold agreements of the past, they are notably few.
Madeleine Albright is often associated with NATO’s expansion and the souring of relations with Russia post-Soviet Union. Colin Powell’s legacy is largely marred by his controversial 2003 UN presentation, which played a significant role in the Iraq War. Condoleezza Rice brought some skills, yet did not offer the solutions needed to effectively alter the U.S. strategic landscape.
Hillary Clinton’s much-touted “reset” approach towards Russia hasn’t aged well, and John Kerry, despite orchestrating the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Iran nuclear deal, saw both initiatives abandoned under Trump’s first term. Rex Tillerson seemed to struggle with setting a coherent foreign policy, while Mike Pompeo managed better but didn’t fundamentally alter the U.S.’s global position.
Antony Blinken was involved in establishing AUKUS with Australia and the UK, marking a significant strategic alliance but more as a continuation of previous collaborations than introducing a fresh diplomatic framework.
Looking back, America’s historical figures in diplomacy set a much higher standard. Think Thomas Jefferson, John Quincy Adams, William Seward, Hamilton Fish, John Hay, George Marshall, George Kennan, and Henry Kissinger—all of whom shaped American diplomacy beyond their respective tenures.
Their achievements didn’t just capture headlines; they redefined America’s status in the global arena for generations.
A few years back, few would have predicted Marco Rubio’s rise to becoming a key American diplomat.
When President Trump tapped Rubio for Secretary of State, many questioned if he would temper Trump’s more erratic foreign policy inclinations. Critics, including some traditional Republicans marginalized by Trump’s presidency and leftist academics, anticipated possible tensions given Rubio’s established reputation as a Republican interventionist.
Surprisingly, that didn’t materialize.
On his second day in the role, Rubio communicated with State Department officials about framing U.S. foreign policy around national interests—those priorities that make the nation “stronger, safer, and more prosperous.”
He acknowledged that while conflict may be unavoidable at times, it should never come at the expense of national security or core values.
This marks a notable shift from the earlier practice of treating international recognition as a goal in itself.
This shift could easily be termed political maneuvering, but it also points to a larger lesson he’s learned: the previously dominant Republican foreign policy consensus has faded away, and a new one is taking its place.
During this year’s Munich Security Conference, Rubio launched a critique against unrestrained free trade, the industrial hollowing out, mass immigration, and an international order detached from the interests and identities of the nations it serves.
Furthermore, he articulated a vision in which common language, culture, religion, and ancestry unite Europe and America—an outlook that seems unlikely from a Secretary of State just a few years earlier.
Records of progress are gradually building up.
In 2025, Rubio played a vital role as a NATO member in committing to a significant 5% hike in defense spending by 2035. He indicated that discussions with Iran might still be on the table, amidst criticism from some Israelis about U.S. policies.
He pursued talks aimed at fostering negotiations between Ukraine and Russia after a prolonged period of diplomatic inactivity between the two.
Regarding Venezuela, he’s seen as a pivotal player in the U.S. stance against Nicolás Maduro, marking a significant shift in relations.
And concerning Cuba, Rubio suggested that pressure, political reform, and open dialogue should align with direct communication to the Cuban people.
In essence, Rubio has emerged as somewhat of an outlier. As Secretary of State, he not only wielded influence within the administration but also caught increasing public attention.
By 2026, he sometimes seemed to overshadow virtually every other cabinet member in political clout. His standing among Republican voters is particularly noteworthy for a Secretary of State, a position that usually garners respect but typically lacks a dedicated base of supporters.
Despite having only served 18 months, it’s important to note that Rubio doesn’t yet exhibit the qualities of an outstanding Secretary of State. However, that’s far from a hindrance. It opens a realm of possibilities.
A plethora of questions remains unanswered—about Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, Ukraine, and North Korea. Recent actions by Nicaragua’s Ortega government could complicate his record.
Durability is the ultimate test. Diplomatic successes that vanish with the next administration are hardly accomplishments worth celebrating.
That said, Rubio has already advanced NATO’s commitments, advocated for negotiations on Ukraine, intensified pressure on Cuba and Venezuela, and strengthened U.S. efforts to counter Chinese influence in the Panama Canal.
If such initiatives endure and he manages to translate the current conflicts into stable agreements, Rubio’s achievements will stand out distinctly from those of his predecessors.
The hall of fame isn’t his yet. But for the first time in years, the U.S. Secretary of State has charted a feasible road to achieving just that.
And who knows? Perhaps that’s just the beginning.
