A debate is brewing within the Republican Party regarding the 2028 Presidential nominee. Should it be Vice President J.D. Vance or Secretary of State Marco Rubio? President Trump himself seems to be stirring the pot, asking people their thoughts and not revealing his own preference for now (although there are hints that he prefers Rubio).
The debate has become more intense in recent weeks as Vance makes the rounds promoting his new book, Communion, on prominent outlets like The Joe Rogan Experience podcast. During these appearances Vance has been careful to parrot the official Trump Administration line, but at times he’s strayed ever-so-slightly, enough to raise the hackles of some of his GOP detractors.
This might all be a moot debate since there are strong indications that Rubio won’t run against the Vice President, with whom he has been friends for a number of years. But the only absolute in politics is that there are no absolutes, so I wouldn’t bet against a Rubio challenge to Vance in the 2028 GOP primaries just yet.
Vance has been careful to parrot the official Trump Administration line, but at times he’s strayed ever-so-slightly, enough to raise the hackles of some of his GOP detractors.Tweet ThisOn paper, Vance and Rubio seem very similar: both are relatively young, intelligent conservatives. Both are Catholic and by all appearances devoted husbands and fathers, and with the birth of the latest Vance baby, both have four children. While Rubio has more experience in politics, Vance is the more charismatic (although neither approach a Bill Clinton or Donald Trump level of political magnetism). Vance seems more open to claims of deep state influence on government, but is also more likely than Rubio to push government intervention in domestic economic matters.
Most of their differences, in other words, are on the edges, with one major exception:
Foreign policy.
During Vance’s short political life (he only became a Senator in January 2023), he has consistently advocated for a less interventionist foreign policy. Leading into and during the 2024 campaign, he opposed US aid to Ukraine, opposed military action in Iran, and spoke against the US providing a “security umbrella” for Europe. It’s no exaggeration to say Vance, until very recently, sounded a lot more like Ron Paul than Dick Cheney.
Rubio, on the other hand, built his political career as a neoconservative advocating a robust role for the United States overseas. As as newly-minted Senator in 2011, he pushed for the US to forcibly replace Libya’s Qaddafi government, he advocated for arming Ukraine during the 2014 Russian annexation of Crimea, and during his 2016 failed campaign for President, he outlined a “Rubio Doctrine” that was standard-fare neoconservative interventionist foreign policy. He was essentially a clone of Dick Cheney. Rubio did begin to temper these views, at least publicly, during the 2024 presidential campaign when they were out of line with Trump’s then-message.
It’s no exaggeration to say Vance, until very recently, sounded a lot more like Ron Paul than Dick Cheney.Tweet ThisOf course, I haven’t yet mentioned the huge elephant in the room when it comes to American foreign policy: Israel. Whether you support Israel as unreservedly as Mike Huckabee or think it’s the nexus of evil like Nick Fuentes, there’s no question that America’s relationship with Israel dominates many of our country’s foreign policy decisions. And because of Israel’s outsized influence here, there are few politicians who speak publicly against the Zionist cause. However, while Rubio has been a staunch ally of Israel, Vance has expressed some mild criticism of Israel from time to time, criticism that has led some Israel supporters to accuse him of antisemitism. The accusation is ridiculous: it’s clear that Vance’s sometime-opposition to Israel stems from his general non-interventionist instincts rather than any hatred of Jews.
Yet this sometime-opposition to Israel does seem to be driving much of the neoconservative opposition to Vance’s potential 2028 presidential run. Recently, the always-overwrought commentator Rod Dreher criticized Vance for not speaking out as much as Dreher thinks he should against the antisemitic “groyper” movement. Dreher, who seems to think 2026 America is the 1932 Weimar Republic, apparently believes that Washington, DC is full of young antisemites plotting a new thousand-year Reich, and laments that Vance isn’t as hysterical as he is. In reality, Vance has spoken out against Fuentes and the groyper movement, even at one point telling Fuentes to “eat sh*t” for attacking his Indian wife Usha. Vance has correctly noted that the influence of Fuentes and the groypers is “overstated by people who want to avoid having a foreign-policy conversation about America’s relationship with Israel.”
So in many ways the Vance or Rubio debate is really a debate about America’s relationship with Israel. Historically Republicans have been strong supporters of Israel, but it’s clear that cracks are forming within the party regarding that blind support, especially among younger conservatives.
In many ways the Vance or Rubio debate is really a debate about America’s relationship with Israel. Tweet ThisBut here’s the thing: ultimately, it doesn’t really matter whether Vance or Rubio are president. It’s all theater. Their administrations would be extremely similar, with barely-different foreign policy and a comparable relationship with Israel. The only difference would be the level of enthusiasm coming from the Oval Office for foreign interventions and support for Israel. And whether we hand Israel billions of dollars we don’t have with enthusiasm or without it, the destruction of the Middle East and the rising inflation here look the same.
Rubio we know would conduct a bellicose foreign policy. It’s likely he would invade his parents’ home country of Cuba within his first 100 days in office (if he hasn’t convinced Trump to do it before that). He would support military engagements around the world, including in the Middle East, in Europe, and likely even in Asia against China.
Vance would be more hesitant, but I believe a Vance administration would be little different in practice than a Rubio administration. Why? Because I think the actual controlling forces in DC, typically referred to as “the deep state” and centered around the CIA, would make sure any administration (including a Democrat administration) would continue the overall foreign policy they have pushed for decades. Vance might be more reluctant to go along than Rubio, but ultimately he would go along.
Some might think I’m being too cynical, but I think the evidence is behind my Vance skepticism. During the 2024 Trump campaign, it appeared we finally had a candidate that could actually stand up to the deep state. After all, Trump had been viciously attacked by the DC “swamp”—both legally and physically—and he looked ready to truly upend the DC status quo in response. From Doge to RFK to “no new wars,” Trump 2024 was a big middle finger to the “establishment” (a more benign term for the deep state).
Yet look what happened. From the Big Beautiful (and Bloated) Bill to the quick collapse of Doge to the Epstein coverup to the Iran War, Trump’s second term has been an establishment/deep state dream come true. And J.D. Vance has gone along for the ride, with nary a peep in opposition.
If Donald Trump, a uniquely historical figure better equipped than anyone in memory to resist the deep state, caved to its demands, why would anyone think J.D. Vance—a more conventional politician who has gone alone with, and even defended, Trump’s capitulation—wouldn’t also cave? Of course he would.
We’re not going to vote our way out of our current political crisis; more Americans are realizing this every day. It won’t matter if it’s Vance or Rubio—or even a Democrat, frankly—taking the oath of office in January 2029, because most things will stay the same regardless. For the next two years we’ll engage in intense and bitter fights, further dividing our populace into ever smaller groups, and believing the result of those fights to be existential in nature, but in the end the only “winner” will be the deep state and the DC status quo, no matter who wins in the polls.
Vance or Rubio? Meh. I’ll focus instead on making Christ our King, for He is the only one who can truly upend the status quo.
“But here’s the thing: ultimately, it doesn’t really matter whether Vance or Rubio are president. It’s all theater.” That says it all. It’s a uni-party. The Catholic Vance is OK with in-vitro fertilization. Republicans have been in power, with no serious fixing of voter fraud. The abortion pill is promoted, unjust war is everywhere. You don’t need an FBI guy in the pew at your TLM, because your phone is sending data to be stored and processed at all those data centers that are proliferating under the guise that AI needs them. Thanks, Eric.
When it comes to domestic policy, there is a huge difference between any of the Republican candidates and any of the Democrat candidates. All one has to look at is what went on during the Biden years – having the FBI go after traditional Catholics, spurious legal prosecution of pro-life candidates, deliberately allowing a flood of illegal immigrants, interfering with local law enforcement, etc. These are all things that conservative critics of Trump forget (I call it the “Goldfish Syndrome” – goldfishes’ memory only lasts 3 seconds). How could any conservative be ok with this stuff coming back?
Where things get “messy” is foreign policy, and I largely, but not totally, agree with Eric’s article on this. From looking at US foreign policy going back to the Vietnam War, it almost seems as if the president (regardless of party) actually does not fully control foreign policy, in particular regarding military application/wars/etc. This lends a lot of credence to the most plausible JFK assassination theory – that it was done by the State Dept/CIA, because he was planning a purge of the DoS and shutting down the CIA, because he recognized that they started the Vietnam War and had essentially usurped the president’s foreign policy and were acting as a state within a state. Subsequent presidents were either fully in line with the CIA (like LBJ) or at least actually afraid to do anything about them.
Where I disagree with Eric is that the president still matters regarding foreign policy. Yes, he has to negotiate and work with the CIA, but he still has some influence. The defining feature of the Obama/Biden foreign policy was the setup and start of the war in Ukraine (search for Shawn Ryan’s “Delta Force Commander Explains the Origins of the Ukraine War” on youtube). This war was deliberately started by Obama/Biden, to fulfill one of the CIA’s objectives – the split up of Russia into smaller nations that are more susceptible to left-wing Western influence. It this case it involves the sacrifice of Ukraine to accomplish this. By the end of the Biden administration we were long down the path toward nuclear escalation with Russia, and nuclear war probably would have happened had Harris won.
Trump smartly did not want to go further down this path, but at the same time could not go directly against the CIA (that would put him in the same boat as JFK). So he went along with one of their other objectives – attacking Iran. By doing this he took CIA pressure off his administration to escalate the Ukraine war further, giving Russia time to achieve victory and later putting the CIA in a position where its ability to undermine Russia is lessened (and thus the likelihood of nuclear war).
But there is a strong possibility that the Ukraine war will not be over by the end of the Trump administration. Even after Donbass falls the West will not allow Ukraine to seek peace, and Russia will likely have to take Kiev if not advance further West.
With Vance in office, we will most likely see a direct continuation of Trump’s policy – using the Iran war to pull attention away from Russia. Short of eliminating the CIA altogether (likely JFK’s objective) this is the best case scenario.
While Rubio is not the warmonger/neocon that someone like Cruz is, he is more likely to escalate things in Ukraine – certainly not to the degree of a Democrat but more that Vance. With that in mind I think Vance is the better candidate.
I disagree that there would be no difference whether there is a Republican or Democrat elected as the next president! Are you forgetting their stances on abortion, LGBTQ issues, and the fact that the Democratic Socialists are taking over the Democratic Party? I also disagree that Trump has caved to the Deep State. What Trump and his team are doing is like a 3-dimensional chess game where we can’t see all the pieces. I refer you to Promethian Action, which is pulling back the curtain on who has been controlling geopolitics for over a century, and how Trump and his team are dismantling globalism. https://m.youtube.com/live/mAAsB6IMRTg?ref=prometheanaction.com
We are still more fortunate to have a Rubio and a Vance to choose from this next time around, instead of a Romney or a McCain that we were previously saddled with in the not so distant past.
I totally agree. I actually voted for the Constitution Party candidate in 2008, because I just couldn’t bring myself to vote for McCain.