Two and a half years before the US presidential election, Donald Trump is choosing which politician to support as his successor: Vice President J.D. Vance or Secretary of State Marco Rubio. how He writes The Wall Street Journal, in recent months, has been regularly asking advisers, friends and donors about each other’s strengths and weaknesses.
When Trump was elected president for the second time in November 2024 (he took office in January 2025), many observers noted that his team represented two opposing approaches to foreign policy.
On the one hand, there are isolationists who believe that the United States should significantly reduce its foreign policy activity and interfere less in the affairs of other countries, including Middle Eastern countries. The main embodiment of this approach was J.D. Vance.
The second group is the “Hawks”. On the contrary, their approach assumes a very active foreign policy and a desire to define the “rules of the game” in the international arena, including the use of force. Marco Rubio has become the main hawk in the Trump administration.
In his second term, Trump chose a “hard-line” foreign policy: he entered into a conflict with the European Union over Greenland, captured Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, and attacked Iran twice (in June 2025 and February 2026). Rubio, as foreign policy chief, has largely outperformed Vance, who is more focused on domestic issues.
Trump I confessthat he and Vance had some “philosophical differences” about war with Iran. The president said Vance was “a little less enthusiastic” about the idea of strikes, but remained generally supportive of them. by Data ABC News, while Vance publicly supported the attack, behind closed doors he opposed it — insisting that the United States should not start new wars, but should focus on its own internal affairs.
Meanwhile, according to the Wall Street Journal, Trump and Rubio are actively working on a plan to overthrow the communist regime in Cuba – a long-standing dream of the Secretary of State, the son of Cuban immigrants.
Vance is still considered Trump’s heir by default. Polls show he is more popular among American conservative voters. Rubio has insisted publicly and privately that he will not challenge him. According to the Wall Street Journal, the two politicians maintain cordial relations.
But two camps are already emerging among GOP supporters, including major donors, and within the Trump administration. Vance has the support of Donald Trump Jr. and many MAGA activists. Among his allies is the famous conservative propagandist Tucker Carlson. Erica Kirk, the widow of murdered activist Charlie Kirk and his successor at the head of the influential pro-GOP organization Turning Point USA, has already publicly endorsed Vance as a future presidential candidate. The organization plans to use its regional structures to promote it in the primaries.
Vance is also an active fundraiser for the party. At one of the recent events with his participation, they managed to raise about six million dollars. Guests included billionaire Jeff Yass, Palantir CEO Alex Karp and ConocoPhillips oil executive Ryan Lance.
Meanwhile, the “infantry” is mobilized. For example, Vance’s supporters online are actively fighting right-wing influencers who they believe are getting paid to criticize the vice president.
Rubio relies on his own network of allies — influential Florida politicians (he was a state senator from that state), Latino Republicans, and major donors and activists who supported him during the 2016 presidential campaign. Also leaning on him are Republican-aligned Jewish organizations and donors who dislike the closeness of Tucker Carlson, an Israel critic and widely believed to be an anti-Semite, to Vance.
The differences between isolationists and hawks in the Trump administration are already evident in the conflicting media policies regarding the war with Iran. He writes Semaphore. One side insists that Americans should be encouraged to be vigilant and actively warned about potential terrorist and cyberattacks inside the country. The other, on the contrary, believes that the threat level is not particularly high, and therefore there is no need to spread panic.
From a political standpoint, it is the same debate: should we pay more attention to the consequences of war on US lives and strive to end the war as quickly as possible (an isolationist position) – or should we frame the war as an American “victory march” (a hawkish position).
The reaction of the US authorities to the events that occurred in Austin, Texas on March 2, 2026 is indicative. Ndiago Diagne, a 53-year-old Senegalese citizen who became a US citizen in 2013, then opened fire on bystanders. Three people died. The attacker was wearing a jacket with the words “King of God” written on it.
Many speculate that the attack was directly provoked by the attack on Iran. But law enforcement agencies and the administration refuse to make this connection and generally provide as little information as possible about what happened – perhaps so as not to frighten the public.
Trump himself is trying to reduce the level of anxiety. After the shooting in Texas, he said interview Daily Wire said Americans should not worry about the growing terrorist threat within the country. He described the attacker from Texas as “crazy,” suggesting that the incident was not necessarily linked to international terrorism.