DNC votes down ‘dark money’ resolution singling out AIPAC, defers resolution on military aid to Israel
Ken Martin, chair of the Democratic National Committee, speaks during an interview at DNC headquarters in Washington on Sunday, November 2, 2025. (Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — Members of the Democratic National Committee voted down a symbolic resolution aimed at curbing the “growing influence” of “dark money” corporate groups in Democratic primaries that specifically called out the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).
Committee members gathered on Thursday in New Orleans, where a majority of members objected to the resolution for singling out AIPAC and argued it was redundant, since they had already approved a broader measure earlier in the meeting condemning the influence of dark money in the midterms without naming specific groups.
Allison Minnerly, who sponsored the resolution, responded to the criticism that her resolution was singling out AIPAC, the pro-Israel political lobbying group.
“Members like to say that we don’t want to single out AIPAC, but AIPAC will entirely single out them and all of our different progressive leaders when it comes to primary elections,” said Minnerly.
AIPAC’s influence has become a flashpoint inside the Democratic Party, as leaders struggle to respond to rapidly shifting views about Israel among progressives, especially in the wake of the war in Gaza and amid the current U.S.-Israeli war with Iran.
DNC Chair Ken Martin posted on X, stating, “We had various resolutions that focused on different industries and groups, and instead of going one-by-one, we passed a blanket repudiation.”
The panel’s rejection of the AIPAC resolution means it will not go before the full body for a final vote on Friday.
“The DNC made clear today that all Democrats, including millions who are AIPAC members, have the right to participate fully in the Democratic process, and we plan to do just that,” AIPAC spokesperson Deryn Sousa told ABC News.
Minnerly’s resolution stated that “the use of massive outside spending to support or oppose candidates based on their positions regarding international conflicts or foreign governments raises concerns about undue influence over democratic debate and policymaking, potentially constraining elected officials’ ability to represent the views of their constituents,” and referenced the millions of dollars spent by AIPAC in the recent Illinois Democratic primaries.
Andrew Lachman, a DNC member and the former president of California Jewish Democrats, said that it was “troubling” that the resolution was focused on calling out AIPAC.
“There are a lot of super PACs, a lot of right-wing organizations out there. There are a lot of left-wing ones out there that take advantage of the super PAC status as well. We need to address that,” Lachman said. “None of those were mentioned … I think respectfully, if it’s about our campaign finance system, let’s take it on. But when you mention only one group, it comes across like you’re not actually interested in the campaign finance issue and transparency issue. It’s about something else.”
In a statement to ABC News, Brian Romick, the president and CEO of the Democratic Majority for Israel said, “We’re pleased that the DNC Resolutions Committee rejected a set of divisive, anti-Israel resolutions. These measures would be a gift to Republicans, would further fracture our party, and do nothing to bring Israelis and Palestinians closer to peace.”
“They should have voted for the AIPAC resolution given the pernicious influence they had in Illinois,” progressive Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., told ABC News.
In a video posted on X, Khanna said, “anyone who wants to lead the party must condemn and reject AIPAC money.
2 other measures deferred
During the resolutions committee hearing, members also deferred action on two broad resolutions addressing Middle East conflicts, one of which would recognize Palestinian statehood and another that urged the party to support conditioning military aid to Israel. Instead, the proposals were sent to the party’s newly formed Middle East working group.
The question of how productive this group has been was a topic of conversation from DNC members and was mentioned during the resolutions committee hearing.
“We recommend this going back to the task force, but then we can put som. … expectations that we hear back,” said Ron Harris, co-chair of the DNC’s resolution committee, referring to the measure on Palestinian statehood.
Minnerly told ABC News she sponsored a measure to oppose the war in Gaza last August, but the resolution was defeated. In the wake of that, DNC Chair Ken Martin established a Middle East working group.
“I’m not surprised that members of the resolutions committee are eager for an update … Since that meeting [in August], there has not been consistent progress or even forward motion, and the characterizations of the task force were accurate,” said Minnerly, who is a member of the DNC’s Middle East working group.
In recent weeks, progressives like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., and Khanna have said they do not support any U.S. military aid to Israel, including defensive systems like the Iron Dome.
When asked if opposing funding for Israel’s defensive systems is a stance more of the Democratic Party should represent, Minnerly told ABC News last week in advance of Thursday’s meeting, “The further escalation has gone, the longer the war has been, we have seen the Democratic Party really migrate towards this ideal of de-escalation and not funding conflict.”
Lachman, however, also speaking in advance of Thursday’s meeting, said that he just sees this change in tune from some Democrats as “pressure from certain segments within the [Democratic Socialists of America]” and “some people who may be future candidates, particularly for president, are just trying to pander to them.”
He added, “I don’t think this is a mainstream view within the party, by any stretch of the imagination.”
House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman James Comer (R-KY) talks to reporters after former President Bill Clinton did not appear for a closed-door deposition in the Rayburn House Office Building on Capitol Hill on January 13, 2026 in Washington, DC. Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — The chairman of the Republican-led House Oversight Committee said the panel will move forward with contempt of Congress proceedings against former President Bill Clinton after he failed to appear for a subpoenaed deposition on Tuesday as part of the panel’s investigation into convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
The committee had threatened to hold the former president and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in contempt of Congress if they did not appear for separate scheduled closed depositions set for Tuesday and Wednesday, respectively.
“I think everyone knows by now, Bill Clinton did not show up. And I think it’s important to note that this subpoena was voted on in a bipartisan manner by this committee. This wasn’t something that I just issued as chairman of the committee. This was voted on by the entire committee in a unanimous vote of the House Oversight Committee to subpoena former President Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton,” Oversight Chairman James Comer said Tuesday morning.
“We will move next week in the House Oversight Committee markup to hold former President Clinton in contempt of Congress,” Comer, a Republican, later added.
A lawyer for the Clintons, David Kendall, has not responded to requests for comment on whether Hillary Clinton will appear on Capitol Hill for her Wednesday subpoenaed deposition.
In a four-page letter posted on social media Tuesday morning, the Clintons publicly called out Comer for threatening to hold them in contempt of Congress.
“Despite everything that needs to be done to help our country, you are on the cusp of bringing Congress to a halt to pursue a rarely used process literally designed to result in our imprisonment. This is not the way out of America’s ills, and we will forcefully defend ourselves,” the letter states.
The Clintons contend in the letter that Comer’s approach to the committee’s work on the Epstein investigation has “prevented progress in discovering the facts about the government’s role” and that the chairman has “done nothing” to force the Justice Department to comply with its disclosure obligations required by Epstein Files Transparency Act, passed late last year.
“We have tried to give you the little information that we have,” the Clintons wrote. “We’ve done so because Mr. Epstein’s crimes were horrific. If the Government didn’t do all it could to investigate and prosecute these crimes, for whatever reason, that should be the focus of your work — to learn why and to prevent that from happening ever again. There is no evidence that you are doing so.”
For months, Republicans on the committee have been demanding that the Clintons provide testimony to lawmakers, citing the former president’s travels on Epstein’s private aircraft in the early 2000s and the Clinton “family’s past relationship” with Epstein and his associate, Ghislaine Maxwell. The panel initially issued subpoenas for the Clintons on Aug. 5 to appear in October.
Kendall has continued to argue that the couple has no information relevant to the committee’s investigation of the federal government’s handling of investigations into Epstein and Maxwell, and should not be required to appear for in-person testimony. Kendall has contended that the Clintons should be permitted to provide the limited information they have to the committee in writing.
“There is simply no reasonable justification for compelling a former President and Secretary of State to appear personally, given that their time and roles in government had no connection to the matter at hand,” Kendall wrote in one of the letters sent to the committee in October of last year. He argued that the committee should excuse the Clintons, as the committee had done for five former attorneys general who were each excused after certifying to the committee that they had no relevant knowledge.
Bill Clinton has not been accused of wrongdoing and denies having any knowledge of Epstein’s crimes. No Epstein survivor or associate has ever made a public allegation of wrongdoing or inappropriate behavior by the former president in connection with his prior relationship with Epstein.
Former Secretary of State Clinton “has no personal knowledge of Epstein or Maxwell’s criminal activities, never flew on his aircraft, never visited his island, and cannot recall ever speaking to Epstein. She has no personal knowledge of Maxwell’s activities with Epstein,” Kendall wrote. “President Clinton’s contact with Epstein ended two decades ago, and given what came to light much after, he has expressed regret for even that limited association,” an Oct. 6 letter to the committee says.
Comer wrote in a letter to Kendall in October that the committee is “skeptical” that the Clintons have only limited information and stated it was up to the committee, not the Clintons, to make determinations of the value of the information.
“[T]he Committee believes that it should be provided in a deposition setting, where the Committee can best assess its breadth and value,” Comer wrote.
Last month, in response to the Epstein Files Transparency Act, the Justice Department released several photographs of former President Clinton apparently taken during his international travels with Epstein and Maxwell from 2002 to 2003, although the released photographs contained no information identifying when or where they were taken. Following that disclosure, a spokesperson for the two-term Democratic president argued that the Trump administration released those images to shield the Trump White House “from what comes next, or from what they’ll try to hide forever.”
“So, they can release as many grainy 20-plus-year-old photos as they want, but this isn’t about Bill Clinton. Never has, never will be,” Clinton’s spokesperson Angel Ureña wrote on X Dec. 22.
Ureña did not respond to an email inquiry from ABC News on Monday.
What is contempt of Congress?
The House of Representatives can hold an individual “in contempt” if that person refuses to testify or comply with a subpoena. The contempt authority is considered an implied power of Congress.
“Congress’s contempt power is the means by which Congress responds to certain acts that in its view obstruct the legislative process. Contempt may be used either to coerce compliance, to punish the contemnor, and/or to remove the obstruction,” according to a report from the Congressional Research Service.
Any person summoned as a congressional witness who refuses to comply can face a misdemeanor charge that carries a fine of up to $100,000 and up to a year in prison if that person is eventually found guilty.
What would the process look like?
To hold someone in contempt of Congress, the Oversight Committee would first mark up and then vote to advance the contempt resolution. Once the committee approves the resolution, which is expected given the GOP majority, the resolution now could go to a vote in the full House.
A simple majority is needed to clear a contempt resolution on the floor. Notably, it does not require passage in the Senate.
The resolution, if passed, would direct the speaker of the House to refer the case to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia — under the Department of Justice — for possible criminal prosecution.
History of contempt
Congress has held Cabinet officials in contempt of Congress for refusing to comply with a House subpoena, including Attorney General William Barr and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross in 2019 and then-Attorney General Eric Holder in 2012. The DOJ never prosecuted them even though the House voted to hold them in contempt.
The House held Peter Navarro, a former top trade adviser in the Trump administration, in contempt of Congress in 2022 for defying a subpoena to provide records and testimony to the now-defunct House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol. Navarro was sentenced to jail time.
Steve Bannon, a Trump ally, was also held in contempt of Congress in 2022 for not complying with the Jan. 6 select committee. Bannon was also sentenced to prison time.
The GOP-led House voted to hold Attorney General Merrick Garland in contempt of Congress in 2024 over the DOJ failing to provide audio of then-President Joe Biden’s interview with special counsel Robert Hur. The DOJ did not prosecute the case, but the audio was released.
Republican congressional candidate Brandon Herrera speaks during a campaign rally at the Constantino S Pizza restaurant on February 26, 2026, in Somerset, Texas. Brandon Bell/Getty Images
(TEXAS) — The Texas 23rd Congressional District race is projected to head to a runoff, as incumbent Rep. Tony Gonzales, who was accused of having an affair with a staffer who later died by suicide, and conservative activist Brandon Herrera both failed to receive more than 50% of the vote.
With 94% of the expected vote reporting Wednesday morning, Herrera holds just about a 1-point advantage over Gonzales (roughly 43% to 42%).
Gonzales and Herrera previously went head-to-head in the 2024 Republican primary and similarly advanced to a runoff. Gonzales ultimately won by just 400 votes.
Tuesday’s primary election came as Gonzales battles calls from some House Republicans to resign amid allegations that he engaged in an extramarital affair with a congressional aide who died by suicide last fall. Gonzales has denied the allegations of the affair with the aide, Regina Santos-Aviles.
Asked recently if he had an extramarital affair with Santos-Aviles, Gonzales said “what you have seen is not all the facts.”
Text messages, provided to ABC News by Santos-Aviles’ widower, appear to show Gonzales pursuing a relationship with the former staffer. ABC News has reached out to Gonzales for a request for comment on the text messages.
In February, Gonzales told ABC News that “Ms. Santos-Aviles was a kind soul who devoted her life to making the community a better place.”
ABC News has also confirmed that Gonzales has been under investigation by the Office of Congressional Conduct, which has already completed its probe. Due to its rules, the OCC can’t transmit a report against a member of Congress 60 days prior to an election.
The runoff election is scheduled for May 26, which is more than 60 days away from the primary election.
On Wednesday, the House Ethics Committee announced that it started an investigative subcommittee to look into the allegations against Gonzales.
Gonzales has notably lost many endorsements in his bid for reelection as calls for his resignation continue. He said last month that he is “not going to resign.”
President Donald Trump had endorsed Gonzales prior to the allegations. Since then, the White House has not responded to ABC News’ questions about whether the president still supports Gonzales.
In a post on X reacting to the news of a runoff, Gonzales began by thanking the president and looking forward to a “victorious May.”
In a reply to Gonzales post, Herrera retorted: “Are you seriously congratulating yourself for not winning your primary?”
Herrera, a Second Amendment activist and social media personality, has also faced his share of controversy, including accusations that his YouTube videos allegedly featured Nazi-related imagery. In response, Herrera wrote in a social media post that “I am not, nor have I never been a neo-Nazi.”
Both candidates have sought to align themselves closely with the president.
ABC News’ Lauren Peller contributed to this report.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio shakes hands with Egyptian Foreign Minister Badr Abdelatty during a photo opportunity ahead of a meeting in the State Department Building, Feb. 10, 2025, in Washington, D.C. (Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — A year ago, the stage seemed set for Vice President JD Vance to succeed President Donald Trump as the MAGA heir apparent in 2028.
Vance, just 40 years old at the time of the 2024 election, came into office with wave of support from Republicans and the backing of the president’s family.
And while the vice president remains well-positioned ahead of a likely 2028 campaign, questions are quietly emerging over Vance’s inevitability, especially as Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s profile and responsibilities have grown throughout the first year of Trump’s second term, most recently around the war with Iran.
The long-term political implications of the war remain to be seen, but Rubio’s rise has caught the eye of not only some of Trump’s closest allies, but the president himself, who in private has been noting how “popular” and “loved” Rubio has become as part of his team, multiple sources told ABC News.
People around the president have noted the lavish praise Trump heaps on Rubio, privately but also in public, often starting standing ovations for him and declaring that Rubio will go down as “the greatest secretary of state in history.”
The president, however, has opted thus far not to formally endorse either Vance or Rubio as his preferred successor, instead saying he would like to see them run together on a joint ticket, without specifying who should be at the top.
Privately, the president has repeatedly tossed the question to allies and associates about who they would like to see at the top of the ticket, asking, “Marco or JD?,” as AXIOS first reported, including recently to a group of donors at his Mar-a-Lago resort in late February, sources said.
‘Draft Rubio’ movement rises
Amid Rubio’s rise, a group of Republican donors who support the secretary of state has also quietly begun discussing ways to further boost Rubio’s political future ahead of 2028, multiple sources told ABC News.
They described an emerging, behind-the-scenes effort to elevate him within the party and stand up a potential “draft Rubio” effort following the midterms. The discussions, according to those sources, are being driven by donors and surrogates who support Rubio, not the secretary of state himself, reflecting what some in Trump-aligned circles see as a growing enthusiasm for Rubio’s rising profile inside the administration.
However, in recent presidential elections, donor support has not always directly translated to political success.
“Donors don’t pick the nominee — the base picks,” a senior Republican operative told ABC News. “Donors tried to abandon President Trump and tried to pick [Florida Gov. Ron] DeSantis, and we all saw how that went.”
Asked about political donors being drawn to Rubio, White House communications director Steven Cheung said in a statement to ABC News that Trump has assembled a strong team to work under him and that nothing will deter the administration in its work.
“The President has assembled an all-star team that has achieved unprecedented success in just over one year. No amount of crazed media speculation about Vice President Vance and Secretary Rubio will deter this Administration’s mission of fighting for the American people,” Cheung said.
The vice president’s office declined to comment.
Over the course of the administration’s first year, Rubio has emerged as a leading voice of the Trump administration, taking on numerous senior roles including acting national security adviser and acting director of the U.S. Agency for International Development, to the point where it has become a running joke around Washington about what position Rubio will take on next.
The State Department did not respond to ABC News’ request for comment.
By Trump’s side for Iran strikes
Rubio’s star has risen particularly since the Trump administration’s recent strikes on Iran, with the secretary emerging as a leading face communicating the operation alongside Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth. When President Trump gave his top military commanders the green light to launch a sweeping attack on Iran, Rubio wasn’t in Washington — he was already on his way to a makeshift situation room in Mar-a-Lago, where he would monitor the first hours of Operation Epic Fury by the president’s side.
Vance was in the Situation Room monitoring the strikes with Energy Secretary Chris Wright, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard. They were dialed into a conference line with President Trump and the rest of the national security team at Mar-a-Lago.
A spokesperson for Vance told ABC News that the vice president “remained in Washington to maintain operational secrecy and in keeping with the administration’s security protocol to limit the President and Vice President co-locating away from the White House.”
Through the early days of the conflict, Rubio has continued to play a highly visible supporting role, remaining by the president’s side at Mar-a-Lago during those early days — a position that has fueled speculation that his stock was on the rise.
But Rubio’s elevated profile amid the Iran strikes could cut both ways. While the secretary of state has taken more of a central role, if he did have future political ambitions, that could also tie him closer to the military operation. Early polling suggests the war is unpopular with most Americans, as just 29% approve of the strikes, while 43% disapprove and 26% remain unsure, according to an Ipsos poll.
The same Ipsos poll also shows that a majority of Americans believe that Trump has not explained the goals of the war, with 64% say Trump has not clearly explained the war’s objective.
Neither Vance nor Rubio has officially declared plans to run for president, and when asked by Vanity Fair last year, Rubio said he would support the vice president. “If JD Vance runs for president, he’s going to be our nominee, and I’ll be one of the first people to support him,” Rubio said.
Vance keeping lower profile
Meanwhile, Vance, a Marine Corps veteran of the war in Iraq, had maintained a relatively low profile following the start of the war in Iran but is now ramping back up his official and political events, including speaking this afternoon in Rocky Mount, North Carolina, where he spoke briefly about the Iran war in his remarks to voters.
Vance also has not been as active on his social media platforms, such as X, as he has been in the past.
In a statement to ABC News about Vance’s public communications during the early days of the strikes, a senior White House official said “the national security team was deliberate on letting the President’s statements and addresses to the nation stand as the operation unfolded.”
Vance was also slated to appear at a town hall with CBS News that was set to air on Saturday, but following the Iran strikes, the scheduled broadcast has been postponed, citing the war in Iran.
Vance is, however, still maintaining a robust fundraising schedule as finance chair of the Republican National Committee, with fundraisers scheduled in Dallas and Austin later this month, according to fundraiser flyers obtained by ABC News.
During a press conference on Monday, Trump said that he and Vance were “philosophically a little bit different” when it came to the U.S. war with Iran after ABC News previously reported that Vance internally expressed reservations about the strikes late last month. Once it became clear that the decision had been made to move forward, Vance shifted to work on supporting the military operation.
“I don’t think so. No, no, we get along very well on this. He was, I would say philosophically a little bit different than me. I think he was, maybe less enthusiastic about going, but he was quite enthusiastic. But, I felt it was something we had to do. I didn’t feel we had a choice. If we didn’t do it, they would have done it to us,” Trump said Monday evening in Florida.
Once it became clear that the decision had been made to move forward, Vance shifted to work on supporting the military operation.
Hegseth was asked during Friday’s Pentagon press briefing about the role Vance played in the military operation and reports that he differed from Trump on the Iran strikes. Hegseth praised the team Trump has pulled together and said that the team “provides options to the President and the Vice President every single day, and is a key voice in that.”
Vance said in an interview with Fox News on March 2 that he did not believe Trump would get the U.S. into a “multi-year conflict with no clear end in sight and no clear objective.”
The vice president’s press secretary, Taylor Van Kirk, pushed back against reports of Vance’s view on the war in Iran.
“The Vice President has been the focus of constant leaks left and right by people trying to project their views onto him,” Van Kirk said. “And as a result, there have been countless inconsistent accounts of the Vice President’s views published, which shows the mainstream media has no idea what they’re talking about. The Vice President, a proud member of the President’s national security team, keeps his counsel to the President private.”
The ‘Tucker dilemma’ for Vance
Some close administration advisers around the president have expressed frustration over Vance’s close ties to voices who have emerged as critics speaking out against Iran, including popular commentator Tucker Carlson, sources said, and have grown close to Rubio, viewing him as a leading figure across multiple fronts.
Laura Loomer, the influential far-right activist who has the president’s ear, has emerged as one of Vance’s staunchest critics from within the MAGA base — routinely targeting the vice president over his connections to critical voices like Carlson, who along with others lobbied Trump to select him as vice president during the 2024 campaign.
Loomer, who spoke to the president recently about the war in Iran, has called on Vance to condemn Carlson following his criticism of Iran strikes and has been boosting the idea that Rubio’s profile is on the rise. “RUBIO RISING 🇺🇸 Get ready for 2028!,” Loomer posted on social media earlier in March.
“Months ago, I called it the ‘Tucker dilemma,’” Loomer told ABC News when reached for comment. “I said that JD Vance has a Tucker problem. And I do believe that one of the reasons why a lot of the GOP donors, as well as a lot of the GOP base, is souring on JD is that he has not explicitly condemned Tucker.”
“If he doesn’t disavow him, Marco’s going to be the nominee,” Loomer said.
Following the initial strikes on Iran, Carlson told ABC News’ Jonathan Karl that the operation was “absolutely disgusting and evil,” comments that President Trump later responded to by saying the former Fox News anchor had “lost his way” and that he “knew that a long time ago, and he’s not MAGA. MAGA is saving our country. MAGA is making our country great again. MAGA is America first, and Tucker is none of those things. And Tucker is really not smart enough to understand that.”
Carlson did not respond to a request for comment.
Headwinds for Rubio
While some GOP donors aligned with Rubio have begun quietly discussing a potential 2028 bid, if the the secretary of state were to run he would face real formidable obstacles running against the vice president, who has spent the past several years working to consolidate support within Trump’s Republican party.
Vance has secured the backing of some of the most influential figures in the Republican party, perhaps none more important that the president’s son, Donald Trump Jr., and Carlson, both of whom played pivotal roles in elevating him to the vice presidency during the 2024 campaign.
But Vance also has deep ties to some of the biggest GOP donors from the tech world, including billionaires Peter Thiel and Elon Musk. And Vance has already been endorsed by the late Charlie Kirk’s organization, Turning Point USA, one of the most powerful grassroots organizations on the right, which has already begun standing up staff and operations in the primary states of Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada.
As RNC finance chair, Vance has started courting major donors across the country, while also maintaining close ties to the Rockbridge Network, a donor and policy organization he helped found before entering politics that connects him to a broad group of wealthy conservative backers and operatives.
Rubio’s last presidential run in 2016 began with high expectations, including the backing of major GOP donors and party strategists, but it ultimately faltered. He finished third in the Iowa caucuses behind Sen. Ted Cruz and Donald Trump before placing fifth in the New Hampshire primary and ultimately losing his home state of Florida to Trump, after which he suspended his campaign.
At the time, ABC News’ analysis of the primary noted that Rubio was part of the establishment Republican lane that collapsed as Trump “took over the Republican Party by sheer force of personality,” defeating a field that included establishment darlings like at the time rising figures such as Rubio.
Today, voters are negative about both men, according to an NBC poll conducted last week. About half of registered voters had a negative opinion of Vance (49%), while 38% were positive: a net negative of 11 points. For Rubio, 41% were negative and 34% were positive, a net negative 7 points. The remainders for each were either neutral, not sure or didn’t know their names.
Behind the scenes, the secretary’s close political allies have mirrored Rubio’s deference—denying that he has his sights set on the White House, while quietly emphasizing that they believe he would make a great president.
