Trump’s Absence at G20 Sparks Insights on US Foreign Policy

President Donald Trump’s decision to boycott this weekend’s Group of 20 summit in South Africa marks a significant moment in international diplomacy. For the first time since the summit’s inception, the United States will not be represented, leaving world leaders to speculate about Trump’s foreign policy direction. Insights from key figures in his administration, Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, may provide some clarity.

Both Vance and Rubio, prominent Republican figures with aspirations for the presidency, have played crucial roles in shaping Trump’s foreign policy. Their differing styles and interactions highlight the evolving doctrine of the current administration and offer a glimpse into potential candidates for the 2028 presidential race.

Rubio, aged 54, has long been known for his strong anti-Communist stance. He has embraced Trump’s aggressive foreign policy approach while navigating diplomatic channels discreetly. In contrast, Vance, 41, who gained fame from his memoir about life in small-town Ohio and Kentucky, embodies the populist, anti-elite sentiments of the Make America Great Again movement, often exhibiting a disruptive style.

Matthew Bartlett, a former State Department appointee during Trump’s first term, remarked, “This is a mythical fairytale Romulus and Remus, the sons of MAGA.” He described Vance’s transformation from a critic to a MAGA advocate and noted Rubio’s evolution from a Trump rival to a key supporter.

Despite their perceived rivalry, both have publicly downplayed competition. Vance has referred to Rubio as “my best friend in the administration,” while Rubio has expressed admiration for Vance, calling him a “close friend” and a potential presidential nominee.

Trump has occasionally fanned the flames of rivalry, hinting at which of the two may be better positioned to succeed him. On Air Force One, he commented, “We have JD obviously, the vice president, who’s great. Marco’s great. I’m not sure if anyone would run against those two.” This dynamic seems to be a strategy to project strength and avoid appearing like a lame duck.

Their collaborative relationship has developed over the years, particularly as they navigated the complexities of Washington. Vance, a youthful senator, has often found himself in situations similar to those Rubio faced a decade earlier. According to a source close to Rubio, there is a spirit of trust between the two, stemming from their time together in the Senate.

In recent diplomatic efforts, Rubio and Vance have demonstrated their distinct roles. During negotiations for a ceasefire in Gaza, Rubio discreetly informed Trump of the agreement’s readiness, while Vance was tasked with ensuring its stability in Israel. Their teamwork was evident again during a crisis between India and Pakistan, where they effectively worked to de-escalate tensions following a terrorist attack.

As Trump continues to assert U.S. influence in the Americas, both men have made significant international forays. Vance became the highest-ranking U.S. official to visit Greenland, criticizing Denmark’s governance over the territory. Rubio made headlines as the first Secretary of State to embark on a solo trip to Central America in over a century, starting in Panama, which is pivotal for U.S. interests.

Despite the absence of Trump at the G20, Vance was initially slated to attend. However, his participation was canceled due to diplomatic tensions with South African leaders, leaving many foreign allies relieved, as they often find Rubio’s traditional diplomacy more manageable than Vance’s confrontational approach.

While Rubio is seen as a pragmatic problem-solver, Vance has adopted a more aggressive, online persona. He gained attention for his bold statements at the Munich Security Conference, where he claimed Europe’s greatest threats were internal rather than from adversaries like Russia or China.

Historically, Vance has been involved in key discussions, yet there are questions about his influence in policy-making circles. Some observers note that he seems more focused on aligning with the MAGA base than engaging with foreign leaders.

White House communications director Steven Cheung emphasized Vance’s role as a vital advisor, stating, “He’s a trusted, loyal, and influential advisor to President Trump and his entire team.” Special Envoy for Peace Missions Steve Witkoff echoed this sentiment, noting Vance’s integral role in foreign policy discussions.

Vance’s position as vice president presents the classic challenge of balancing his personal views with the administration’s stance. Recently, he expressed reservations about airstrikes on the Houthis in Yemen, indicating internal conflicts within the administration.

As Rubio has taken on additional responsibilities, including acting as national security advisor, he has navigated the complexities of U.S. foreign relations with a focus on practical solutions. His previous criticisms of Trump have evolved into a pragmatic approach, especially regarding challenging relationships such as those with Russia.

The dynamic between Vance and Rubio may eventually lead to challenges regarding their roles and ambitions. For now, Vance emphasizes their camaraderie, stating, “If either of us end up running, it’s a long ways in the future and neither of us is entitled to it.”

As the U.S. continues to navigate its foreign policy landscape without Trump at the forefront, the roles of Vance and Rubio will undoubtedly shape the direction of American diplomacy in the years to come.