Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Sunday fiercely defended President Trump’s sharp turn against Ukraine’s leader, accusing President Volodymyr Zelensky of trying to derail the peace process with Russia by openly challenging Mr. Trump and Vice President JD Vance in a heated televised exchange from the Oval Office.
“What Zelensky did, unfortunately, is that he found every opportunity to try to ‘Ukraine-splain’ on every issue,” Mr. Rubio said on ABC’s “This Week.” “Then he confronts the vice president.”
Mr. Rubio was in the Oval Office when Mr. Trump and Mr. Vance launched a public attack on Mr. Zelensky on Friday after the Ukrainian president, seeking to underscore Ukraine’s need for U.S. security guarantees in any cease-fire agreement with Russia, began running through Russia’s repeated aggressions on his country since 2014.
Mr. Vance interrupted, characterizing Mr. Zelensky’s efforts to elaborate the Ukrainian perspective in front of reporters and television cameras as “disrespectful” and scolding him for not being sufficiently grateful for U.S. support. Mr. Trump, his voice raised, then accused Mr. Zelensky of “gambling with World War III.”
On Sunday, Mr. Rubio leaned heavily on emotive language to push back against the critics who have since berated the Trump administration for the public display of hostility toward Mr. Zelensky, a wartime president who frames his battle against Russia’s invasion as a bulwark of Europe’s security and freedom. Mr. Rubio said he was “puzzled” by the “absurd” pushback on the administration and said Mr. Trump was being unfairly criticized when he was trying to prevent further destruction by bringing peace to the region.
Mr. Rubio sprinkled his comments with open rebukes of Mr. Zelensky. He said that the Ukrainian president “couldn’t contain himself” and had hindered Mr. Trump’s peace effort.
He said Mr. Zelensky as well as the critics of Mr. Trump and Mr. Vance — among whom are both Republican and Democratic lawmakers — needed to realize that the United States was “trying to help” Ukraine.
“The sooner people grow up and realize that, I think the more progress we’re going to be able to make,” Mr. Rubio said. He added that Mr. Trump would be considered for the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts if he were a Democrat.
Mr. Rubio has also come under sharp criticism from some of his Democratic former colleagues in the Senate.
Senator Chris Van Hollen, Democrat of Maryland, told “Fox News Sunday” that he regretted his support for the nomination of Mr. Rubio, who was confirmed unanimously, with all Democrats voting in favor. Mr. Van Hollen said that as a senator representing Florida, Mr. Rubio acknowledged that Russia was the aggressor in the war against Ukraine and would never have accused Mr. Zelensky of being a dictator, as Mr. Trump has.
Mr. Van Hollen said that “as a member of the Senate, Secretary Rubio was somebody who stood up for American values, American principles,” but that he was now “parroting the president’s position.”
Senator Chris Murphy, Democrat of Connecticut and one of the most outspoken critics of the second Trump administration, told CNN that Mr. Rubio had been “a great disappointment” to many of his peers in the Senate.
Mr. Rubio expressed strong support for Ukraine when the Russian invasion started in 2022. A few days after the Russian attack, he said on MSNBC that he could not understand why the United States “can’t begin to openly say” to Ukrainians that “we will support them as long as they are willing to fight.”
In 2023, he criticized Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida after he answered a Fox News questionnaire by saying that the war in Ukraine was a “territorial dispute” and that the United States should avoid “becoming further entangled.” Mr. Rubio said then that Russia was trying to take out the Ukrainian government and control the entire country and that its aggression could not be settled with conventional treaties and peace agreements.
Back then, Mr. Rubio also said that if Russia could expand its territory in Ukraine by outlasting the patience and support of Western nations, it would set a bad precedent for China, which could use similar military force to invade Taiwan or other territories it lays claims to.
“The message would be pretty clear,” Mr. Rubio said. “If you want to invade a smaller neighbor and take their land, then you can do it, and there won’t be many consequences for it.”
Maya C. Miller contributed reporting.
