Malaysia - United States Department of State https://www.state.gov/countries-areas-archive/malaysia Tue, 12 Aug 2025 17:44:05 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.8.1 https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/cropped-dos_seal-32x32.png Malaysia - United States Department of State https://www.state.gov/countries-areas-archive/malaysia 32 32 Secretary Rubio’s Call with Malaysian Foreign Minister Hasan https://www.state.gov/releases/office-of-the-spokesperson/2025/07/secretary-rubios-call-with-malaysian-foreign-minister-hasan/ Wed, 30 Jul 2025 15:35:16 +0000 https://www.state.gov/releases/preview/642259/ Office of the Spokesperson

Secretary Rubio’s Call with Malaysian Foreign Minister Hasan

Readout

July 30, 2025

The below is attributable to Spokesperson Tammy Bruce:

Secretary of State Marco Rubio spoke with Malaysian Foreign Minister Mohamad Hasan to thank the Malaysian government for its role in deescalating tensions between Thailand and Cambodia and successfully facilitating a ceasefire agreement over the ongoing border dispute. Secretary Rubio reiterated President Trump’s desire for peace and the importance of the ceasefire. The United States supports future discussions on ceasefire implementation in order to ensure peace and stability between Thailand and Cambodia.

Tags

Bilateral Relations and Engagement Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs Malaysia Office of the Spokesperson The Secretary of State Stability
]]> Office of the Spokesperson

Secretary Rubio’s Call with Malaysian Foreign Minister Hasan

Readout

July 30, 2025

The below is attributable to Spokesperson Tammy Bruce:

Secretary of State Marco Rubio spoke with Malaysian Foreign Minister Mohamad Hasan to thank the Malaysian government for its role in deescalating tensions between Thailand and Cambodia and successfully facilitating a ceasefire agreement over the ongoing border dispute. Secretary Rubio reiterated President Trump’s desire for peace and the importance of the ceasefire. The United States supports future discussions on ceasefire implementation in order to ensure peace and stability between Thailand and Cambodia.

Tags

Bilateral Relations and Engagement Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs Malaysia Office of the Spokesperson The Secretary of State Stability
]]> Department Press Briefing – July 29, 2025 https://www.state.gov/briefings/department-press-briefing-july-29-2025/ Tue, 29 Jul 2025 23:44:02 +0000 https://www.state.gov/?post_type=state_briefing&p=642212 Tammy Bruce, Department Spokesperson

Washington, D.C.

Department Press Briefing – July 29, 2025

July 29, 2025

2:12 p.m. EDT

MS BRUCE: All right, everyone, thank you very much for being here. Great to see all of you. We do have some announcements as we proceed with our briefing, and then of course happy to take some questions.

This week the UN is serving as host to an unproductive and ill-timed conference on the so-called two-state solution in New York City. This is a publicity stunt that comes in the middle of delicate diplomatic efforts to end the conflict in Gaza. Far from promoting peace, the conference will prolong the war, will embolden Hamas, and reward its obstruction, and undermine real-world efforts to achieve real peace.

As Secretary Rubio has made clear, this effort is a slap in the face to the victims of October 7th and a reward for terrorism. It keeps hostages trapped in tunnels. The United States will not participate in this insult but will continue to lead real-world efforts to end the fighting and deliver a permanent peace. Our focus remains on serious diplomacy, not stage-managed conferences designed to manufacture the appearance of relevance.

Also, the United States welcomes the ceasefire declaration announced yesterday between Cambodia and Thailand. We commend both governments for taking this important step to ease tensions along the border. President Trump and Secretary Rubio spoke with their Cambodian and Thai counterparts on July 26 to underscore the need for an immediate cessation of the violence. Building on those conversations, the United States, working in close coordination with the Government of Malaysia, co-organized the ceasefire talks in Kuala Lumpur on July 28th.

These talks provided a vital platform for both parties to come together in good faith and ultimately reach agreement on a ceasefire. We are also grateful to Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim for his leadership and for hosting the ceasefire talks. President Trump and Secretary Rubio remain firmly committed to an immediate cessation of violence, and expect the governments of Cambodia and Thailand to honor their commitments to end this conflict.

Further, in the aftermath of the recent typhoon and tropical storm that have devastated the Philippines, the United States remains committed to supporting the Philippine Government in assessing the needs and providing critical assistance. The State Department is deploying a U.S.-based team to strengthen the local relief efforts, including supporting food distribution efforts for displaced families and coordinating logistics for relief efforts led by the Government of the Philippines. To date we have helped transport tens of thousands of food packs to the hardest hit communities, ensuring vital resources reach those in need. This collaboration underscores the enduring partnership and strong ties between the United States and the Philippines.

Finally in today’s topper, yesterday President Trump announced a trade deal with the European Union fundamentally rebalancing the economic relationship between the world’s two largest economies. This deal marks a generational modernization of the transatlantic alliance and will provide Americans with unprecedented levels of market access to the European Union. The deal bolsters America’s economy and manufacturing capabilities. The EU will purchase 750 billion – with a b, my favorite – of U.S. energy and make new investments of 600 billion in the United States, all by 2028.

Through decisive leadership and an unyielding commitment to American workers, President Trump has delivered yet another agreement that positions the United States as the world’s preeminent destination for investment, innovation, and advanced manufacturing. Since day one, President Trump challenged the assumption that American workers and businesses must tolerate unfair trade practices that have disadvantaged them for decades and contributed to our historic trade deficit.

Yesterday’s announcement opens up historic market access to one of the – to the second largest economy in the world, re-establishing the strong, positive, long-term relationship between the United States and its key ally, the European Union.

And before we begin and I take your questions, we have switched things up a little bit here in the front row. I’m looking at some new faces. While all the faces that you guys recognize at home watching the briefings for these last six months recognize, I have to say that the bullpen members and the individuals that you see on camera have their own fan bases, if you will. So, people are excited, of course, each day to see the exchanges, and I appreciate that.

But in the – what people may not know are the number of people who come to this room for each briefing who are journalists with outlets that speak to people around the world. And we think it’s time, as I – I’m seeing, like I’m used to seeing well, you, far back there. Nice to see you. Nadia as well. But I’ll be introducing you to the front row today. It’ll change for each briefing. But this is an opportunity for us to get to know you, for further experience and advancement, for the nature of what Americans and the world see as we answer these questions.

Said, of course, has his own fan club, but nice to see you over here. It’s a little confusing as opposed to over there. So just as a reminder for those of you watching at home, whether it be C-SPAN, of course, or our State Department account on X, et cetera, wherever you may be viewing us, first over here is Said. Said is with Al-Quds, a bullpen member as a matter of fact. And Tim with the Washington Examiner here – welcome aboard, Tim.

We also have Yalena – yes? – from NTN from Columbia. Vaughn is here with Washington Times, and Daniele as we’ve noted, and Nadia, who you’ve also gotten to know here at our briefing. So welcome to the front row. Again, it will change for each briefing. I don’t know what Tommy has in mind for Thursday. He’ll be briefing on Thursday as usual.

But let us begin with your questions. I’ll start with the front row. Yes, sir, Vaughn.

QUESTION: President Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have issued seemingly contradictory statements on the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Is there a rift emerging between the two leaders, and how is this impacting peace efforts, if at all?

MS BRUCE: Well, but of course what I won’t comment on is the nature of a relationship. What we’ve seen between the President and the prime minister has been a very good relationship. Certainly this is a fluid, dynamic situation – that’s an understatement – when it comes to what’s happening in Gaza – especially with the new efforts regarding the humanitarian assistance, certainly the President’s point of view regarding what we need to do and continue to do, which we have been doing, which is facilitating the food assistance through GHF but also, of course, the financial investment and the President’s work and this government’s work and Secretary Rubio’s work to stop the carnage, to have a ceasefire, to get the hostages released, and to have the killing stopped.

I think that when we look at the nature of remarks by the President, there is one thing that’s clear that everyone can agree on is that it is his humanitarian nature to focus on diplomatic solutions, but he is a realist and needing to – and he’ll go and do what he needs to to realize what his goals are, which is a peace and a ceasefire, and also I think the recognition that no one has denied – we have not denied it in this room – that the humanitarian assistance to this point has not been enough. My argument has been is that it would never be enough in that obscene, unnatural environment. And so, we are proceeding in that regard, and of course with President Trump’s leadership, as he noted yesterday, to do even more to assist when it comes to food and other aid.

So that’s, I think, without getting ahead of the President as we’ll learn more about what his plans are coming up, we know the Secretary, of course, has led the way in this regard as well, but the focus remains certainly the humanitarian aid, and our focus remains also on a ceasefire and ending that carnage.

All right, yes.

QUESTION: Thank you, Tammy. I like this position. It’s really nice. (Laughter.)

MS BRUCE: Don’t get used to it. (Laughter.) Okay.

QUESTION: All right, that’s – I have two question, if you don’t mind. The first one is about the United Nation conference that is taking place in New York. You just read the statement. We heard the President. We all agree that Hamas attacked Israel October 7th. But there were like 193 nations attending, so my question – led by the French and the Saudis to start a deal also with the United States in a couple of months ago. So, we understand there’s going to be hopefully the President in only six months in his mandate with the Secretary and they’re fighting for a peace deal, but how the —

MS BRUCE: Do you have a question, sir?

QUESTION: The question is how the State Department envision the future for the Palestinian and the Palestinian state.

MS BRUCE: Yes —

QUESTION: If there’s going to be a Palestinian state or the pushing for one-state solution?

MS BRUCE: Well, first of all, the President has noted, as has Secretary Rubio, that at – they are envisioning a future, which is not something that most people can say. All of their work has led to getting to a point where we can discuss and envision that future and then act on that. Regardless of the conflict that has been worked on, whether it’s Russia-Ukraine, the Gaza Strip, or anywhere else, you can – you can’t really begin to contemplate what’s next until people stop killing each other. We are still at that point.

We have not – because of Hamas’s recalcitrance and refusal to lay down its arms, refusal to release the hostages, we’re not at a point where we’re looking at what is next. We know things will have to be rebuilt – the President has made remarks in that regard – but from the beginning, calling for new ideas and a new way forward so that it’s not just a repeat of what we’ve experience for generations now.

QUESTION: And if I can do a follow-up about the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation. Yesterday the President also talked with the UK prime minister and the UK will help in the humanitarian foundation – I mean, sorry, in the aid. So, what are we going to see next? Is the President and the State Department see that these organization somehow maybe is not working out for different reason? Or —

MS BRUCE: Well, what I’ve said from the start is that this is not about what has not worked. Clearly, we’re now, I think, close to a hundred million meals have been distributed by GHF. But as we’ve discussed, there has to be more. There’s always had to be more. The calls from the President, from the Secretary, and even GHF has been have more join us. There needs to be more ideas, more movement.

We know, of course, there have been some airlifted airdrops of food. There has been corridors that – there is a window for corridors for delivery of more aid. And that’s – of course, that’s good, that’s important. But adding to the aid and to the mechanisms that are there is what we’ve all called for. It is not an indication that there should be only one. It should be – everyone should be contributing to helping to make a difference here.

So far, it has been GHF with a mechanism that has worked to keep the aid out of the hands of Hamas, and that has been fundamental. So, it’s good news, and of course, as the President returns to the United States, no doubt we’ll have more information about how much more good news we’ll have regarding aid and supplies.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MS BRUCE: Yes.

QUESTION: A follow-up?

QUESTION: Thank you, Tammy.

MS BRUCE: No, no, wait. Hold on, please. Hold on. Yeah.

QUESTION: Me?

MS BRUCE: Yeah.

QUESTION: Thank you, Tammy.

MS BRUCE: No. No, not you. (Laughter.) I don’t know, maybe it’s my pointing or maybe because there’s a tall guy here. Yes, ma’am.

QUESTION: Thank you. I just want to follow up on what Trump has said about setting up new food centers.

MS BRUCE: Sure.

QUESTION: Will these be part of the GHF?

MS BRUCE: I don’t – we have – we don’t know the framework of how something would proceed regarding the details. I am waiting for the President to return and don’t want to get ahead of him regarding announcements and what the framework would be.

QUESTION: When do you expect this to be announced?

MS BRUCE: I – considering the nature of the urgency of the situation in everything that President Trump does, very quickly and very soon. But we’ll let that play out when he gets here and we get the details from those involved.

QUESTION: And if I could just follow up, the IPC has said that GHF food items require water and fuel to cook, which is largely unavailable, and the IPC’s Famine Review Committee said that their analysis of the food packages supplied by the GHF shows that their distribution plan would lead to mass starvation. Has the U.S. vetted what supplies the GHF is providing and ensured that they are providing the necessary nutrients, and that they are able to be cooked?

MS BRUCE: All right. I’m going to pass this off so we can get an answer to you. I do know that, again, the issue here is getting more food, more access, more everything. That has always been at the top of our list. But when it comes to the specificity of what’s being handed out, we’ll get back to you.

Yes, ma’am.

QUESTION: Thanks, Tammy. The President has now said multiple times that his administration has pledged $60 million toward food and other supplies for Gaza. The State Department has only announced $30 million for the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation. Can you say has more money been earmarked for the GHF, or is there other funds that are going out to make up for that 60 million to 30 million difference here?

MS BRUCE: I would suggest a question for the White House there. Again, I speak – I know what we’ve done here at State. Clearly, the President is in a position when it comes to decision-making, knowing what parts are moving, and where things are headed, that they would have probably a better answer for you regarding the rest.

QUESTION: But it’s only 30 million for GHF at this point? Can you say that?

MS BRUCE: From what we, of course, have announced here at the State Department, that’s – in this particular – I would caution against the suggestion that – with what State may have done and what’s been announced is a reflection of the complete picture. So, let’s – I tend to caution about those things. I will caution about that again. But it’s – this is, as we all know, a very large issue, a very fast-moving issue, and there’s many different pieces that are coming together in how it moves. And so, the element that we have announced is an element and is not – does not speak to an end or a final, complete piece to what it is we’re doing.

All right. Yes?

QUESTION: Thank you. Just following up on Daphne’s question, I had asked about what Gaza Humanitarian Foundation is distributing specifically – since last week’s briefing, specifically the high-nutrient food that is needed.

MS BRUCE: Yes, I know. It’s come up before as well, so yes.

QUESTION: Yeah. And you mentioned that you would take that back to get more details on the distribution. I did get a line from this department in response to my questions last week, and the State – a State Department spokesperson had said the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation award remains subject to strict requirements, vetting, and oversight mechanisms, like all department awards. And then they also deferred to GHF on the exact food items that are being distributed.

MS BRUCE: Sure.

QUESTION: There’s been a lot that’s happened since you were actually last at the podium.

MS BRUCE: It’s been a week.

QUESTION: As you know, there’s been the news out of France, and also with the UK prime minister saying that the UK may well recognize a Palestinian state in September at UN Week if certain conditions are not met by Israel. And then, of course, there’s been wall-to-wall coverage on images of starving children, photographic evidence of that from our colleagues covering the story on the ground in Gaza. So, I just wondered whether the vetting process and the strict requirements —

MS BRUCE: Yes.

QUESTION: — in this department is now having to take into account, obviously, all of this evidence, this photograph evidence. And is this giving the department some pause on these funds that are ready to go out the door to this organization?

MS BRUCE: Here’s what – thank you. First of all, some of you may have seen a remark from Anna Kelly, from the White House, about the President’s stance and what his plans are. She said President Trump wants to alleviate the suffering for the people of Gaza because he has a humanitarian heart. He announced a new aid plan today to help Gazans obtain crucial access to food. Details are forthcoming.

What I will note about what’s happening on the ground, of course, is what our focus is on, which is getting more aid in, which is having the – getting a ceasefire, which has not been accomplished because Hamas refuses to do so; from the beginning, they have been the problem about why this continues to be an issue. I – we know that, of course, more food aid will be going in, considerably more, and for those, as we care about the nature of nutrition and the value of that, we’ll have those details for you. And GHF can be reached – many of you have reached out to them – to ask them for those details.

We at the State Department, the Secretary, and the President of the United States, are focusing on saving lives, dealing with individuals who can stop what they’re doing to create peace. And of course, as you know, the President has been frustrated on a couple of fronts regarding the killing of civilians, the using of civilians, the nature of what’s happening at too many conflicts around the world. And that’s what he’s focused on. But it’s a good issue to have, if there is a silver lining, about the fact that more food, more nutrition, more access is being created. And that’s what we’re doing in the meantime, while still trying to stop a war that makes that zone almost impossible.

Nadia.

QUESTION: Thank you, Tammy. I have two questions. An Israeli settler called Yinon Levi has shot and killed a Palestinian peace activist – he’s a father of three; his name is Awdah Hathaleen – in the West Bank. This settler was identified by the previous administration as an extremist and he was under sanction, brought by the EU and the U.S. You, the Trump Administration, has lifted the sanction on him. You often say you have the same values with the Israelis. How can you make sure that this guy is accountable when he killed a civilian, especially a peace activist?

MS BRUCE: Well, of course, I think it’s – it needs to be said, it shouldn’t have to be said, but we decry the loss of life everywhere. That has been the hallmark of the work that this administration is doing. It is at top of mind for Secretary Rubio and all of us who work here at the State Department for a reason – because we care about what happens with other people. Here certainly we care it about – it is an American First framework, but that value is about peace around the world as well, which also helps us.

I would say also that we – as you know, we don’t comment on investigations that belong to another government. Israel is – has investigations that it’s implementing regarding situations of this sort. We – I don’t know the end result of what that’s going to be, nor will I comment or speculate on what should happen. What we do know – and I don’t think we should have to. We have a status here, a posture, where all of this matters to us, to the point where the President’s last and only – the second term, but his last effort is to make these things better and to save people’s lives.

So, it is – these are – it’s certainly Gaza, a war zone. We’re doing our best to make a difference there, and we will wait for the result of an investigation before we have any comment.

QUESTION: Sure. This guy in the West Bank; is not in Gaza.

MS BRUCE: Well, but with the West Bank and Gaza, obviously, the nature of conflicts and what we’ve been working on – but I appreciate that, yes, of course. It’s the same – I think the same – it’s the same argument. We see this in the West Bank. We know when there’s violence in general. We saw something unfold in New York City as well, with a shooting in New York City yesterday. These things touch all of us, with the hero there being a Bangladeshi immigrant, a cop for three years, dies defending New Yorkers. It is the American story, and it’s something that we all work to help try to make a difference on.

All right.

QUESTION: My second question is: two Israeli human rights organizations found – that they concluded that Israeli practice in Gaza has aspects of genocide. The Trump Administration has put sanctions on UN officials who concluded the same. So, are you going to sanction these human rights organization or are you going to change your position?

MS BRUCE: Well, I appreciate that, Nadia. But of course, you know I’m not going to speculate or say what actions will be. I’m not going to comment on outrageous allegations, effectively, which have also been disputed. But I will – again, you know I won’t preview things or guess or speculate about actions in any regard.

All right. Yes.

QUESTION: Can I just ask you about the trucks that are getting into Gaza? Over the weekend, there was an uptick, I think over 100 trucks that got in on Sunday. But at times during this crisis, there have been upwards of 300 trucks delivering humanitarian aid into Gaza. What is the number of trucks that this administration wants to see Israel allow into Gaza on a daily basis?

MS BRUCE: Well, I won’t discuss, of course, details with you or the content of conversations or even a specific like that. I – what I do know is that there is this overarching work that we’ve done to make sure as much can get in as possible. At the same time, we do know that the UN had noted that they were not moving materiel in because of the violence. We know it’s a war zone. I mean, that has been the overriding issue, and how to make it safe to get food through to those who need it versus into the hands of those who are causing the destruction and using it and weaponizing it.

So, we don’t – I’m not going to speak to you about specifics or if that conversation has been had. We know, of course, it’s in everyone’s interest to help stop the kind of environment in general that’s happening in the Gaza strip. It’s, again, monstrous and abnormal and all of us have an interest in stopping it.

QUESTION: And GHF’s contracts expire at the end of August. Is this administration pushing for those contracts to be renewed?

MS BRUCE: I won’t speak on the details of contracts or agreements or if that’s accurate or if it’s not.

Yes.

QUESTION: Thank you so much. Two very quick questions. Secretary Rubio, for the past several months, has been wearing two hats, both leader of the —

MS BRUCE: Four hats.

QUESTION: Four – many, many, hats.

MS BRUCE: Four hats.

QUESTION: But specifically, Department of State and NSC. He has shrunken down the NSC and called it right-sizing. And my question is: are these two roles being sort of merged together into the same official, or are they being fulfilled in two separate capacities?

MS BRUCE: Well, I can’t speak to the decision-making about the nature of what he’s doing as the NSA. I’m here with State Department. Of course, he is the Secretary of State. What I can tell you is when I’ve been on various trips when the NSA – the National Security Advisor and the Secretary have been there together, it’s the same kind of work. It’s working together seamlessly. It – of course, they’ll – a great deal of time, of overlap, regarding the nature of what’s happening in the world. So, it seems and it appears to be working out smoothly and effectively.

QUESTION: And my second question. Today Kim Yo-jong in North Korea, the sister of Supreme Leader Kim Jong-un, published an official statement regarding the U.S.’s desire to denuclearization the peninsula. While rebuking the United States, the memo did include a line stating that Kim Jong-un’s relationship with President Trump is, quote, “not bad.” And I’m just wondering if the Department of State is familiar with the nature of bilateral relations between the U.S. and North Korea at this time and why they might have said that?

MS BRUCE: Well, I would suspect that you should contact the White House when it comes to the relationship between the President and another country. Of course, we do know – as we see now, as we saw in the first term, President Trump’s willingness to talk with everyone in order to achieve the peace and prosperity and some semblance of normal life for people around the world.

Regarding the note you mentioned, or if it was a social media tweet, I don’t have a remark on that, of course, but the White House can tell you more about the President’s approach with North Korea.

Yes, ma’am.

QUESTION: Thank you, Tammy. Me?

MS BRUCE: Yes, you.

QUESTION: Okay. I have two questions too. The first one is after President Uribe’s conviction, will the U.S. consider any sort of actions similar to what we saw after the decision against former President Bolsonaro in Brazil? The first one. And the second one after you answer or —

MS BRUCE: Yeah, so, regarding the verdict, a verdict with former President Uribe, yes?

QUESTION: Yes.

MS BRUCE: Yes. Well, the Secretary of State put out a tweet on this as well, noting that: “Former Colombian President Uribe’s only crime has been to tirelessly fight and defend his homeland. The weaponization of Colombia’s judicial branch by radical judges has now set a worrisome precedent.”

QUESTION: And the second one is: Will the U.S. allow Chevron to operate in a country led by an administration charged with promoting terror and drug trafficking?

MS BRUCE: Well, I can tell you this – and I love your very direct questions. What I – I know that there’s two separate details that I don’t have in front of me that I want us to take and get back to you in that regard. What we have said repeatedly, though, is that we will not allow oil revenue to fund or benefit that regime. And so, I think that’s something that we can repeat here at this point, but when it comes to some further details, let’s see if we can get you – get you —

QUESTION: Thank you.

MS BRUCE: All right. Said.

QUESTION: Thank you, Tammy. And I must admit I feel a little bit vulnerable and closer to the floor here.

MS BRUCE: Ah.

QUESTION: I was always shielded by the front row and Matt right there.

MS BRUCE: Well, see how you’re thinking now. But trust us, you’re fine without —

QUESTION: No, it’s okay. I have a very – yeah.

MS BRUCE: — without the Italian rule about never having your back into an open space. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Okay, right. Very quick question. IPC said today what’s going on in Gaza is famine, and the reason they didn’t classify it as such is because they need the actual data and they have to be in Gaza to collect that data, which Israel prevent them. So, my two questions here —

MS BRUCE: Well, let me – let me just say, as you know I might, is that there is – there is someone preventing people from getting into Gaza, and that’s Hamas.

QUESTION: Okay, not —

MS BRUCE: Hamas is preventing everyone from being able to get in there, whether it is reporters, whether it’s food deliveries, or those who might need to assess the nature of what’s happening on the ground. People are afraid of a terrorist group, the masterminds of October 7th, which slaughtered babies up to the elderly, living – when they’re living, dismembering them, putting a baby into a microwave, murdering women as they’re raping them. That set of people are running the Gaza Strip. So, it’s understandable why people are concerned and can’t get in. It is not the Israelis who have been defending themselves in this framework and who have – are ready to sign a ceasefire deal and have been ready for weeks to do so.

QUESTION: Well, in fact, the Israelis are preventing everybody. They control the area. But that’s – that’s another issue. My question to you: Does this add the kind of urgency that would allow more trucks – to follow up on Kylie’s point, more trucks in to a level that it was before? It was something like 400, 500 trucks – especially during the ceasefire.

And second, would the U.S. call on Israel to allow these groups to go in and give them the facilities they need to report actually and factually from Gaza?

MS BRUCE: Well, we’ve had progress here. From the beginning of this conversation and with the catastrophe of October 7th and what has unfolded since then, we have discussed all the time about what we need. And we’ve had progress, we’ve had – again, close now, I think, to a hundred million meals distributed by GHF. We have had more trucks now moving into the area. Israel making accommodation to be able to try to allow that to happen without people being in danger. And so, we’ve seen this progress being made.

When it comes to the number of trucks, I would caution that it’s not an issue of numbers but clearly the position – the posture of the President, of the Secretary of State, is that all of this has to stop and everything has to get to whomever needs it. That’s not – it’s – that may end up being a certain number of trucks. It may be a certain other kind of effort, new ideas. So, it’s not – I would just ask that we focus on what we’ve been focusing on here, which is having this violence end so that we can do a wholesale reformation of that area, stopping of the violence, and a wholesale view of that a future really can exist.

So yes, ultimately, it’s going to be the best scenario, everyone can go into Gaza and help. The President will clearly have ideas, the – the partners in that area, whether it be Egypt or Qatar and others, Jordan, with their air drops – everyone has an interest in the resolution of this. And inevitably, of course, it will result in everyone getting what they need.

All right. Yes, Abbie.

QUESTION: What is the U.S. position on the UK saying they’ll recognize the Palestinian state before the UN in September? I know my colleague brought it up, but considering they’re using it as leverage to try to stop some of the starvation that President Trump himself said he’s concerned about taking place in Gaza.

MS BRUCE: Well, I think President Rubio’s statement and my statement that I issued regarding the conference, the two-state solution, the fact of the matter is his remarks also when President Macron of France also did something similar in this regard, that this is a slap in the face to the victims of October 7th, that it rewards Hamas, and it harms the ability to stop this framework from – it allows it to continue. It gives one group hope, and that’s Hamas. It is rewarding of that kind of behavior, that if you wait long enough, if you don’t cooperate, if – in any other normal environment where someone was so utterly defeated, they would surrender. In this case, that just does not occur. And part of it is because of, perhaps, the hope that they receive on how long the suffering lasts, how much that pushes the world to acquiesce to their arguments. And that is – there’s one group that benefits from the images and the reality of the horribleness, and that’s Hamas.

And so, there’s a reason why they don’t cooperate and stop. And this adds one more thing onto it that adds into their apparent posture that this is a winning thing to do. Clearly, we are of the opposite mind, and that, I think, we can say in general about that issue.

All right.

QUESTION: One quick follow-up. President Trump said he didn’t mind the UK prime minister taking a position on statehood. Is that – can you explain what the difference is there as far as —

MS BRUCE: Well, I – obviously I’m not going to speculate on the President’s reasoning. But I do know that he – none of us are in the business of telling people not to speak their mind. At the same time, I’m a big believer, as I know the Secretary is and the President is – and we showed this, I think, last November – is that persuading people, explaining your position – why it matters, how it impacts what we all want to achieve – is something that we must do and that it’s the way to persuade people, to change people’s minds. And so, it doesn’t surprise me that that is what he said, but of course we also know, as I described, the nature of our situation here about what that does in our efforts to stop the carnage.

Yes.

QUESTION: Thanks so much, Tammy. Appreciate it. GHF, there’s – according to the UN, there’s been about a thousand – more than a thousand Palestinians killed at or near the aid sites since May 27th. Does the U.S. have an assessment on that number?

MS BRUCE: It is not – that’s not something I will speak on or go into the details about regarding our assessments of that situation, certainly a wartime situation. But in the details and the numbers, no, I won’t – I won’t speak to that.

QUESTION: Okay. And you mentioned the details of this new aid plan will be forthcoming. Are there people – is that – will they be forthcoming to the State Department or are they coming from the State Department? Are there people in this building working on something right now or they would —

MS BRUCE: Well, it’s the White House who noted that. So, the White House noted that the details will be forthcoming. We, of course, all work for the President; he is the guiding hand here, and he gets ideas, and he knows more than all the rest of us know. So, we are excited about his commitment. The fact that he and Mrs. Trump are humanitarians and are working first to make America first so that Americans’ lives can be predictable and strong and we have a future we can look forward to, but also that, obviously, is translating around the world as well.

Yes, sir.

QUESTION: Thank you, Tammy. I want to move to Ukraine, if I may. We have a new deadline, and Ukrainians —

MS BRUCE: Yes.

QUESTION: — are certainly hopeful that the President’s new deadline and his tough words about Putin and Russia will follow with certain concrete actions. But in fact, yesterday you told the media that now we are going to see some actions —

MS BRUCE: Yes.

QUESTION: — with the caveat that we have 10 days to go. Can you give us a sense of is there preparation —

MS BRUCE: Oh, you might not even have 10 days. I would just suggest, even when he set that 50-day timeline for Russia, I think one of the things I’ve said is that’s – who knows when that could happen. He has had timelines before in which he acted very quickly. So I – with the President, he also noted that he was going to – he shortened that timeline because he pretty much knew what the situation was.

QUESTION: My – my question is: Can you give us any sense of any preparation that’s ongoing in this building so the Russians take it seriously?

MS BRUCE: Well, clearly, President Trump has proven that he should be taken seriously because he’s a serious man. And we’ve seen the results of that around the world – again, most recently in the Indo-Pacific and, of course, with his envoys and the nature of the commitments we’ve made.

I would say that what’s been discussed regularly are sanctions, and the President also brought up the issue of sanctions, and even secondary sanctions, as certain countries are benefitting from buying Russian oil. So – but that’s up to the President. We’ve known that’s in his toolbox. There are many things that he can – he can do, just as there are many things that Secretary Rubio can do and help facilitate. But the President himself mentioned those two dynamics. He has been patient, and that may have been misinterpreted by some people. And I think the time for misinterpretation is now over.

QUESTION: On that point, Tammy, the President said that he knows the answer and he also thinks that there is no reason to wait. If there’s no reason to wait, then why wait 10 days?

MS BRUCE: Well, again, you’re asking – there’s – as we know, there are a million fronts in these kinds of dynamics. There’s negotiations that go on. I can’t speak to what the President’s involved in, the conversations that are currently being had, and the importance of what the President says privately and publicly. I would just trust that he’s the one who would know, and being in a position here at the State Department where we’re all ready to do what we need to do to get this situation accomplished for the President.

All right, Eric.

QUESTION: Yes, thank you, Tammy. I wanted to ask two questions, one on the impact of potential secondary sanctions, potential secondary tariffs. Is there a concern that that may be too blunt an instrument in that some U.S. allies or countries for which the U.S. has been partnering and having negotiations – fruitful negotiations, as we saw today – for example, China or India – could be hit, that there could be a boomerang reaction from the – from such sanctions, secondary sanctions – or the EU, other countries that would be inadvertently hurt in a way that would be counterproductive to broader U.S. goals?

MS BRUCE: Well, no doubt I’m not in the business of the negotiations. There are questions that are asked about everything with the actions that might be taken, and I would presume, as we should, that all of the impact would be considered. Obviously, the President’s first effort and first desire to solve problems is through diplomacy.

For people who might be confused, I have a few comments that I can share with you from the President first here: “I’m disappointed in President Putin, very disappointed in him… I’m going to reduce that 50 days that I gave him to a lesser number, because I think I already know the answer what’s going to happen.” He also said, yes, “I’m going to make a new deadline of about 10 12 days from today.” I think that was yesterday. “There’s no reason in waiting… I want to be generous, but” we don’t – “we just don’t see any progress being made.” He said, “10 to 12 days. I’ll announce it probably tonight or tomorrow, but there’s no reason to wait. If you know what the answer is going to be, why wait? And it would be sanctions and maybe tariffs, secondary tariffs.” And he says, “ going to do secondary sanctions unless we make a deal… based on common sense you would think he’d want to make a deal. We’ll find out.”

It – the President is not someone who is making a decision on the fly. This has clearly been consideration from the beginning, and we’re prepared to do what’s necessary.

QUESTION: And following – thank you, Tammy. Following up on my colleague’s question about Colombia, we know that we have a President and a Secretary of State who take a great interest in what happens in the Western Hemisphere and pay a lot of attention. We’ve seen the President’s attack and criticism of the Brazilian judiciary, but I’m wondering what makes a judicial process a radical process or radicalized by judges or otherwise inappropriate. I mean, is it determined by who ultimately is convicted or charged, or how – what’s the context or the judgment, the qualitative judgment as to what makes a politicized judicial process for this administration?

MS BRUCE: Well, the Secretary, like the President, is a very talkative young man, and he’s very clear about what interests him and why it matters. On every – virtually every issue, he does long-form interviews. he’s got his Twitter that he participates personally in, statements, op-eds – all of which he’s personally involved in and expresses the nature of how he’s making his decisions and why. So, I will let his work speak for itself, including, again, current comments and no doubt more comments and explanations, if you will, or opinion pieces to help explain why these things matter, why corruption matters, how it might look wherever – whatever country you live in, and why it‘s important to stand up against it.

All right. Yes, sir.

QUESTION: Yes, hi, Tammy. See a lot of my colleagues have asked a lot of the questions I had, so I’m going to totally change subjects, if I may.

MS BRUCE: Well, all right. Sounds good to me.

QUESTION: There are millions of dollars’ worth of contraceptives stocked in Belgium that are due to be incinerated in France. It’s our understanding that they’re still stocked in Belgium; they haven’t moved to France. Could you give us an update as to where that stands? I know that the Belgian Government is trying to find alternative solutions. Is the U.S. Government ready to find alternative solutions or are they destined to be destroyed?

MS BRUCE: Well, I do – I want to have that taken back. This is a situation that changes each day. What I can tell you is, for those who’ve asked previously, there are no AIDS drugs involved in this. No PEPFAR dynamics are set to be destroyed. This is a situation regarding birth control and other mechanisms that could be used – first of all, that would violate our Mexico City policy regarding the use of abortifacients, but also the use of some elements that could be used in a kind of forced sterilization framework that some nations do apply, which also we will not facilitate. So, we can say that there’s no AIDS drugs, no condoms are being destroyed; this is about a longstanding – I think this was a purchase from the previous administration, and so we’re dealing with that. But we’re aware of it. And we recognize the issues, but we also of course are committed to a policy that Americans care about, and we’re going to be moving forward. No doubt we’ll have some additional information for you in perhaps the coming days.

Yes, ma’am.

QUESTION: Returning to your statement at the top, could you explain why talking about Palestinian statehood or a Palestinian future in Gaza rewards Hamas or is a slap in the face to the victims of October 7th? And I’m asking given that none of the parties involved, to my knowledge – who are involved in these discussions or have plans to recognize statehood – have said anything about wanting Hamas to be in power. It seems like, according to the United States, according to Israel and all these – as well, is all these other folks involved in these conversations now at the UN – no one has expressed a desire to have Hamas in power. So how is that – how does it reward Hamas?

MS BRUCE: Well, I think that it’s very often, if not most often, actions speak louder than words. And our argument is that there are certain actions you can take that reward, in the midst of the defense of a country after a horrific atrocity implemented on October 7th – and the end result is create a two-state solution – solve this problem, when in fact the problem was mass murder and just an indescribably obscene environment and then the continuation of the terrorism of the people of Gaza, the first victims of Hamas.

Still, it just – the nature of living in that environment, the hostages that remain held, the weapons that remain held, and a refusal – we had a ceasefire early on. We had a ceasefire on October 7th. We had a ceasefire early on. They broke that. And there is a point where you don’t find ways to placate or reward the people that have done such horrible things to humanity. The actions of what is being suggested – and I think we’ve made clear here – do just that. And it is – I think everyone deserves better, certainly, first, the Gazan people, but certainly the world itself.

All right.

QUESTION: Can I follow up?

MS BRUCE: Now we’re going to continue. Yes, sir in the green shirt.

QUESTION: Thank you. It has been reported that Taiwanese President Lai’s trip to his Central and South American allies has – with transit in the U.S. has been postponed. Could you elaborate on this or did the Washington or the State Department play a part in this delay?

MS BRUCE: Well, I do have something I can tell you about this. Taiwan has not announced any travel plans for President Lai. So that is generally a hypothetical – now, I know it’s been in the news. There’s been a lot of questions and a lot of suppositions here that have happened. But I can say that it is a hypothetical at this point. There have been no plans, travel plans for the president. There has been, as a result, nothing canceled.

I can tell you though a reiteration that transits by high-level Taiwan officials, including presidents, are fully consistent with our longstanding policy and practice. This has not changed. And just as a reminder for people who may have not have heard us say this from the podium, if they’re newbies, the United States remains committed to our longstanding “one China” policy, which is guided by the Taiwan Relations Act, the Three Joint Communiques, and the Six Assurances. The United States is committed to preserving peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MS BRUCE: All right. Thank you, sir. All right, Abbie, one more time.

QUESTION: Can the State Department confirm or offer comment on reports that two Americans were recently detained in Iran on suspicion of spying for Israel? Have they since been released? Has the State Department or the U.S. been in touch with Iran regarding their detainment?

MS BRUCE: I can’t speak to that at this point, but hopefully I can soon. And I think that’s going to be it for today. Thank you, everyone. And again, Thursday a lot of these things might return with more and new information, but you never know what’s going to happen from one day to the next. The President I believe will be back. Tommy Pigott will be at this podium. And thank you so much for being with me today. My thanks to our guests here on the front row. It was great getting to know you; I appreciate it. And we’ll see you again on Thursday. Thanks, everybody.

(The briefing was concluded at 2:58 p.m.)

Secretary Rubio’s ↑

Tags

Belgium Brazil Cambodia Colombia France Israel Malaysia North Korea Office of the Spokesperson Palestinian Territories Philippines Russia Taiwan Thailand Ukraine United Kingdom Venezuela
]]> Tammy Bruce, Department Spokesperson

Washington, D.C.

Department Press Briefing – July 29, 2025

July 29, 2025

2:12 p.m. EDT

MS BRUCE: All right, everyone, thank you very much for being here. Great to see all of you. We do have some announcements as we proceed with our briefing, and then of course happy to take some questions.

This week the UN is serving as host to an unproductive and ill-timed conference on the so-called two-state solution in New York City. This is a publicity stunt that comes in the middle of delicate diplomatic efforts to end the conflict in Gaza. Far from promoting peace, the conference will prolong the war, will embolden Hamas, and reward its obstruction, and undermine real-world efforts to achieve real peace.

As Secretary Rubio has made clear, this effort is a slap in the face to the victims of October 7th and a reward for terrorism. It keeps hostages trapped in tunnels. The United States will not participate in this insult but will continue to lead real-world efforts to end the fighting and deliver a permanent peace. Our focus remains on serious diplomacy, not stage-managed conferences designed to manufacture the appearance of relevance.

Also, the United States welcomes the ceasefire declaration announced yesterday between Cambodia and Thailand. We commend both governments for taking this important step to ease tensions along the border. President Trump and Secretary Rubio spoke with their Cambodian and Thai counterparts on July 26 to underscore the need for an immediate cessation of the violence. Building on those conversations, the United States, working in close coordination with the Government of Malaysia, co-organized the ceasefire talks in Kuala Lumpur on July 28th.

These talks provided a vital platform for both parties to come together in good faith and ultimately reach agreement on a ceasefire. We are also grateful to Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim for his leadership and for hosting the ceasefire talks. President Trump and Secretary Rubio remain firmly committed to an immediate cessation of violence, and expect the governments of Cambodia and Thailand to honor their commitments to end this conflict.

Further, in the aftermath of the recent typhoon and tropical storm that have devastated the Philippines, the United States remains committed to supporting the Philippine Government in assessing the needs and providing critical assistance. The State Department is deploying a U.S.-based team to strengthen the local relief efforts, including supporting food distribution efforts for displaced families and coordinating logistics for relief efforts led by the Government of the Philippines. To date we have helped transport tens of thousands of food packs to the hardest hit communities, ensuring vital resources reach those in need. This collaboration underscores the enduring partnership and strong ties between the United States and the Philippines.

Finally in today’s topper, yesterday President Trump announced a trade deal with the European Union fundamentally rebalancing the economic relationship between the world’s two largest economies. This deal marks a generational modernization of the transatlantic alliance and will provide Americans with unprecedented levels of market access to the European Union. The deal bolsters America’s economy and manufacturing capabilities. The EU will purchase 750 billion – with a b, my favorite – of U.S. energy and make new investments of 600 billion in the United States, all by 2028.

Through decisive leadership and an unyielding commitment to American workers, President Trump has delivered yet another agreement that positions the United States as the world’s preeminent destination for investment, innovation, and advanced manufacturing. Since day one, President Trump challenged the assumption that American workers and businesses must tolerate unfair trade practices that have disadvantaged them for decades and contributed to our historic trade deficit.

Yesterday’s announcement opens up historic market access to one of the – to the second largest economy in the world, re-establishing the strong, positive, long-term relationship between the United States and its key ally, the European Union.

And before we begin and I take your questions, we have switched things up a little bit here in the front row. I’m looking at some new faces. While all the faces that you guys recognize at home watching the briefings for these last six months recognize, I have to say that the bullpen members and the individuals that you see on camera have their own fan bases, if you will. So, people are excited, of course, each day to see the exchanges, and I appreciate that.

But in the – what people may not know are the number of people who come to this room for each briefing who are journalists with outlets that speak to people around the world. And we think it’s time, as I – I’m seeing, like I’m used to seeing well, you, far back there. Nice to see you. Nadia as well. But I’ll be introducing you to the front row today. It’ll change for each briefing. But this is an opportunity for us to get to know you, for further experience and advancement, for the nature of what Americans and the world see as we answer these questions.

Said, of course, has his own fan club, but nice to see you over here. It’s a little confusing as opposed to over there. So just as a reminder for those of you watching at home, whether it be C-SPAN, of course, or our State Department account on X, et cetera, wherever you may be viewing us, first over here is Said. Said is with Al-Quds, a bullpen member as a matter of fact. And Tim with the Washington Examiner here – welcome aboard, Tim.

We also have Yalena – yes? – from NTN from Columbia. Vaughn is here with Washington Times, and Daniele as we’ve noted, and Nadia, who you’ve also gotten to know here at our briefing. So welcome to the front row. Again, it will change for each briefing. I don’t know what Tommy has in mind for Thursday. He’ll be briefing on Thursday as usual.

But let us begin with your questions. I’ll start with the front row. Yes, sir, Vaughn.

QUESTION: President Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have issued seemingly contradictory statements on the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Is there a rift emerging between the two leaders, and how is this impacting peace efforts, if at all?

MS BRUCE: Well, but of course what I won’t comment on is the nature of a relationship. What we’ve seen between the President and the prime minister has been a very good relationship. Certainly this is a fluid, dynamic situation – that’s an understatement – when it comes to what’s happening in Gaza – especially with the new efforts regarding the humanitarian assistance, certainly the President’s point of view regarding what we need to do and continue to do, which we have been doing, which is facilitating the food assistance through GHF but also, of course, the financial investment and the President’s work and this government’s work and Secretary Rubio’s work to stop the carnage, to have a ceasefire, to get the hostages released, and to have the killing stopped.

I think that when we look at the nature of remarks by the President, there is one thing that’s clear that everyone can agree on is that it is his humanitarian nature to focus on diplomatic solutions, but he is a realist and needing to – and he’ll go and do what he needs to to realize what his goals are, which is a peace and a ceasefire, and also I think the recognition that no one has denied – we have not denied it in this room – that the humanitarian assistance to this point has not been enough. My argument has been is that it would never be enough in that obscene, unnatural environment. And so, we are proceeding in that regard, and of course with President Trump’s leadership, as he noted yesterday, to do even more to assist when it comes to food and other aid.

So that’s, I think, without getting ahead of the President as we’ll learn more about what his plans are coming up, we know the Secretary, of course, has led the way in this regard as well, but the focus remains certainly the humanitarian aid, and our focus remains also on a ceasefire and ending that carnage.

All right, yes.

QUESTION: Thank you, Tammy. I like this position. It’s really nice. (Laughter.)

MS BRUCE: Don’t get used to it. (Laughter.) Okay.

QUESTION: All right, that’s – I have two question, if you don’t mind. The first one is about the United Nation conference that is taking place in New York. You just read the statement. We heard the President. We all agree that Hamas attacked Israel October 7th. But there were like 193 nations attending, so my question – led by the French and the Saudis to start a deal also with the United States in a couple of months ago. So, we understand there’s going to be hopefully the President in only six months in his mandate with the Secretary and they’re fighting for a peace deal, but how the —

MS BRUCE: Do you have a question, sir?

QUESTION: The question is how the State Department envision the future for the Palestinian and the Palestinian state.

MS BRUCE: Yes —

QUESTION: If there’s going to be a Palestinian state or the pushing for one-state solution?

MS BRUCE: Well, first of all, the President has noted, as has Secretary Rubio, that at – they are envisioning a future, which is not something that most people can say. All of their work has led to getting to a point where we can discuss and envision that future and then act on that. Regardless of the conflict that has been worked on, whether it’s Russia-Ukraine, the Gaza Strip, or anywhere else, you can – you can’t really begin to contemplate what’s next until people stop killing each other. We are still at that point.

We have not – because of Hamas’s recalcitrance and refusal to lay down its arms, refusal to release the hostages, we’re not at a point where we’re looking at what is next. We know things will have to be rebuilt – the President has made remarks in that regard – but from the beginning, calling for new ideas and a new way forward so that it’s not just a repeat of what we’ve experience for generations now.

QUESTION: And if I can do a follow-up about the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation. Yesterday the President also talked with the UK prime minister and the UK will help in the humanitarian foundation – I mean, sorry, in the aid. So, what are we going to see next? Is the President and the State Department see that these organization somehow maybe is not working out for different reason? Or —

MS BRUCE: Well, what I’ve said from the start is that this is not about what has not worked. Clearly, we’re now, I think, close to a hundred million meals have been distributed by GHF. But as we’ve discussed, there has to be more. There’s always had to be more. The calls from the President, from the Secretary, and even GHF has been have more join us. There needs to be more ideas, more movement.

We know, of course, there have been some airlifted airdrops of food. There has been corridors that – there is a window for corridors for delivery of more aid. And that’s – of course, that’s good, that’s important. But adding to the aid and to the mechanisms that are there is what we’ve all called for. It is not an indication that there should be only one. It should be – everyone should be contributing to helping to make a difference here.

So far, it has been GHF with a mechanism that has worked to keep the aid out of the hands of Hamas, and that has been fundamental. So, it’s good news, and of course, as the President returns to the United States, no doubt we’ll have more information about how much more good news we’ll have regarding aid and supplies.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MS BRUCE: Yes.

QUESTION: A follow-up?

QUESTION: Thank you, Tammy.

MS BRUCE: No, no, wait. Hold on, please. Hold on. Yeah.

QUESTION: Me?

MS BRUCE: Yeah.

QUESTION: Thank you, Tammy.

MS BRUCE: No. No, not you. (Laughter.) I don’t know, maybe it’s my pointing or maybe because there’s a tall guy here. Yes, ma’am.

QUESTION: Thank you. I just want to follow up on what Trump has said about setting up new food centers.

MS BRUCE: Sure.

QUESTION: Will these be part of the GHF?

MS BRUCE: I don’t – we have – we don’t know the framework of how something would proceed regarding the details. I am waiting for the President to return and don’t want to get ahead of him regarding announcements and what the framework would be.

QUESTION: When do you expect this to be announced?

MS BRUCE: I – considering the nature of the urgency of the situation in everything that President Trump does, very quickly and very soon. But we’ll let that play out when he gets here and we get the details from those involved.

QUESTION: And if I could just follow up, the IPC has said that GHF food items require water and fuel to cook, which is largely unavailable, and the IPC’s Famine Review Committee said that their analysis of the food packages supplied by the GHF shows that their distribution plan would lead to mass starvation. Has the U.S. vetted what supplies the GHF is providing and ensured that they are providing the necessary nutrients, and that they are able to be cooked?

MS BRUCE: All right. I’m going to pass this off so we can get an answer to you. I do know that, again, the issue here is getting more food, more access, more everything. That has always been at the top of our list. But when it comes to the specificity of what’s being handed out, we’ll get back to you.

Yes, ma’am.

QUESTION: Thanks, Tammy. The President has now said multiple times that his administration has pledged $60 million toward food and other supplies for Gaza. The State Department has only announced $30 million for the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation. Can you say has more money been earmarked for the GHF, or is there other funds that are going out to make up for that 60 million to 30 million difference here?

MS BRUCE: I would suggest a question for the White House there. Again, I speak – I know what we’ve done here at State. Clearly, the President is in a position when it comes to decision-making, knowing what parts are moving, and where things are headed, that they would have probably a better answer for you regarding the rest.

QUESTION: But it’s only 30 million for GHF at this point? Can you say that?

MS BRUCE: From what we, of course, have announced here at the State Department, that’s – in this particular – I would caution against the suggestion that – with what State may have done and what’s been announced is a reflection of the complete picture. So, let’s – I tend to caution about those things. I will caution about that again. But it’s – this is, as we all know, a very large issue, a very fast-moving issue, and there’s many different pieces that are coming together in how it moves. And so, the element that we have announced is an element and is not – does not speak to an end or a final, complete piece to what it is we’re doing.

All right. Yes?

QUESTION: Thank you. Just following up on Daphne’s question, I had asked about what Gaza Humanitarian Foundation is distributing specifically – since last week’s briefing, specifically the high-nutrient food that is needed.

MS BRUCE: Yes, I know. It’s come up before as well, so yes.

QUESTION: Yeah. And you mentioned that you would take that back to get more details on the distribution. I did get a line from this department in response to my questions last week, and the State – a State Department spokesperson had said the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation award remains subject to strict requirements, vetting, and oversight mechanisms, like all department awards. And then they also deferred to GHF on the exact food items that are being distributed.

MS BRUCE: Sure.

QUESTION: There’s been a lot that’s happened since you were actually last at the podium.

MS BRUCE: It’s been a week.

QUESTION: As you know, there’s been the news out of France, and also with the UK prime minister saying that the UK may well recognize a Palestinian state in September at UN Week if certain conditions are not met by Israel. And then, of course, there’s been wall-to-wall coverage on images of starving children, photographic evidence of that from our colleagues covering the story on the ground in Gaza. So, I just wondered whether the vetting process and the strict requirements —

MS BRUCE: Yes.

QUESTION: — in this department is now having to take into account, obviously, all of this evidence, this photograph evidence. And is this giving the department some pause on these funds that are ready to go out the door to this organization?

MS BRUCE: Here’s what – thank you. First of all, some of you may have seen a remark from Anna Kelly, from the White House, about the President’s stance and what his plans are. She said President Trump wants to alleviate the suffering for the people of Gaza because he has a humanitarian heart. He announced a new aid plan today to help Gazans obtain crucial access to food. Details are forthcoming.

What I will note about what’s happening on the ground, of course, is what our focus is on, which is getting more aid in, which is having the – getting a ceasefire, which has not been accomplished because Hamas refuses to do so; from the beginning, they have been the problem about why this continues to be an issue. I – we know that, of course, more food aid will be going in, considerably more, and for those, as we care about the nature of nutrition and the value of that, we’ll have those details for you. And GHF can be reached – many of you have reached out to them – to ask them for those details.

We at the State Department, the Secretary, and the President of the United States, are focusing on saving lives, dealing with individuals who can stop what they’re doing to create peace. And of course, as you know, the President has been frustrated on a couple of fronts regarding the killing of civilians, the using of civilians, the nature of what’s happening at too many conflicts around the world. And that’s what he’s focused on. But it’s a good issue to have, if there is a silver lining, about the fact that more food, more nutrition, more access is being created. And that’s what we’re doing in the meantime, while still trying to stop a war that makes that zone almost impossible.

Nadia.

QUESTION: Thank you, Tammy. I have two questions. An Israeli settler called Yinon Levi has shot and killed a Palestinian peace activist – he’s a father of three; his name is Awdah Hathaleen – in the West Bank. This settler was identified by the previous administration as an extremist and he was under sanction, brought by the EU and the U.S. You, the Trump Administration, has lifted the sanction on him. You often say you have the same values with the Israelis. How can you make sure that this guy is accountable when he killed a civilian, especially a peace activist?

MS BRUCE: Well, of course, I think it’s – it needs to be said, it shouldn’t have to be said, but we decry the loss of life everywhere. That has been the hallmark of the work that this administration is doing. It is at top of mind for Secretary Rubio and all of us who work here at the State Department for a reason – because we care about what happens with other people. Here certainly we care it about – it is an American First framework, but that value is about peace around the world as well, which also helps us.

I would say also that we – as you know, we don’t comment on investigations that belong to another government. Israel is – has investigations that it’s implementing regarding situations of this sort. We – I don’t know the end result of what that’s going to be, nor will I comment or speculate on what should happen. What we do know – and I don’t think we should have to. We have a status here, a posture, where all of this matters to us, to the point where the President’s last and only – the second term, but his last effort is to make these things better and to save people’s lives.

So, it is – these are – it’s certainly Gaza, a war zone. We’re doing our best to make a difference there, and we will wait for the result of an investigation before we have any comment.

QUESTION: Sure. This guy in the West Bank; is not in Gaza.

MS BRUCE: Well, but with the West Bank and Gaza, obviously, the nature of conflicts and what we’ve been working on – but I appreciate that, yes, of course. It’s the same – I think the same – it’s the same argument. We see this in the West Bank. We know when there’s violence in general. We saw something unfold in New York City as well, with a shooting in New York City yesterday. These things touch all of us, with the hero there being a Bangladeshi immigrant, a cop for three years, dies defending New Yorkers. It is the American story, and it’s something that we all work to help try to make a difference on.

All right.

QUESTION: My second question is: two Israeli human rights organizations found – that they concluded that Israeli practice in Gaza has aspects of genocide. The Trump Administration has put sanctions on UN officials who concluded the same. So, are you going to sanction these human rights organization or are you going to change your position?

MS BRUCE: Well, I appreciate that, Nadia. But of course, you know I’m not going to speculate or say what actions will be. I’m not going to comment on outrageous allegations, effectively, which have also been disputed. But I will – again, you know I won’t preview things or guess or speculate about actions in any regard.

All right. Yes.

QUESTION: Can I just ask you about the trucks that are getting into Gaza? Over the weekend, there was an uptick, I think over 100 trucks that got in on Sunday. But at times during this crisis, there have been upwards of 300 trucks delivering humanitarian aid into Gaza. What is the number of trucks that this administration wants to see Israel allow into Gaza on a daily basis?

MS BRUCE: Well, I won’t discuss, of course, details with you or the content of conversations or even a specific like that. I – what I do know is that there is this overarching work that we’ve done to make sure as much can get in as possible. At the same time, we do know that the UN had noted that they were not moving materiel in because of the violence. We know it’s a war zone. I mean, that has been the overriding issue, and how to make it safe to get food through to those who need it versus into the hands of those who are causing the destruction and using it and weaponizing it.

So, we don’t – I’m not going to speak to you about specifics or if that conversation has been had. We know, of course, it’s in everyone’s interest to help stop the kind of environment in general that’s happening in the Gaza strip. It’s, again, monstrous and abnormal and all of us have an interest in stopping it.

QUESTION: And GHF’s contracts expire at the end of August. Is this administration pushing for those contracts to be renewed?

MS BRUCE: I won’t speak on the details of contracts or agreements or if that’s accurate or if it’s not.

Yes.

QUESTION: Thank you so much. Two very quick questions. Secretary Rubio, for the past several months, has been wearing two hats, both leader of the —

MS BRUCE: Four hats.

QUESTION: Four – many, many, hats.

MS BRUCE: Four hats.

QUESTION: But specifically, Department of State and NSC. He has shrunken down the NSC and called it right-sizing. And my question is: are these two roles being sort of merged together into the same official, or are they being fulfilled in two separate capacities?

MS BRUCE: Well, I can’t speak to the decision-making about the nature of what he’s doing as the NSA. I’m here with State Department. Of course, he is the Secretary of State. What I can tell you is when I’ve been on various trips when the NSA – the National Security Advisor and the Secretary have been there together, it’s the same kind of work. It’s working together seamlessly. It – of course, they’ll – a great deal of time, of overlap, regarding the nature of what’s happening in the world. So, it seems and it appears to be working out smoothly and effectively.

QUESTION: And my second question. Today Kim Yo-jong in North Korea, the sister of Supreme Leader Kim Jong-un, published an official statement regarding the U.S.’s desire to denuclearization the peninsula. While rebuking the United States, the memo did include a line stating that Kim Jong-un’s relationship with President Trump is, quote, “not bad.” And I’m just wondering if the Department of State is familiar with the nature of bilateral relations between the U.S. and North Korea at this time and why they might have said that?

MS BRUCE: Well, I would suspect that you should contact the White House when it comes to the relationship between the President and another country. Of course, we do know – as we see now, as we saw in the first term, President Trump’s willingness to talk with everyone in order to achieve the peace and prosperity and some semblance of normal life for people around the world.

Regarding the note you mentioned, or if it was a social media tweet, I don’t have a remark on that, of course, but the White House can tell you more about the President’s approach with North Korea.

Yes, ma’am.

QUESTION: Thank you, Tammy. Me?

MS BRUCE: Yes, you.

QUESTION: Okay. I have two questions too. The first one is after President Uribe’s conviction, will the U.S. consider any sort of actions similar to what we saw after the decision against former President Bolsonaro in Brazil? The first one. And the second one after you answer or —

MS BRUCE: Yeah, so, regarding the verdict, a verdict with former President Uribe, yes?

QUESTION: Yes.

MS BRUCE: Yes. Well, the Secretary of State put out a tweet on this as well, noting that: “Former Colombian President Uribe’s only crime has been to tirelessly fight and defend his homeland. The weaponization of Colombia’s judicial branch by radical judges has now set a worrisome precedent.”

QUESTION: And the second one is: Will the U.S. allow Chevron to operate in a country led by an administration charged with promoting terror and drug trafficking?

MS BRUCE: Well, I can tell you this – and I love your very direct questions. What I – I know that there’s two separate details that I don’t have in front of me that I want us to take and get back to you in that regard. What we have said repeatedly, though, is that we will not allow oil revenue to fund or benefit that regime. And so, I think that’s something that we can repeat here at this point, but when it comes to some further details, let’s see if we can get you – get you —

QUESTION: Thank you.

MS BRUCE: All right. Said.

QUESTION: Thank you, Tammy. And I must admit I feel a little bit vulnerable and closer to the floor here.

MS BRUCE: Ah.

QUESTION: I was always shielded by the front row and Matt right there.

MS BRUCE: Well, see how you’re thinking now. But trust us, you’re fine without —

QUESTION: No, it’s okay. I have a very – yeah.

MS BRUCE: — without the Italian rule about never having your back into an open space. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Okay, right. Very quick question. IPC said today what’s going on in Gaza is famine, and the reason they didn’t classify it as such is because they need the actual data and they have to be in Gaza to collect that data, which Israel prevent them. So, my two questions here —

MS BRUCE: Well, let me – let me just say, as you know I might, is that there is – there is someone preventing people from getting into Gaza, and that’s Hamas.

QUESTION: Okay, not —

MS BRUCE: Hamas is preventing everyone from being able to get in there, whether it is reporters, whether it’s food deliveries, or those who might need to assess the nature of what’s happening on the ground. People are afraid of a terrorist group, the masterminds of October 7th, which slaughtered babies up to the elderly, living – when they’re living, dismembering them, putting a baby into a microwave, murdering women as they’re raping them. That set of people are running the Gaza Strip. So, it’s understandable why people are concerned and can’t get in. It is not the Israelis who have been defending themselves in this framework and who have – are ready to sign a ceasefire deal and have been ready for weeks to do so.

QUESTION: Well, in fact, the Israelis are preventing everybody. They control the area. But that’s – that’s another issue. My question to you: Does this add the kind of urgency that would allow more trucks – to follow up on Kylie’s point, more trucks in to a level that it was before? It was something like 400, 500 trucks – especially during the ceasefire.

And second, would the U.S. call on Israel to allow these groups to go in and give them the facilities they need to report actually and factually from Gaza?

MS BRUCE: Well, we’ve had progress here. From the beginning of this conversation and with the catastrophe of October 7th and what has unfolded since then, we have discussed all the time about what we need. And we’ve had progress, we’ve had – again, close now, I think, to a hundred million meals distributed by GHF. We have had more trucks now moving into the area. Israel making accommodation to be able to try to allow that to happen without people being in danger. And so, we’ve seen this progress being made.

When it comes to the number of trucks, I would caution that it’s not an issue of numbers but clearly the position – the posture of the President, of the Secretary of State, is that all of this has to stop and everything has to get to whomever needs it. That’s not – it’s – that may end up being a certain number of trucks. It may be a certain other kind of effort, new ideas. So, it’s not – I would just ask that we focus on what we’ve been focusing on here, which is having this violence end so that we can do a wholesale reformation of that area, stopping of the violence, and a wholesale view of that a future really can exist.

So yes, ultimately, it’s going to be the best scenario, everyone can go into Gaza and help. The President will clearly have ideas, the – the partners in that area, whether it be Egypt or Qatar and others, Jordan, with their air drops – everyone has an interest in the resolution of this. And inevitably, of course, it will result in everyone getting what they need.

All right. Yes, Abbie.

QUESTION: What is the U.S. position on the UK saying they’ll recognize the Palestinian state before the UN in September? I know my colleague brought it up, but considering they’re using it as leverage to try to stop some of the starvation that President Trump himself said he’s concerned about taking place in Gaza.

MS BRUCE: Well, I think President Rubio’s statement and my statement that I issued regarding the conference, the two-state solution, the fact of the matter is his remarks also when President Macron of France also did something similar in this regard, that this is a slap in the face to the victims of October 7th, that it rewards Hamas, and it harms the ability to stop this framework from – it allows it to continue. It gives one group hope, and that’s Hamas. It is rewarding of that kind of behavior, that if you wait long enough, if you don’t cooperate, if – in any other normal environment where someone was so utterly defeated, they would surrender. In this case, that just does not occur. And part of it is because of, perhaps, the hope that they receive on how long the suffering lasts, how much that pushes the world to acquiesce to their arguments. And that is – there’s one group that benefits from the images and the reality of the horribleness, and that’s Hamas.

And so, there’s a reason why they don’t cooperate and stop. And this adds one more thing onto it that adds into their apparent posture that this is a winning thing to do. Clearly, we are of the opposite mind, and that, I think, we can say in general about that issue.

All right.

QUESTION: One quick follow-up. President Trump said he didn’t mind the UK prime minister taking a position on statehood. Is that – can you explain what the difference is there as far as —

MS BRUCE: Well, I – obviously I’m not going to speculate on the President’s reasoning. But I do know that he – none of us are in the business of telling people not to speak their mind. At the same time, I’m a big believer, as I know the Secretary is and the President is – and we showed this, I think, last November – is that persuading people, explaining your position – why it matters, how it impacts what we all want to achieve – is something that we must do and that it’s the way to persuade people, to change people’s minds. And so, it doesn’t surprise me that that is what he said, but of course we also know, as I described, the nature of our situation here about what that does in our efforts to stop the carnage.

Yes.

QUESTION: Thanks so much, Tammy. Appreciate it. GHF, there’s – according to the UN, there’s been about a thousand – more than a thousand Palestinians killed at or near the aid sites since May 27th. Does the U.S. have an assessment on that number?

MS BRUCE: It is not – that’s not something I will speak on or go into the details about regarding our assessments of that situation, certainly a wartime situation. But in the details and the numbers, no, I won’t – I won’t speak to that.

QUESTION: Okay. And you mentioned the details of this new aid plan will be forthcoming. Are there people – is that – will they be forthcoming to the State Department or are they coming from the State Department? Are there people in this building working on something right now or they would —

MS BRUCE: Well, it’s the White House who noted that. So, the White House noted that the details will be forthcoming. We, of course, all work for the President; he is the guiding hand here, and he gets ideas, and he knows more than all the rest of us know. So, we are excited about his commitment. The fact that he and Mrs. Trump are humanitarians and are working first to make America first so that Americans’ lives can be predictable and strong and we have a future we can look forward to, but also that, obviously, is translating around the world as well.

Yes, sir.

QUESTION: Thank you, Tammy. I want to move to Ukraine, if I may. We have a new deadline, and Ukrainians —

MS BRUCE: Yes.

QUESTION: — are certainly hopeful that the President’s new deadline and his tough words about Putin and Russia will follow with certain concrete actions. But in fact, yesterday you told the media that now we are going to see some actions —

MS BRUCE: Yes.

QUESTION: — with the caveat that we have 10 days to go. Can you give us a sense of is there preparation —

MS BRUCE: Oh, you might not even have 10 days. I would just suggest, even when he set that 50-day timeline for Russia, I think one of the things I’ve said is that’s – who knows when that could happen. He has had timelines before in which he acted very quickly. So I – with the President, he also noted that he was going to – he shortened that timeline because he pretty much knew what the situation was.

QUESTION: My – my question is: Can you give us any sense of any preparation that’s ongoing in this building so the Russians take it seriously?

MS BRUCE: Well, clearly, President Trump has proven that he should be taken seriously because he’s a serious man. And we’ve seen the results of that around the world – again, most recently in the Indo-Pacific and, of course, with his envoys and the nature of the commitments we’ve made.

I would say that what’s been discussed regularly are sanctions, and the President also brought up the issue of sanctions, and even secondary sanctions, as certain countries are benefitting from buying Russian oil. So – but that’s up to the President. We’ve known that’s in his toolbox. There are many things that he can – he can do, just as there are many things that Secretary Rubio can do and help facilitate. But the President himself mentioned those two dynamics. He has been patient, and that may have been misinterpreted by some people. And I think the time for misinterpretation is now over.

QUESTION: On that point, Tammy, the President said that he knows the answer and he also thinks that there is no reason to wait. If there’s no reason to wait, then why wait 10 days?

MS BRUCE: Well, again, you’re asking – there’s – as we know, there are a million fronts in these kinds of dynamics. There’s negotiations that go on. I can’t speak to what the President’s involved in, the conversations that are currently being had, and the importance of what the President says privately and publicly. I would just trust that he’s the one who would know, and being in a position here at the State Department where we’re all ready to do what we need to do to get this situation accomplished for the President.

All right, Eric.

QUESTION: Yes, thank you, Tammy. I wanted to ask two questions, one on the impact of potential secondary sanctions, potential secondary tariffs. Is there a concern that that may be too blunt an instrument in that some U.S. allies or countries for which the U.S. has been partnering and having negotiations – fruitful negotiations, as we saw today – for example, China or India – could be hit, that there could be a boomerang reaction from the – from such sanctions, secondary sanctions – or the EU, other countries that would be inadvertently hurt in a way that would be counterproductive to broader U.S. goals?

MS BRUCE: Well, no doubt I’m not in the business of the negotiations. There are questions that are asked about everything with the actions that might be taken, and I would presume, as we should, that all of the impact would be considered. Obviously, the President’s first effort and first desire to solve problems is through diplomacy.

For people who might be confused, I have a few comments that I can share with you from the President first here: “I’m disappointed in President Putin, very disappointed in him… I’m going to reduce that 50 days that I gave him to a lesser number, because I think I already know the answer what’s going to happen.” He also said, yes, “I’m going to make a new deadline of about 10 12 days from today.” I think that was yesterday. “There’s no reason in waiting… I want to be generous, but” we don’t – “we just don’t see any progress being made.” He said, “10 to 12 days. I’ll announce it probably tonight or tomorrow, but there’s no reason to wait. If you know what the answer is going to be, why wait? And it would be sanctions and maybe tariffs, secondary tariffs.” And he says, “ going to do secondary sanctions unless we make a deal… based on common sense you would think he’d want to make a deal. We’ll find out.”

It – the President is not someone who is making a decision on the fly. This has clearly been consideration from the beginning, and we’re prepared to do what’s necessary.

QUESTION: And following – thank you, Tammy. Following up on my colleague’s question about Colombia, we know that we have a President and a Secretary of State who take a great interest in what happens in the Western Hemisphere and pay a lot of attention. We’ve seen the President’s attack and criticism of the Brazilian judiciary, but I’m wondering what makes a judicial process a radical process or radicalized by judges or otherwise inappropriate. I mean, is it determined by who ultimately is convicted or charged, or how – what’s the context or the judgment, the qualitative judgment as to what makes a politicized judicial process for this administration?

MS BRUCE: Well, the Secretary, like the President, is a very talkative young man, and he’s very clear about what interests him and why it matters. On every – virtually every issue, he does long-form interviews. he’s got his Twitter that he participates personally in, statements, op-eds – all of which he’s personally involved in and expresses the nature of how he’s making his decisions and why. So, I will let his work speak for itself, including, again, current comments and no doubt more comments and explanations, if you will, or opinion pieces to help explain why these things matter, why corruption matters, how it might look wherever – whatever country you live in, and why it‘s important to stand up against it.

All right. Yes, sir.

QUESTION: Yes, hi, Tammy. See a lot of my colleagues have asked a lot of the questions I had, so I’m going to totally change subjects, if I may.

MS BRUCE: Well, all right. Sounds good to me.

QUESTION: There are millions of dollars’ worth of contraceptives stocked in Belgium that are due to be incinerated in France. It’s our understanding that they’re still stocked in Belgium; they haven’t moved to France. Could you give us an update as to where that stands? I know that the Belgian Government is trying to find alternative solutions. Is the U.S. Government ready to find alternative solutions or are they destined to be destroyed?

MS BRUCE: Well, I do – I want to have that taken back. This is a situation that changes each day. What I can tell you is, for those who’ve asked previously, there are no AIDS drugs involved in this. No PEPFAR dynamics are set to be destroyed. This is a situation regarding birth control and other mechanisms that could be used – first of all, that would violate our Mexico City policy regarding the use of abortifacients, but also the use of some elements that could be used in a kind of forced sterilization framework that some nations do apply, which also we will not facilitate. So, we can say that there’s no AIDS drugs, no condoms are being destroyed; this is about a longstanding – I think this was a purchase from the previous administration, and so we’re dealing with that. But we’re aware of it. And we recognize the issues, but we also of course are committed to a policy that Americans care about, and we’re going to be moving forward. No doubt we’ll have some additional information for you in perhaps the coming days.

Yes, ma’am.

QUESTION: Returning to your statement at the top, could you explain why talking about Palestinian statehood or a Palestinian future in Gaza rewards Hamas or is a slap in the face to the victims of October 7th? And I’m asking given that none of the parties involved, to my knowledge – who are involved in these discussions or have plans to recognize statehood – have said anything about wanting Hamas to be in power. It seems like, according to the United States, according to Israel and all these – as well, is all these other folks involved in these conversations now at the UN – no one has expressed a desire to have Hamas in power. So how is that – how does it reward Hamas?

MS BRUCE: Well, I think that it’s very often, if not most often, actions speak louder than words. And our argument is that there are certain actions you can take that reward, in the midst of the defense of a country after a horrific atrocity implemented on October 7th – and the end result is create a two-state solution – solve this problem, when in fact the problem was mass murder and just an indescribably obscene environment and then the continuation of the terrorism of the people of Gaza, the first victims of Hamas.

Still, it just – the nature of living in that environment, the hostages that remain held, the weapons that remain held, and a refusal – we had a ceasefire early on. We had a ceasefire on October 7th. We had a ceasefire early on. They broke that. And there is a point where you don’t find ways to placate or reward the people that have done such horrible things to humanity. The actions of what is being suggested – and I think we’ve made clear here – do just that. And it is – I think everyone deserves better, certainly, first, the Gazan people, but certainly the world itself.

All right.

QUESTION: Can I follow up?

MS BRUCE: Now we’re going to continue. Yes, sir in the green shirt.

QUESTION: Thank you. It has been reported that Taiwanese President Lai’s trip to his Central and South American allies has – with transit in the U.S. has been postponed. Could you elaborate on this or did the Washington or the State Department play a part in this delay?

MS BRUCE: Well, I do have something I can tell you about this. Taiwan has not announced any travel plans for President Lai. So that is generally a hypothetical – now, I know it’s been in the news. There’s been a lot of questions and a lot of suppositions here that have happened. But I can say that it is a hypothetical at this point. There have been no plans, travel plans for the president. There has been, as a result, nothing canceled.

I can tell you though a reiteration that transits by high-level Taiwan officials, including presidents, are fully consistent with our longstanding policy and practice. This has not changed. And just as a reminder for people who may have not have heard us say this from the podium, if they’re newbies, the United States remains committed to our longstanding “one China” policy, which is guided by the Taiwan Relations Act, the Three Joint Communiques, and the Six Assurances. The United States is committed to preserving peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MS BRUCE: All right. Thank you, sir. All right, Abbie, one more time.

QUESTION: Can the State Department confirm or offer comment on reports that two Americans were recently detained in Iran on suspicion of spying for Israel? Have they since been released? Has the State Department or the U.S. been in touch with Iran regarding their detainment?

MS BRUCE: I can’t speak to that at this point, but hopefully I can soon. And I think that’s going to be it for today. Thank you, everyone. And again, Thursday a lot of these things might return with more and new information, but you never know what’s going to happen from one day to the next. The President I believe will be back. Tommy Pigott will be at this podium. And thank you so much for being with me today. My thanks to our guests here on the front row. It was great getting to know you; I appreciate it. And we’ll see you again on Thursday. Thanks, everybody.

(The briefing was concluded at 2:58 p.m.)

Secretary Rubio’s ↑

Tags

Belgium Brazil Cambodia Colombia France Israel Malaysia North Korea Office of the Spokesperson Palestinian Territories Philippines Russia Taiwan Thailand Ukraine United Kingdom Venezuela
]]> Malaysia https://www.state.gov/reports/2024-country-reports-on-human-rights-practices/malaysia/ Tue, 15 Jul 2025 19:56:29 +0000 https://www.state.gov/?post_type=state_report&p=639686

2024 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Malaysia

Download Report

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

There were no significant changes in the human rights situation in Malaysia during the year.

Significant human rights issues included credible reports of: cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment; arbitrary arrest or detention; and serious restrictions on freedom of expression and media freedom, including censorship.

The government arrested and prosecuted some officials engaged in human rights abuses, although nongovernmental organizations alleged impunity.

Section 1.

Life

a. Extrajudicial Killings

There were no reports the government or its agents committed arbitrary or unlawful killings during the year.

Investigation by the Royal Malaysian Police (RMP) Criminal Investigation Division into the use of deadly force by a police officer occurred only if the attorney general initiated an investigation or approved an application for an investigation by family members of the deceased. When the attorney general ordered an official inquiry, a coroner’s court convened, and a public hearing was held. In such cases, courts generally issued an “open verdict,” meaning that there would be no further action.

b. Coercion in Population Control

There were no reports of coerced abortion or involuntary sterilization on the part of government authorities.

Section 2.

Liberty

a. Freedom of the Press

The constitution allowed restrictions on the freedom of speech “in the interest of the security of the Federation…[or] public order.” The government regularly restricted freedom of expression for members of the public, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and media, citing reasons such as upholding Islam and the special status of ethnic Malays, protecting royalty or national security, maintaining public order, and preserving friendly relations with other countries.

The law prohibited sedition and public comment on topics defined as sensitive, including racial and religious matters and criticism of the king or ruling sultans. The law prohibited speech “with deliberate intent to wound the religious feelings of any person.”

In April prosecutors charged political activist Badrul Hisham Shaharin under the Sedition Act for social media remarks he made in April after Bloomberg reported that Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim held preliminary talks with property development firm Berjaya regarding building a casino in Johor State.

The government restricted the expression of unapproved political views in schools and universities and enforced restrictions on teachers and students who expressed dissenting views. Although faculty members sometimes publicly criticized the government, public university academics whose career advancement and funding depended on the government practiced self-censorship. Self-censorship took place among academics at private institutions as well, spurred by fear the government might revoke the licenses of their institutions. Students were prohibited from “expressing support or sympathy” for an unlawful society or organization.

Physical Attacks, Imprisonment, and Pressure

There were no reports journalists were subjected to violence.

Some journalists were subjected to intimidation by authorities. In August police summoned three journalists of the online news portal Malaysiakini after the news site published a report alleging a leadership reshuffle within the RMP. The journalists stated police asked them to reveal their sources during questioning.

Censorship by Governments, Military, Intelligence, or Police Forces, Criminal Groups, or Armed Extremist or Rebel Groups

The government maintained the ability to control news content, including the ability to censor, and at times exerted such control over both print and broadcast media. The government banned, restricted, or limited circulation of some publications it considered a threat to public order, morality, or national security. The law required a permit to own a printing press, and printers often were reluctant to print publications critical of the government due to fear of reprisal. Such policies inhibited independent or investigative journalism and resulted in self-censorship in print and broadcast media. Online media outlets were more independent but were more likely to be the target of legal action and harassment.

The government occasionally censored foreign magazines, newspapers, and news programming, most often due to sexual content. Government restrictions on radio and television stations mirrored those on print media, and electronic media predominantly supported the government. Television stations censored programming to follow government guidelines. Kissing onscreen, sex scenes, nudity, strong graphic violence, and vivid language were all prohibited or censored.

The government generally restricted publications it judged might incite racial or religious disharmony.

The government censored films for certain political and religious content, not allowing, for example, screening of films in Hebrew or Yiddish, or from Israel. Although the government allowed foreign films at local film festivals, it sometimes censored content by physically blocking screens until the objectionable scene was over.

In January the government charged film director Khairi Anwar Jailani and producer Tan Meng Kheng with “intentionally hurting religious feelings” through their 2021 film Mentega Terbang, which depicted a Muslim teenager exploring other religions in the aftermath of her mother’s death. The government banned the film in September 2023 after Muslim groups complained the film encouraged Muslims to abandon their faith. In January a court allowed the defendants to file a constitutional challenge against the government’s ban. The court placed the criminal trial on hold pending results of the challenge scheduled for January 2025.

b. Worker Rights

Freedom of Association and Collective Bargaining

Amendments to the Trade Unions Act came into force in September, allowing multiple trade unions within a workplace, occupation, or industry. It also explicitly prohibited a trade union from being exclusive to a particular race, religion, or nationality. The law provided for the rights to strike and to bargain collectively. The law prohibited employers from interfering with trade union activities, including union formation. It prohibited employers from retaliating against workers for legal union activities and required reinstatement of workers fired for union activity. Prior to the amendments, the government did not effectively enforce these laws. Penalties included fines but were seldom assessed and were not commensurate with those under other laws involving denials of civil rights, such as discrimination.

The law prohibited defense and police officials and retired or dismissed workers from joining unions. The law required ministerial approval for unions to affiliate with any organization outside the country. Foreign workers could join a trade union but could not hold union office unless they obtained permission from the Ministry of Human Resources. Subcontracted workers could not form a union and could not negotiate or benefit from collective bargaining agreements.

Amendments to the Trade Unions Act limited the director general of trade unions’ power to refuse to register or withdraw registration from unions. Union officials expressed frustration over the unpredictably long registration process. Employers could challenge a union’s request for recognition, leading to multiyear delays in recognizing unions. In some instances, companies reportedly also harassed leaders of unions that sought recognition.

Most private-sector workers had the right to bargain collectively, although these negotiations could not include matters of transfer, promotion, appointments, dismissal, or reinstatement.

A joint consultation system for public-sector labor relations effectively reduced public sector unions to an advisory role; there were no public sector strikes. The government also could compel arbitration in labor disputes at the minister of labor’s sole discretion.

Amendments to the Trade Unions Act set a 60 percent minimum yes vote in a secret ballot by union members eligible to vote and employed at the workplace involved to authorize a strike. Subsequently, a report had to be submitted to the director general of trade unions requesting approval of the strike. Workers who struck without the consent of the director general of trade unions were liable to a fine, imprisonment for up to one year, or both. The law prohibited general strikes, and trade unions could not strike over disputes related to trade-union registration or illegal dismissals. Workers could not strike in a broad range of industries, in excess of International Labor Organization (ILO) guidelines, deemed “essential.” They could not strike over a dispute under consideration by the Industrial Court.

The ILO observed that the country’s laws, regulations, and practices did not fully support freedom of association and collective bargaining. National-level unions and union federations were generally prohibited; the government allowed three regional territorial federations of unions: for peninsular Malaysia and for the states of Sabah and Sarawak. They exercised many of the responsibilities of national-level labor unions, although they could not bargain on behalf of local unions. The Malaysian Trades Union Congress was a registered “society” of trade unions in both the private and government sectors that did not have the right to bargain collectively or strike but could provide technical support to affiliated members. The Trades Union Congress reported that approximately 6 percent of the country’s workers were in unions, and fewer than 2 percent were covered by collective bargaining agreements. Some workers’ organizations were independent of government, political parties, and employers, but employer-dominated or “yellow” unions were reportedly a concern.

Trade unions asserted some workers had wages withheld or were terminated because of union-related activity. In July the National Union of Bank Employees held a five-day nationwide picket against alleged “union busting” by banks.

The law provided Sabah and Sarawak States authority to enact labor laws separate from the federal labor law, although any amendments had to be passed in parliament. In October parliament increased protections under Sabah State labor laws to align with the Employment Act 1955.

Forced or Compulsory Labor

See the Department of State’s annual Trafficking in Persons Report at https://www.state.gov/trafficking-in-persons-report/.

Acceptable Work Conditions

Wage and Hour Laws

The minimum wage applied to both citizen and foreign workers, except for those in domestic service and the gig economy. Minimum wage rates were less than the national poverty line.

The law provided only wage and unfair termination protection to foreign domestic workers. The law excluded them from provisions that stipulated one rest day per week, an eight-hour workday, and a 45-hour workweek. Bilateral agreements or memoranda of understanding between the government and some source countries for migrant workers included provisions for rest periods, compensation, and other conditions of employment, including prohibitions on passport retention, for foreign domestic workers. The law allowed for up to 104 hours of overtime work per month with overtime pay of at least 1.5 times the hourly rate for foreign and Malaysian workers, although it did not apply to domestic (household help) workers.

Occupational Safety and Health

Amendments to the Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Act came into force in June. OSH laws covered all sectors of the economy except domestic workers, the maritime sector and the armed forces. The law required workers to use safety equipment and cooperate with employers to create a safe, healthy workplace. Laws on worker’s compensation covered local and migrant workers.

The National Occupational Safety and Health Council, composed of workers, employers, and government representatives, created OSH standards and coordinated their implementation. It required employers to identify risks and take precautions, including providing safety training to workers, and compelled companies with more than 40 workers to establish joint management-employee safety committees. Alleged OSH violations were most common in the manufacturing; agriculture, forestry and fishery; and finance, insurance, real estate and business services, according to the Department of Occupational Safety and Health of the Ministry of Human Resources.

Wage, Hour, and OSH Enforcement

The Department of Labor of the Ministry of Human Resources was responsible for enforcing wage, working condition, and OSH standards, but did not do so effectively. Inspectors had the authority to conduct unannounced inspections and initiate sanctions, but the number of enforcement officers was insufficient. Many businesses operated for years without an inspection.

Employers or employees who violated OSH laws were subject to fines, imprisonment, or both. Amendments to the OSH Act increased penalties for violations, including imprisonment up to two years. Penalties for employers who failed to follow the law began with a fine assessed per employee. Employers could be required to pay back wages plus the fine. If they refused to comply, employers faced additional fines for each day that wages were not paid. Penalties were rarely applied.

Employers did not respect laws on wages and working hours. The Trades Union Congress reported that 12-, 14-, and 18-hour days were common in food and other service industries.

Migrant workers often worked in sectors where violations were common. They performed hazardous duties and had no meaningful access to legal counsel in cases of contract violations and abuse. Some workers alleged their employers subjected them to inhuman living conditions and physically assaulted them. Employers of domestic workers sometimes failed to honor the terms of employment and subjected workers to abuse. Employers reportedly restricted workers’ movement and use of mobile telephones; provided substandard food; did not provide sufficient time off; sexually assaulted workers; and harassed and threatened workers, including with deportation. There were no significant government efforts to protect domestic workers.

As of 2021, the most recent year for which statistics were available, more than 3.5 million workers were considered to be in the informal sector.

The law conferred on gig workers the same protection afforded other employees, even without a written contract. In addition, the law required self-employed individuals to register, contribute to the self-employment social security scheme, and pay taxes on income above a certain level.

c. Disappearance and Abduction

Disappearance

There were no reports of enforced disappearances by or on behalf of government authorities.

As of October, there were no updates to the RMP’s July 2023 investigation into the disappearance of democracy and refugee rights activist Thuzar Maung, her husband, and three children. They were allegedly abducted by several men posing as police.

Prolonged Detention without Charges

The law prohibited arbitrary arrest and detention and provided for the right of any person to challenge the lawfulness of their arrest or detention in court, and the government generally observed these requirements.

In most cases, the law allowed investigative detention for up to 28 days to prevent a criminal suspect from fleeing or destroying evidence during an investigation.

Police could detain persons suspected of terrorism, organized crime, gang activity, and trafficking in drugs or persons without a warrant or judicial review for two-year terms, renewable indefinitely. Within seven days of the initial detention, however, police had to present the case for detention to a public prosecutor. If the prosecutor agreed “sufficient evidence exists to justify” continued detention and further investigation, a fact-finding inquiry officer appointed by the minister of home affairs would have to report within 59 days to a detention board appointed by the king on the advice of the government. The board could renew the detention order or impose an order to restrict, for a maximum of five years, a suspect’s place of residence, travel, access to communications facilities, and use of the internet.

In November, during the RMP’s investigation into Global Ikhwan Services and Business for child sexual exploitation and trafficking offenses, authorities rearrested 34 individuals under the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act (SOSMA), which was intended to address serious national security threats, after the suspects’ initial 28-day remand period under the same act expired. In October, two members of parliament criticized the RMP’s use of SOSMA to detain suspects. Organized crime charges were subsequently filed against 22 suspects. On November 25, the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia, known as SUHAKAM, criticized the use of SOSMA in this case, calling it disproportionate to the offenses involved and urging adherence to international standards and transparency.

Immigration law allowed authorities to arrest and detain noncitizens for 30 days, pending a deportation decision.

Crowded dockets and understaffed courts often resulted in lengthy pretrial detention, sometimes lasting several years. In March Human Rights Watch reported that the Immigration Department often held migrants indefinitely in immigration detention centers, with some detainees never taken to court.

d. Violations in Religious Freedom

See the Department of State’s annual International Religious Freedom Report at https://www.state.gov/religiousfreedomreport/.

e. Trafficking in Persons

See the Department of State’s annual Trafficking in Persons Report at https://www.state.gov/trafficking-in-persons-report/.

Section 3.

Security of the Person

a. Torture and Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment

No law specifically prohibited torture; however, laws that prohibited “committing grievous hurt” encompassed torture.

More than 60 offenses were subject to caning, sometimes in conjunction with imprisonment, and judges routinely mandated caning as punishment for crimes, including kidnapping, rape, and robbery, and nonviolent offenses, such as narcotics possession, criminal breach of trust, migrant smuggling, immigration offenses, and others. Civil and criminal law exempted men older than 50, except for rape, and all women from caning. Boys between ages 10 and 18 could receive a maximum of 10 strokes of a “light cane” in a public courtroom.

Impunity was occasionally a problem in the security forces due to corruption and the lack of transparency and civilian oversight. Police abuse of suspects in custody and a lack of accountability were serious problems.

The law did not prohibit female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C). A March report by the NGO Orchid Project estimated 93 percent of ethnic Malay Muslim women and girls in the country were subjected to the practice. Ministry of Health guidelines allowed the practice at government health-care facilities. Women’s rights groups contended a 2009 fatwa by the National Council of Islamic Religious Affairs declaring the practice obligatory made FGM/C more prevalent.

b. Protection of Children

Child Labor

The law prohibited all the worst forms of child labor. The law prohibited the employment of children younger than 15 but permitted some exceptions, such as light work in a family enterprise, work in public entertainment, work performed for the government in a school or in training institutions, or work as an approved apprentice. There was no minimum age for engaging in light work. For children between ages 14 and 18, there was no list clarifying specific occupations or sectors considered hazardous and therefore prohibited.

The government did not effectively enforce laws prohibiting child labor. Those found contravening child labor laws faced penalties that were not commensurate with those for similar crimes, such as kidnapping. Penalties were rarely applied against violators.

NGOs reported stateless children in Sabah State were especially vulnerable to labor exploitation in palm oil production, forced begging, and work in service industries, including restaurants. Although the National Union of Plantation Workers reported it was rare to find children involved in plantation work in peninsular Malaysia, others reported instances of child labor on palm oil plantations across the country. Child sex trafficking also occurred.

Also see the Department of Labor’s List of Goods Produced by Child Labor or Forced Labor at https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ilab/reports/child-labor/list-of-goods .

Child Marriage

The minimum age of marriage varied by state, but in most instances was 18 for men and 16 for women. Muslim girls younger than 16 could marry with the approval of a sharia court. Indigenous persons were governed by customary laws with no fixed minimum age for marriage. In some cases, authorities treated early marriage as a solution to statutory rape. Advocates were concerned Rohingya refugee families were subjecting their daughters to child marriage to reduce economic hardship.

The government’s national five-year roadmap (covering 2021-2025) targeted child marriage. The plan outlined policies to increase access to education, including health education and school attendance. The plan also sought to address social norms on child marriage and ensure laws and guidelines on child marriages were in line with government policies on child welfare. In January the government said the roadmap led to a decline in child marriages in Selangor State by 83 percent between 2018-2022. Kedah State also increased its minimum age for marriage to 18 for women during the roadmap’s implementation period. NGOs, however, highlighted a lack of progress in other states.

c. Protection to Refugees

The government generally did not impede organizations providing protection and assistance to refugees or asylum seekers, most of whom lived intermingled with the public. The government cooperated to a limited extent with Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and other humanitarian organizations in providing protection and assistance to refugees and asylum seekers. As there was no legal framework for dealing with refugees and asylum seekers, UNHCR conducted all activities related to protection, including registration and status determination. The government recorded approximately 136,000 Filipino Muslim refugees in Sabah.

Provision of First Asylum

The law did not provide for granting asylum or refugee status, and the government had no system for providing protection to asylum seekers or refugees.

Refugees received no government support.

Viewed in law as “illegal immigrants,” refugees and asylum seekers also faced a maximum of five years’ imprisonment, a fine, or both, and mandatory caning with a maximum of six strokes for immigration law violations.

Refugees and asylum seekers were subject to deportation at any time, although the government did not deport Rohingya; deportation of other refugees or asylum seekers was rare. There were no reported instances of government forcibly repelling boats with refugees and asylum seekers who had come from a country where their lives or freedom could be threatened due to their race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. When the boats landed, UNHCR reported it had no access, and the individuals were detained for illegal entry.

d. Acts of Antisemitism and Antisemitic Incitement

The country’s Jewish population was estimated at 100-200 mostly foreign residents. Antisemitic rhetoric and attitudes were a serious problem across the political spectrum and attracted wide support among segments of the population.

In January former Prime Minister Mahathir described Jews as “monsters” who were “achieving their own final solution” through the Israel-Gaza conflict.

There were restrictions on Israeli citizens entering the country.

e. Instances of Transnational Repression

The government knowingly cooperated with other governments to facilitate their acts of transnational repression.

Knowing Cooperation with Other Governments to Facilitate Their Acts of Transnational Repression

In October the Associated Press reported Malaysian authorities arrested and deported Nuon Toen, a Cambodian woman living in Malaysia, at the request of the Cambodian government. She supported the opposition Cambodian National Rescue Party and posted criticism on Facebook of Cambodia’s political leadership; she was arrested upon her return to Cambodia.

Tags

Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs Human Rights Malaysia Reports
]]>

2024 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Malaysia

Download Report

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

There were no significant changes in the human rights situation in Malaysia during the year.

Significant human rights issues included credible reports of: cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment; arbitrary arrest or detention; and serious restrictions on freedom of expression and media freedom, including censorship.

The government arrested and prosecuted some officials engaged in human rights abuses, although nongovernmental organizations alleged impunity.

Section 1.

Life

a. Extrajudicial Killings

There were no reports the government or its agents committed arbitrary or unlawful killings during the year.

Investigation by the Royal Malaysian Police (RMP) Criminal Investigation Division into the use of deadly force by a police officer occurred only if the attorney general initiated an investigation or approved an application for an investigation by family members of the deceased. When the attorney general ordered an official inquiry, a coroner’s court convened, and a public hearing was held. In such cases, courts generally issued an “open verdict,” meaning that there would be no further action.

b. Coercion in Population Control

There were no reports of coerced abortion or involuntary sterilization on the part of government authorities.

Section 2.

Liberty

a. Freedom of the Press

The constitution allowed restrictions on the freedom of speech “in the interest of the security of the Federation…[or] public order.” The government regularly restricted freedom of expression for members of the public, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and media, citing reasons such as upholding Islam and the special status of ethnic Malays, protecting royalty or national security, maintaining public order, and preserving friendly relations with other countries.

The law prohibited sedition and public comment on topics defined as sensitive, including racial and religious matters and criticism of the king or ruling sultans. The law prohibited speech “with deliberate intent to wound the religious feelings of any person.”

In April prosecutors charged political activist Badrul Hisham Shaharin under the Sedition Act for social media remarks he made in April after Bloomberg reported that Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim held preliminary talks with property development firm Berjaya regarding building a casino in Johor State.

The government restricted the expression of unapproved political views in schools and universities and enforced restrictions on teachers and students who expressed dissenting views. Although faculty members sometimes publicly criticized the government, public university academics whose career advancement and funding depended on the government practiced self-censorship. Self-censorship took place among academics at private institutions as well, spurred by fear the government might revoke the licenses of their institutions. Students were prohibited from “expressing support or sympathy” for an unlawful society or organization.

Physical Attacks, Imprisonment, and Pressure

There were no reports journalists were subjected to violence.

Some journalists were subjected to intimidation by authorities. In August police summoned three journalists of the online news portal Malaysiakini after the news site published a report alleging a leadership reshuffle within the RMP. The journalists stated police asked them to reveal their sources during questioning.

Censorship by Governments, Military, Intelligence, or Police Forces, Criminal Groups, or Armed Extremist or Rebel Groups

The government maintained the ability to control news content, including the ability to censor, and at times exerted such control over both print and broadcast media. The government banned, restricted, or limited circulation of some publications it considered a threat to public order, morality, or national security. The law required a permit to own a printing press, and printers often were reluctant to print publications critical of the government due to fear of reprisal. Such policies inhibited independent or investigative journalism and resulted in self-censorship in print and broadcast media. Online media outlets were more independent but were more likely to be the target of legal action and harassment.

The government occasionally censored foreign magazines, newspapers, and news programming, most often due to sexual content. Government restrictions on radio and television stations mirrored those on print media, and electronic media predominantly supported the government. Television stations censored programming to follow government guidelines. Kissing onscreen, sex scenes, nudity, strong graphic violence, and vivid language were all prohibited or censored.

The government generally restricted publications it judged might incite racial or religious disharmony.

The government censored films for certain political and religious content, not allowing, for example, screening of films in Hebrew or Yiddish, or from Israel. Although the government allowed foreign films at local film festivals, it sometimes censored content by physically blocking screens until the objectionable scene was over.

In January the government charged film director Khairi Anwar Jailani and producer Tan Meng Kheng with “intentionally hurting religious feelings” through their 2021 film Mentega Terbang, which depicted a Muslim teenager exploring other religions in the aftermath of her mother’s death. The government banned the film in September 2023 after Muslim groups complained the film encouraged Muslims to abandon their faith. In January a court allowed the defendants to file a constitutional challenge against the government’s ban. The court placed the criminal trial on hold pending results of the challenge scheduled for January 2025.

b. Worker Rights

Freedom of Association and Collective Bargaining

Amendments to the Trade Unions Act came into force in September, allowing multiple trade unions within a workplace, occupation, or industry. It also explicitly prohibited a trade union from being exclusive to a particular race, religion, or nationality. The law provided for the rights to strike and to bargain collectively. The law prohibited employers from interfering with trade union activities, including union formation. It prohibited employers from retaliating against workers for legal union activities and required reinstatement of workers fired for union activity. Prior to the amendments, the government did not effectively enforce these laws. Penalties included fines but were seldom assessed and were not commensurate with those under other laws involving denials of civil rights, such as discrimination.

The law prohibited defense and police officials and retired or dismissed workers from joining unions. The law required ministerial approval for unions to affiliate with any organization outside the country. Foreign workers could join a trade union but could not hold union office unless they obtained permission from the Ministry of Human Resources. Subcontracted workers could not form a union and could not negotiate or benefit from collective bargaining agreements.

Amendments to the Trade Unions Act limited the director general of trade unions’ power to refuse to register or withdraw registration from unions. Union officials expressed frustration over the unpredictably long registration process. Employers could challenge a union’s request for recognition, leading to multiyear delays in recognizing unions. In some instances, companies reportedly also harassed leaders of unions that sought recognition.

Most private-sector workers had the right to bargain collectively, although these negotiations could not include matters of transfer, promotion, appointments, dismissal, or reinstatement.

A joint consultation system for public-sector labor relations effectively reduced public sector unions to an advisory role; there were no public sector strikes. The government also could compel arbitration in labor disputes at the minister of labor’s sole discretion.

Amendments to the Trade Unions Act set a 60 percent minimum yes vote in a secret ballot by union members eligible to vote and employed at the workplace involved to authorize a strike. Subsequently, a report had to be submitted to the director general of trade unions requesting approval of the strike. Workers who struck without the consent of the director general of trade unions were liable to a fine, imprisonment for up to one year, or both. The law prohibited general strikes, and trade unions could not strike over disputes related to trade-union registration or illegal dismissals. Workers could not strike in a broad range of industries, in excess of International Labor Organization (ILO) guidelines, deemed “essential.” They could not strike over a dispute under consideration by the Industrial Court.

The ILO observed that the country’s laws, regulations, and practices did not fully support freedom of association and collective bargaining. National-level unions and union federations were generally prohibited; the government allowed three regional territorial federations of unions: for peninsular Malaysia and for the states of Sabah and Sarawak. They exercised many of the responsibilities of national-level labor unions, although they could not bargain on behalf of local unions. The Malaysian Trades Union Congress was a registered “society” of trade unions in both the private and government sectors that did not have the right to bargain collectively or strike but could provide technical support to affiliated members. The Trades Union Congress reported that approximately 6 percent of the country’s workers were in unions, and fewer than 2 percent were covered by collective bargaining agreements. Some workers’ organizations were independent of government, political parties, and employers, but employer-dominated or “yellow” unions were reportedly a concern.

Trade unions asserted some workers had wages withheld or were terminated because of union-related activity. In July the National Union of Bank Employees held a five-day nationwide picket against alleged “union busting” by banks.

The law provided Sabah and Sarawak States authority to enact labor laws separate from the federal labor law, although any amendments had to be passed in parliament. In October parliament increased protections under Sabah State labor laws to align with the Employment Act 1955.

Forced or Compulsory Labor

See the Department of State’s annual Trafficking in Persons Report at https://www.state.gov/trafficking-in-persons-report/.

Acceptable Work Conditions

Wage and Hour Laws

The minimum wage applied to both citizen and foreign workers, except for those in domestic service and the gig economy. Minimum wage rates were less than the national poverty line.

The law provided only wage and unfair termination protection to foreign domestic workers. The law excluded them from provisions that stipulated one rest day per week, an eight-hour workday, and a 45-hour workweek. Bilateral agreements or memoranda of understanding between the government and some source countries for migrant workers included provisions for rest periods, compensation, and other conditions of employment, including prohibitions on passport retention, for foreign domestic workers. The law allowed for up to 104 hours of overtime work per month with overtime pay of at least 1.5 times the hourly rate for foreign and Malaysian workers, although it did not apply to domestic (household help) workers.

Occupational Safety and Health

Amendments to the Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Act came into force in June. OSH laws covered all sectors of the economy except domestic workers, the maritime sector and the armed forces. The law required workers to use safety equipment and cooperate with employers to create a safe, healthy workplace. Laws on worker’s compensation covered local and migrant workers.

The National Occupational Safety and Health Council, composed of workers, employers, and government representatives, created OSH standards and coordinated their implementation. It required employers to identify risks and take precautions, including providing safety training to workers, and compelled companies with more than 40 workers to establish joint management-employee safety committees. Alleged OSH violations were most common in the manufacturing; agriculture, forestry and fishery; and finance, insurance, real estate and business services, according to the Department of Occupational Safety and Health of the Ministry of Human Resources.

Wage, Hour, and OSH Enforcement

The Department of Labor of the Ministry of Human Resources was responsible for enforcing wage, working condition, and OSH standards, but did not do so effectively. Inspectors had the authority to conduct unannounced inspections and initiate sanctions, but the number of enforcement officers was insufficient. Many businesses operated for years without an inspection.

Employers or employees who violated OSH laws were subject to fines, imprisonment, or both. Amendments to the OSH Act increased penalties for violations, including imprisonment up to two years. Penalties for employers who failed to follow the law began with a fine assessed per employee. Employers could be required to pay back wages plus the fine. If they refused to comply, employers faced additional fines for each day that wages were not paid. Penalties were rarely applied.

Employers did not respect laws on wages and working hours. The Trades Union Congress reported that 12-, 14-, and 18-hour days were common in food and other service industries.

Migrant workers often worked in sectors where violations were common. They performed hazardous duties and had no meaningful access to legal counsel in cases of contract violations and abuse. Some workers alleged their employers subjected them to inhuman living conditions and physically assaulted them. Employers of domestic workers sometimes failed to honor the terms of employment and subjected workers to abuse. Employers reportedly restricted workers’ movement and use of mobile telephones; provided substandard food; did not provide sufficient time off; sexually assaulted workers; and harassed and threatened workers, including with deportation. There were no significant government efforts to protect domestic workers.

As of 2021, the most recent year for which statistics were available, more than 3.5 million workers were considered to be in the informal sector.

The law conferred on gig workers the same protection afforded other employees, even without a written contract. In addition, the law required self-employed individuals to register, contribute to the self-employment social security scheme, and pay taxes on income above a certain level.

c. Disappearance and Abduction

Disappearance

There were no reports of enforced disappearances by or on behalf of government authorities.

As of October, there were no updates to the RMP’s July 2023 investigation into the disappearance of democracy and refugee rights activist Thuzar Maung, her husband, and three children. They were allegedly abducted by several men posing as police.

Prolonged Detention without Charges

The law prohibited arbitrary arrest and detention and provided for the right of any person to challenge the lawfulness of their arrest or detention in court, and the government generally observed these requirements.

In most cases, the law allowed investigative detention for up to 28 days to prevent a criminal suspect from fleeing or destroying evidence during an investigation.

Police could detain persons suspected of terrorism, organized crime, gang activity, and trafficking in drugs or persons without a warrant or judicial review for two-year terms, renewable indefinitely. Within seven days of the initial detention, however, police had to present the case for detention to a public prosecutor. If the prosecutor agreed “sufficient evidence exists to justify” continued detention and further investigation, a fact-finding inquiry officer appointed by the minister of home affairs would have to report within 59 days to a detention board appointed by the king on the advice of the government. The board could renew the detention order or impose an order to restrict, for a maximum of five years, a suspect’s place of residence, travel, access to communications facilities, and use of the internet.

In November, during the RMP’s investigation into Global Ikhwan Services and Business for child sexual exploitation and trafficking offenses, authorities rearrested 34 individuals under the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act (SOSMA), which was intended to address serious national security threats, after the suspects’ initial 28-day remand period under the same act expired. In October, two members of parliament criticized the RMP’s use of SOSMA to detain suspects. Organized crime charges were subsequently filed against 22 suspects. On November 25, the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia, known as SUHAKAM, criticized the use of SOSMA in this case, calling it disproportionate to the offenses involved and urging adherence to international standards and transparency.

Immigration law allowed authorities to arrest and detain noncitizens for 30 days, pending a deportation decision.

Crowded dockets and understaffed courts often resulted in lengthy pretrial detention, sometimes lasting several years. In March Human Rights Watch reported that the Immigration Department often held migrants indefinitely in immigration detention centers, with some detainees never taken to court.

d. Violations in Religious Freedom

See the Department of State’s annual International Religious Freedom Report at https://www.state.gov/religiousfreedomreport/.

e. Trafficking in Persons

See the Department of State’s annual Trafficking in Persons Report at https://www.state.gov/trafficking-in-persons-report/.

Section 3.

Security of the Person

a. Torture and Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment

No law specifically prohibited torture; however, laws that prohibited “committing grievous hurt” encompassed torture.

More than 60 offenses were subject to caning, sometimes in conjunction with imprisonment, and judges routinely mandated caning as punishment for crimes, including kidnapping, rape, and robbery, and nonviolent offenses, such as narcotics possession, criminal breach of trust, migrant smuggling, immigration offenses, and others. Civil and criminal law exempted men older than 50, except for rape, and all women from caning. Boys between ages 10 and 18 could receive a maximum of 10 strokes of a “light cane” in a public courtroom.

Impunity was occasionally a problem in the security forces due to corruption and the lack of transparency and civilian oversight. Police abuse of suspects in custody and a lack of accountability were serious problems.

The law did not prohibit female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C). A March report by the NGO Orchid Project estimated 93 percent of ethnic Malay Muslim women and girls in the country were subjected to the practice. Ministry of Health guidelines allowed the practice at government health-care facilities. Women’s rights groups contended a 2009 fatwa by the National Council of Islamic Religious Affairs declaring the practice obligatory made FGM/C more prevalent.

b. Protection of Children

Child Labor

The law prohibited all the worst forms of child labor. The law prohibited the employment of children younger than 15 but permitted some exceptions, such as light work in a family enterprise, work in public entertainment, work performed for the government in a school or in training institutions, or work as an approved apprentice. There was no minimum age for engaging in light work. For children between ages 14 and 18, there was no list clarifying specific occupations or sectors considered hazardous and therefore prohibited.

The government did not effectively enforce laws prohibiting child labor. Those found contravening child labor laws faced penalties that were not commensurate with those for similar crimes, such as kidnapping. Penalties were rarely applied against violators.

NGOs reported stateless children in Sabah State were especially vulnerable to labor exploitation in palm oil production, forced begging, and work in service industries, including restaurants. Although the National Union of Plantation Workers reported it was rare to find children involved in plantation work in peninsular Malaysia, others reported instances of child labor on palm oil plantations across the country. Child sex trafficking also occurred.

Also see the Department of Labor’s List of Goods Produced by Child Labor or Forced Labor at https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ilab/reports/child-labor/list-of-goods .

Child Marriage

The minimum age of marriage varied by state, but in most instances was 18 for men and 16 for women. Muslim girls younger than 16 could marry with the approval of a sharia court. Indigenous persons were governed by customary laws with no fixed minimum age for marriage. In some cases, authorities treated early marriage as a solution to statutory rape. Advocates were concerned Rohingya refugee families were subjecting their daughters to child marriage to reduce economic hardship.

The government’s national five-year roadmap (covering 2021-2025) targeted child marriage. The plan outlined policies to increase access to education, including health education and school attendance. The plan also sought to address social norms on child marriage and ensure laws and guidelines on child marriages were in line with government policies on child welfare. In January the government said the roadmap led to a decline in child marriages in Selangor State by 83 percent between 2018-2022. Kedah State also increased its minimum age for marriage to 18 for women during the roadmap’s implementation period. NGOs, however, highlighted a lack of progress in other states.

c. Protection to Refugees

The government generally did not impede organizations providing protection and assistance to refugees or asylum seekers, most of whom lived intermingled with the public. The government cooperated to a limited extent with Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and other humanitarian organizations in providing protection and assistance to refugees and asylum seekers. As there was no legal framework for dealing with refugees and asylum seekers, UNHCR conducted all activities related to protection, including registration and status determination. The government recorded approximately 136,000 Filipino Muslim refugees in Sabah.

Provision of First Asylum

The law did not provide for granting asylum or refugee status, and the government had no system for providing protection to asylum seekers or refugees.

Refugees received no government support.

Viewed in law as “illegal immigrants,” refugees and asylum seekers also faced a maximum of five years’ imprisonment, a fine, or both, and mandatory caning with a maximum of six strokes for immigration law violations.

Refugees and asylum seekers were subject to deportation at any time, although the government did not deport Rohingya; deportation of other refugees or asylum seekers was rare. There were no reported instances of government forcibly repelling boats with refugees and asylum seekers who had come from a country where their lives or freedom could be threatened due to their race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. When the boats landed, UNHCR reported it had no access, and the individuals were detained for illegal entry.

d. Acts of Antisemitism and Antisemitic Incitement

The country’s Jewish population was estimated at 100-200 mostly foreign residents. Antisemitic rhetoric and attitudes were a serious problem across the political spectrum and attracted wide support among segments of the population.

In January former Prime Minister Mahathir described Jews as “monsters” who were “achieving their own final solution” through the Israel-Gaza conflict.

There were restrictions on Israeli citizens entering the country.

e. Instances of Transnational Repression

The government knowingly cooperated with other governments to facilitate their acts of transnational repression.

Knowing Cooperation with Other Governments to Facilitate Their Acts of Transnational Repression

In October the Associated Press reported Malaysian authorities arrested and deported Nuon Toen, a Cambodian woman living in Malaysia, at the request of the Cambodian government. She supported the opposition Cambodian National Rescue Party and posted criticism on Facebook of Cambodia’s political leadership; she was arrested upon her return to Cambodia.

Tags

Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs Human Rights Malaysia Reports
]]> Secretary of State Marco Rubio Remarks to the Press https://www.state.gov/releases/office-of-the-spokesperson/2025/07/secretary-of-state-marco-rubio-remarks-to-the-press/ Fri, 11 Jul 2025 15:38:28 +0000 https://www.state.gov/releases/preview/639247/ Marco Rubio, Secretary of State

Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Kuala Lumpur Convention Center

Secretary of State Marco Rubio Remarks to the Press

Remarks to the Press

July 11, 2025

SECRETARY RUBIO: We had a great visit – great visits. This is an extraordinary forum. ASEAN is the primary way in which the United States engages in Southeast Asia diplomatically. The United States is a country that has deep ties in this region. We are a Pacific nation. We have U.S. citizens that live in the Pacific, obviously in Hawaii and in other territories. And we have strong relationships with many of our partner nation-states here in the region, and that includes, for example, we are the – the United States is the single largest source of foreign direct investment. So we’re very happy to have come here today. We were very warmly received, very positively received. We had very good meetings, some (inaudible) deliverables, and new action items we’ll be able to work on together in the years to come.

QUESTION: Sir, how was your meeting with Wang Yi? How was the progress on that end?

SECRETARY RUBIO: Well, it was a very productive meeting. It wasn’t a negotiation. It was a meeting. It was a positive meeting. And it’s important that the United States and China have productive meetings and regular engagement and communications. So we felt really good about it – very – thought it was very constructive, and hopefully we’ll be able to build on that to continue to bring stability to our relationship. I think it would benefit the world for that to —

QUESTION: Did you discuss –

QUESTION: And tariffs?

QUESTION: – a summit between President Xi and President Trump?

SECRETARY RUBIO: President Trump’s been invited to visit China. It’s a visit he wants to undertake, and so we’ll work on finding the right date for that, but I’m sure it’ll happen because the President – both presidents want it to happen.

QUESTION: Sir, can you discuss some of the deliverables that were committed to today and yesterday?

SECRETARY RUBIO: Well, a couple deliverables – obviously, we entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with Malaysia on civil nuclear cooperation, which is very positive. We saw elevation in our relationship with a number of countries that will be formalized over the next few weeks as well. So these are very positive engagements. We had a couple of defense agreements or defense sales that we were able to announce to a couple of our partners during this visit as well. Those will become public soon enough. And so we thought that it was a very positive engagement. And we identified new areas of cooperation.

One of the things we’re very interested in is taking on these scams that are going on, that are preying on, not just Americans, but even people here in many of the countries represented at ASEAN. And we think that these cyber criminals that are operating out there as well that are very harmful and – to our country but to all the countries that are represented here. So, but we hope to have some real deliverables on that, and we look forward to there being a very positive and productive leaders meeting in October.

QUESTION: Sir, a question on tariffs. Are you afraid that the tariffs (inaudible) ASEAN will backfire against the U.S.?

SECRETARY RUBIO: No, I’m not concerned about that. That’s not going to happen, because these tariffs are being applied on a global scale. These are not aimed at one country or one region. It’s all around the world. And it’s very simple, okay? For 20 or 30 years, the United States has built up enormous trade deficits with multiple countries around the world, in every region – in Europe, Canada, Mexico, and in this region as well – and that had to be addressed. And so that’s what the President is doing.

Now, obviously, those tariffs that he’s announced will take affect on the 1st of August, because markets need certainty. But there is always the possibility that before August 1st, or at some point after August 1st, we will reach arrangements with individual countries that changes those numbers in a positive way, but that takes some time to work on. So, that could happen. But by and large, this is not aimed at any one country. This is globalized. This applies to virtually every country in the world, because the trade deficit the U.S. was running with too many countries was simply unsustainable. We had to address it. We had to address it.

QUESTION: Sir, you talked – you met bilateral with all member of ASEAN.

SECRETARY RUBIO: Almost all.

QUESTION: But – yeah, yeah. Okay.

SECRETARY RUBIO: We tried. Yeah. But we saw everybody, and it was a very, very positive engagement. We were very warmly received – a lot of appreciation for the U.S. role, a lot of deep partnerships. Today, by the way, is the 30th anniversary of the U.S. diplomatic relations with Vietnam; that’s something we intend to continue to commemorate with real actions in addition to high-level meetings. So we had a very positive – this was a very, very positive trip.

QUESTION: Sir, can you discuss about – can you say to us what were you discussing with Mr. Lavrov this morning?

SECRETARY RUBIO: With Mr. Lavrov this morning?

QUESTION: Yeah, yes, before the –

SECRETARY RUBIO: Well, I’m not going to tell you what I was discussing with him, but it’s not a – unrelated to what we discussed yesterday.

QUESTION: How about aside of tariff, with ASEAN did you (inaudible) with the ASEAN member?

SECRETARY RUBIO: Sure. I mean, there’s a lot of things we have in common. I mean, cyber security is one example of something that I think everyone represented here is very deeply committed to. If you think about the digital economy, which is going to be critical to all the growth that’s going to go on in the world – and most of the growth that’s going to go on in the world is going to happen right here, okay? It’s in Asia, particularly in Southeast Asia; two-thirds of global economic growth is going to happen here over the next 25 or 30 years, and much of that is going to be on digital platforms. Those platforms have to be secure. They have to be secure from cyber criminals. They have to be secure from nation-state actors that may seek to undermine it. So that was a recurring theme in all of our engagements, and everyone is very enthusiastic to work together on these things.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you.

Tags

Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs China Malaysia Media Engagement Office of the Spokesperson Official International Travel Russia The Secretary of State Trade and Trade Agreements Vietnam
]]> Marco Rubio, Secretary of State

Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Kuala Lumpur Convention Center

Secretary of State Marco Rubio Remarks to the Press

Remarks to the Press

July 11, 2025

SECRETARY RUBIO: We had a great visit – great visits. This is an extraordinary forum. ASEAN is the primary way in which the United States engages in Southeast Asia diplomatically. The United States is a country that has deep ties in this region. We are a Pacific nation. We have U.S. citizens that live in the Pacific, obviously in Hawaii and in other territories. And we have strong relationships with many of our partner nation-states here in the region, and that includes, for example, we are the – the United States is the single largest source of foreign direct investment. So we’re very happy to have come here today. We were very warmly received, very positively received. We had very good meetings, some (inaudible) deliverables, and new action items we’ll be able to work on together in the years to come.

QUESTION: Sir, how was your meeting with Wang Yi? How was the progress on that end?

SECRETARY RUBIO: Well, it was a very productive meeting. It wasn’t a negotiation. It was a meeting. It was a positive meeting. And it’s important that the United States and China have productive meetings and regular engagement and communications. So we felt really good about it – very – thought it was very constructive, and hopefully we’ll be able to build on that to continue to bring stability to our relationship. I think it would benefit the world for that to —

QUESTION: Did you discuss –

QUESTION: And tariffs?

QUESTION: – a summit between President Xi and President Trump?

SECRETARY RUBIO: President Trump’s been invited to visit China. It’s a visit he wants to undertake, and so we’ll work on finding the right date for that, but I’m sure it’ll happen because the President – both presidents want it to happen.

QUESTION: Sir, can you discuss some of the deliverables that were committed to today and yesterday?

SECRETARY RUBIO: Well, a couple deliverables – obviously, we entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with Malaysia on civil nuclear cooperation, which is very positive. We saw elevation in our relationship with a number of countries that will be formalized over the next few weeks as well. So these are very positive engagements. We had a couple of defense agreements or defense sales that we were able to announce to a couple of our partners during this visit as well. Those will become public soon enough. And so we thought that it was a very positive engagement. And we identified new areas of cooperation.

One of the things we’re very interested in is taking on these scams that are going on, that are preying on, not just Americans, but even people here in many of the countries represented at ASEAN. And we think that these cyber criminals that are operating out there as well that are very harmful and – to our country but to all the countries that are represented here. So, but we hope to have some real deliverables on that, and we look forward to there being a very positive and productive leaders meeting in October.

QUESTION: Sir, a question on tariffs. Are you afraid that the tariffs (inaudible) ASEAN will backfire against the U.S.?

SECRETARY RUBIO: No, I’m not concerned about that. That’s not going to happen, because these tariffs are being applied on a global scale. These are not aimed at one country or one region. It’s all around the world. And it’s very simple, okay? For 20 or 30 years, the United States has built up enormous trade deficits with multiple countries around the world, in every region – in Europe, Canada, Mexico, and in this region as well – and that had to be addressed. And so that’s what the President is doing.

Now, obviously, those tariffs that he’s announced will take affect on the 1st of August, because markets need certainty. But there is always the possibility that before August 1st, or at some point after August 1st, we will reach arrangements with individual countries that changes those numbers in a positive way, but that takes some time to work on. So, that could happen. But by and large, this is not aimed at any one country. This is globalized. This applies to virtually every country in the world, because the trade deficit the U.S. was running with too many countries was simply unsustainable. We had to address it. We had to address it.

QUESTION: Sir, you talked – you met bilateral with all member of ASEAN.

SECRETARY RUBIO: Almost all.

QUESTION: But – yeah, yeah. Okay.

SECRETARY RUBIO: We tried. Yeah. But we saw everybody, and it was a very, very positive engagement. We were very warmly received – a lot of appreciation for the U.S. role, a lot of deep partnerships. Today, by the way, is the 30th anniversary of the U.S. diplomatic relations with Vietnam; that’s something we intend to continue to commemorate with real actions in addition to high-level meetings. So we had a very positive – this was a very, very positive trip.

QUESTION: Sir, can you discuss about – can you say to us what were you discussing with Mr. Lavrov this morning?

SECRETARY RUBIO: With Mr. Lavrov this morning?

QUESTION: Yeah, yes, before the –

SECRETARY RUBIO: Well, I’m not going to tell you what I was discussing with him, but it’s not a – unrelated to what we discussed yesterday.

QUESTION: How about aside of tariff, with ASEAN did you (inaudible) with the ASEAN member?

SECRETARY RUBIO: Sure. I mean, there’s a lot of things we have in common. I mean, cyber security is one example of something that I think everyone represented here is very deeply committed to. If you think about the digital economy, which is going to be critical to all the growth that’s going to go on in the world – and most of the growth that’s going to go on in the world is going to happen right here, okay? It’s in Asia, particularly in Southeast Asia; two-thirds of global economic growth is going to happen here over the next 25 or 30 years, and much of that is going to be on digital platforms. Those platforms have to be secure. They have to be secure from cyber criminals. They have to be secure from nation-state actors that may seek to undermine it. So that was a recurring theme in all of our engagements, and everyone is very enthusiastic to work together on these things.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you.

Tags

Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs China Malaysia Media Engagement Office of the Spokesperson Official International Travel Russia The Secretary of State Trade and Trade Agreements Vietnam
]]> Secretary of State Marco Rubio Remarks to the Traveling Press https://www.state.gov/releases/office-of-the-spokesperson/2025/07/secretary-of-state-marco-rubio-remarks-to-the-traveling-press/ Fri, 11 Jul 2025 14:20:45 +0000 https://www.state.gov/releases/preview/639197/ Marco Rubio, Secretary of State

Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Kuala Lumpur Convention Center

Secretary of State Marco Rubio Remarks to the Traveling Press

Remarks to the Press

July 11, 2025

SECRETARY RUBIO:  You guys don’t look nearly as excited to see me as the foreign press briefing.  (Laughter.)  I’m going to spend more time with them.  Which way am I facing, this way?  It’s been – this has been really good.  I mean, we’ve had really great interactions, very positive – everyone’s been very positive and enthusiastic.  Obviously, the issue of trade comes up.  But as I remind everybody, there’s no country in the world that I can meet with right now where the issue of trade and tariffs wouldn’t come up, because this is a global action.

So our negotiators, the baseline will take effect the 1st of August, but obviously, as the President’s made clear, there are opportunities for adjustments based on arrangements that could be made between now and then.  But beyond that, it’s been very positive; all of our engagements here have been very positive.  We’ve been very warmly received, and everyone’s excited we’re here and excited about the opportunities to work together on a number of things.  We’ll have even a few more announcements to make about some elevation of strategic partnerships.  Obviously the Memorandum of Understanding we signed yesterday was very positive with the host country.  They did a great job hosting this, by the way.  This has been a great forum to be able to interact with a lot of different countries, and hopefully to take back some potential decisions that can be made that further strengthen our commitment to this part of the world.

As I pointed out today on two occasions during our interventions and opportunity to speak, the United States is a Pacific nation – not just the mainland of the United States that faces the Pacific, but we have American citizens, and one of our 50 states.  We have – the United States is the number one source of foreign direct investment in Southeast Asia.  We’re not abandoning any of that nor are we abandoning these strong bilateral ties that we have with many of these countries, some of which go back decades and decades.  In fact, today is the 30th anniversary of U.S. diplomatic relations with Vietnam, and think about how far that relationship has come.  We had a very positive meeting today, and with the Vietnamese, as an example, and we’re looking forward to building on – continue to build on that relationship, which is both deeply symbolic given how far our two countries have come, but also we have very exciting opportunities we’re going to be able to work together with them on, and we’re excited to be able to do that. 

So it’s been a great trip, it’s been a great visit.  It’s exceeded all of our expectations. 

QUESTION:  How was —

QUESTION:  Mr. Secretary, how does —

QUESTION:  Mr. Secretary, you met the Chinese – your Chinese counterpart earlier today.

SECRETARY RUBIO:  I did.

QUESTION:  The President said just a couple of days ago that he enjoys good relations with China and the Chinese president.  At your meeting, is that the sense you get – that you have good relations with China?

SECRETARY RUBIO:  It was a very constructive meeting.  Obviously, look, we’re two big, powerful countries, and there are always going to be issues that we disagree on.  I think there are some areas of potential cooperation.  I thought it was a very constructive, positive meeting, and a lot of work to do.  He’s absolutely right that the President has a very good relationship with President Xi.  It tracks back to his first term.  And obviously there are some issues we’re going to have to work through, and that’s to be expected with countries of our size and scope and influence in the world – two global powers such as the United States and China.  But I thought it was a very constructive and positive meeting and gave us some things we can work on together.

QUESTION:  Do you think they’re going to —

QUESTION:  Mr. Secretary, what was your message to the foreign minister in the meeting?

SECRETARY RUBIO:  Which foreign minister?   I’ve been meeting the foreign minister —

QUESTION:  Foreign Minister Wang Yi.

SECRETARY RUBIO:  Oh.  Well, look, it’s very constructive.  I think as I said, the President has a very positive working relationship with President Xi, and obviously the relationship I have with the foreign minister should reflect that.  So we acknowledged there are some issues that are going to be – we have to work through, not just beyond trade but others, but I thought it was a very constructive and positive meeting and gave us a lot to work on.  So that was our message, was the opportunity here to achieve some strategic stability and identify areas where we can cooperate together on and build better communications and working trust.

QUESTION:  What are the odds of a meeting —

QUESTION:  What are some areas of cooperation?

SECRETARY RUBIO:  What? 

QUESTION:  What are some of those areas of cooperation?  The administration hasn’t spelled those out yet, so —

SECRETARY RUBIO:  Well, we’re going to work through those.  We’re not – we don’t – I don’t have any announcement for you right now.  But it was a very constructive meeting.  I think we left it feeling as though there are some areas we’re going to be able to work together on.  And obviously, as we work through those and we do that in conjunction with the Chinese side, we’ll make public announcements.  The last interaction of our trade representatives was quite positive, and we can build on that and other areas of potential cooperation.

Yeah.

QUESTION:  What are the odds for a meeting or the outlook for a meeting?  We know President Trump has expressed interest in a meeting with President Xi this year, and President Xi has reciprocated with an invitation to China for the President and First Lady.  What’s the outlook or what are the odds of a meeting happening this year after this – after your initial —

SECRETARY RUBIO:  Yeah, no, the odds are high.  I think both sides want to see it happen.  Obviously we have to build the right atmosphere and the right deliverables so that a visit isn’t just a visit, but it actually has some takeaways from it that are concrete.  But there’s a strong desire on both sides to do it.  The President wants to do it.  The Chinese side wants to see it happen.  President Xi has said that publicly.  So I think the odds are high.  I don’t have a date for  you, but I think it’s coming.  It’ll happen.

QUESTION:  Mr. Secretary, what do you say to those who make the argument that the U.S. tariffs or the threat of those tariffs in the region actually creates an opening for China to be seen as the stable economic partner here?

SECRETARY RUBIO:  I don’t agree with that assessment.  I mean, look, at the end of the day the United States has built these tremendous trade imbalances over the last 30 or 40 years.  It’s unfair to America and American workers and American – in addition to threaten our industrial capacity.  Trade needed to be revisited.  The President campaigned on that, and that’s what he’s doing, and he’s resetting it on a global scale. 

At the end of the day, look, I think countries are going to trade with multiple countries.  We don’t view this as an opening for anyone.  We don’t view it that way.  We view it as an opportunity to reset global trade in a way that’s fair for Americans after two or three decades of unfairness.  If you look at some of these trade deficits, they’re massive.  They’re massive.  That has to be addressed, and that’s not sustainable at its current – the current direction that it had gone.  This should have been done a long time ago.  President Trump’s finally done it.  And I think countries understand that.

This was different.  If this was us targeting 10 countries or five countries, then I would understand why countries would be upset.  But the truth of the matter is we’re resetting tariff levels with virtually every country in the world.  And so I understand – if you had a deal where you were running these huge trade deficits with the United States and exporting a lot to the U.S. and built your economy around exports, but had very little import or very little economic activity coming in from the United States, I understand why you don’t want that to change.  But I think most mature leaders – and everybody here is a mature leader – understands that that’s not a sustainable dynamic.  It was one that had to be changed, and that’s what the President’s doing.  So we’re going to be okay. 

QUESTION:  And in discussing trade with these counterparts in the region, did you open the aperture at all and also tell them that this is an opportunity for them to bring into the conversation or the negotiation other elements of the U.S. relationship, whether it be security elements, broader than trade?

SECRETARY RUBIO:  Well, I think that we want to expand on all the other issues, but I think we need to bifurcate the two.  Primarily the trade conversations have been about trade, and that’s how the President’s treated it.  Now, that doesn’t mean that there – the bulk of our meetings here were not about trade.  I’m not the trade negotiator for the United States.  We certainly appreciate the role that trade plays in our bilateral relationships with individual countries.  But the bulk of our talks here have been about all the other things that we cooperate on, whether it’s civil nuclear cooperation, whether it’s respecting international law when it comes to air rights and maritime rights and freedom of navigation and things of this nature, and other opportunities to work together.

So what’s been the bulk of our conversations and it’s been very positively received. 

QUESTION:  To follow up on that, Mr. Secretary, Japan’s prime minister said his country needs to wean itself from U.S. dependence in key areas such as security, as Tokyo faces the prospect of tariffs.  Did you discuss that in your meeting with the Japanese?

SECRETARY RUBIO:  No, we haven’t.  But at the end of the day, look, I don’t think that that’s a negative comment per se.  We obviously have very strong commitments and an alliance with Japan.  We continue to cooperate very closely with them.  As I speak to you now, there are active exercises going on between the United States and Japan.  So our relationship with them will continue to exist.  The idea that somehow Japan would be able to develop domestic – their own capabilities for mutual self-defense is not – not only is not something that we find offensive, it’s something we’d be supportive of, obviously within the confines of their constitutional system.  But they have some limitations on what they can do.  But the idea that Japan’s military would become more capable is not something we would be offended by; it’s something we would actually be encouraged by.

QUESTION:  So can you talk – you talked about points of possible cooperation with the Chinese.  But on the points, which are well known, of contention, did you get a sense that there was a willingness — 

SECRETARY RUBIO:  Yeah.

QUESTION:  — of the Chinese to move, or are they just —

SECRETARY RUBIO:  Well, I wouldn’t – look, today’s meeting with our Chinese counterparts was not a negotiation on any of these matters.  It is the first time that I met my counterpart in person, who, by the way, happens to also be the national security advisor, so he’s also – he’s not the archivist, though.  (Laughter.)  But I suggested that perhaps he ask for that title and that way we’d be equal.  But —

QUESTION:  That’s a hell of a – that’s a lot bigger job than archivist in the U.S.

SECRETARY RUBIO:  Well, there they have 5,000 years of archives too, so – (laughter) – but I would say that it was a very positive relation, a very positive interaction, and constructive is the most important part.  At the end of the day, no matter what, the United States and China have to have relations.  We have to have communication.  We have to be able to interact with one another.  And it’s just impossible for the foreign ministers of our respective countries to not engage in conversation. 

So I’m glad we had that meeting today.  There’s a lot of work to be done.  No one’s saying it’s easy, but we do have some opportunities on some things we might be able to work on to begin to build some momentum in our relationship.  I thought it was a very good meeting.  I really felt encouraged by it.  But look, there’s work to be done. 

QUESTION:  Secretary, if I can ask a follow-up question.  You mentioned that you see high odds of a meeting between the presidents of the U.S. and China.  There is a big Chinese military parade happening; it’s scheduled for September 3rd.  Did the Chinese foreign minister extend an invitation to that?  Was that discussed as a potential opportunity?

SECRETARY RUBIO:  No, we didn’t discuss any specific date in mind in that regard.  But the reason why I tell you there’s a high probability they’re going to meet is that they both want to meet, and my – I don’t know President Xi but I know President Trump, and I can tell you that he’s committed to having that meeting happen.  So the reason why I think there’s high odds of it happening is they both want it to happen. 

So I’m sure we’ll work on a date and find a mutually acceptable date for both sides, and I’m pretty confident.  We want it to be a good meeting and we’re going to work hard between now and whatever date that is to make sure that when that visit does happen, it’s as productive as possible. 

QUESTION:  We saw you today seek out the Russian foreign minister in the larger gathering.  Why did you go up and talk to him?  What did you guys discuss?  Did you give him a response from President Trump to the conversation you had yesterday? 

SECRETARY RUBIO:  No, it was just a follow-up on an unrelated item to our conversation yesterday, and I’ll leave it at that. 

QUESTION:  Mr. Secretary, many Japanese people are concerning about the U.S. policy, which is demanding drastically increased defense spending.  Do you have something to comment?  How do you think of this? 

SECRETARY RUBIO:  Well, I wouldn’t characterize it as a demand.  I mean, we’ve encouraged them to invest in certain capabilities.  It’s less to do with the amount of money and more to do about certain things they can do.  At the end of the day we are in an agreement with Japan on collective self-defense, on the ability to come to each other’s aid in a time of conflict or in a time of danger, and there are certain capacities that we think they have high capability.  We understand there are dynamics that – constitutional and legal that limit their ability to invest in certain things versus other things, and – but we have a very close relationship with Japan, very close. 

You may not know this – it’s an inside joke that’s now an outside joke, and I’ll share it with you, and that is that I have – I believe I have met with the foreign minister of Japan more than any other foreign minister on the planet in my five and a half months in office.  I think we’re up to, like, nine or 10 meetings.  We interact, and how we joke with each other is that we see each other more than we see our respective spouses.  And so it’s a very close relationship, a very historic relationship, and one that’s going to continue.

So again, I think anyone who’s looking for, like, drama or division there is – shouldn’t be doing it because the truth of the matter is our relationship with Japan is very solid, and obviously we’re both open, democratic governments.  So when there are some differences of opinion, it’s going to be public, not private – but I don’t see that as a negative.  We have a very strong and very good relationship with Japan, and that’s not going to change. 

QUESTION:  Mr. Secretary – Mr. Secretary, in your conversation with Foreign Minister Wang, did the subject of Taiwan come up too, and in particular the recent military drills being held by the Taiwanese? 

SECRETARY RUBIO:  No issue about drills.  I think the Chinese position on Taiwan has been expressed.  I don’t think it’s a mystery to anyone in terms of where they stand on it.  And our position has also been expressed pretty openly.  So it was not – as I said, our meeting today was not a negotiation or a back-and-forth on items.  It was more about establishing a constructive baseline where we can continue to talk on multiple fronts, including trade but beyond trade.

QUESTION:  Secretary, if I can ask a question about your meeting with Vietnam, a country with one of the largest trade surpluses with the U.S.  We’ve heard that there was maybe some misunderstanding on – about the agreement announced last week for a 20 percent tariff, that the Vietnamese weren’t confident that that was fully agreed to, that perhaps they were looking for a 10 to 15 percent tariff.  Was that an issue that they raised, trying to lower their tariff level?  Was that – the tariff – an issue that they raised during the bilateral meeting today?

SECRETARY RUBIO:  Well, the issue of trade was raised.  We don’t – I’m not – I’m not the negotiator on trade —

QUESTION:  Sure.

SECRETARY RUBIO:  — and neither is the foreign minister.  And so we weren’t here to negotiate a trade deal.  And I’ll refer you to our trade negotiators as far as the status of that.  Clearly, Vietnam feels that if they enter into an agreement with the United States, they want to have a tariff rate that’s at least as good as if not better than other countries that don’t have a trade agreement with us.  But I’ll leave – you’ll have to – I have to refer you to our negotiators because I just don’t know what the status of those negotiations are at this point.

QUESTION:  But just to – on that, the President did announce that there was an agreement reached with Vietnam, and yet Vietnam is saying that they never reached that agreement.  So they must have raised this issue with you today. 

SECRETARY RUBIO:  No.  I mean, that – neither that issue – it just wasn’t a trade meeting.  We didn’t – I’m not saying it’s not a relevant issue, it’s just not what the purpose of our meeting was about today.  We talked about a lot of other issues.  But perhaps the reason why it wasn’t raised is because I’m not the trade negotiator and these are not trade meetings. 

QUESTION:  Mr. Secretary, can I follow up on your meeting with Lavrov yesterday?  Have you had a chance to speak to the President about the ideas that were discussed in that meeting?  And what did you discuss with the foreign minister this morning? 

SECRETARY RUBIO:  Which one?  Lavrov?

QUESTION:  Lavrov, when you spoke to him on —

SECRETARY RUBIO:  I went to talk to him about another topic.  It’s not big or mysterious, it’s just another topic.  So it’s – and I’m not going to – we’ll leave it at that.  And as far as – I did speak to the President last night, and – but I have no news to report to you on it right now.  But like I said, I thought yesterday’s meeting – I’m not – I don’t want to oversell it, okay, but it was constructive and there was some things that perhaps we can build on.  Maybe not.  I don’t know.  We’ll find out.  But there are some things that we will potentially explore, and I relayed that to the President and our team here last night.

QUESTION:  The President says that there’s going to be an announcement coming relevant or relating to Russia on Monday. 

SECRETARY RUBIO:  Mm-hmm.

QUESTION:  Can you tell us a little bit about what his thinking is, based on your conversation last night, where things currently stand?

SECRETARY RUBIO:  No.  No.  (Laughter.)  That’s what Monday will be about. 

QUESTION:  Can I follow up on —

QUESTION:  What about he did say that there’s a new agreement between the U.S. and NATO to get new U.S. weaponry through NATO to Ukraine, and NATO is going to fully pay for that, according to the President?  Can you explain to us exactly, number one, how that’s going to work and when those weapons, as part of this agreement, will actually get to Ukraine? 

SECRETARY RUBIO:  Well, I think what you’re referring to is something that Ukraine has already offered, and so has Europe, and that is to buy weapons from the United States and then provide them to Ukraine.  At the end of the day, some of the systems that Ukraine requires are systems that Europe doesn’t make.  They would have to purchase them from the United States. 

In addition to that, I would point to the fact that a number of the defensive weapons that Ukraine seeks are in – our Allies in NATO have them.  So as an example, Germany, I believe, has 13 or 14 Patriot batteries.  Other countries do as well, some others, and some have placed orders for that.  And so we continue to encourage our NATO Allies to provide those weapons, those systems, those defensive systems that Ukraine seeks – that they should provide those weapons to Ukraine since they have them in their stocks, and then we can enter into financial agreements with us where they can purchase the replacements. 

QUESTION:  So these are existing systems?  This is nothing new? 

SECRETARY RUBIO:  It can be both.  I mean, but at the end of the day, I mean, it’s a lot faster to move something, for example, from Germany to Ukraine than it is to order it from a factory and get it there.  So there are a couple different ways to approach it, but the key is that there are existing capacities within existing U.S. systems within Europe right now that can be transferred to Ukraine, and then the Europeans could purchase the replacements from the United States.  That’s one aspect of what I think the President was referring to yesterday. 

QUESTION:  Just to follow up on the Taiwan issue —

QUESTION:  And that’s why you gave —

QUESTION:  — did Foreign Minister Wang warn you against welcoming President Lai at – through – in a transit visa through the U.S.?  Did he – transit visit through the U.S., did he mention anything about that?

SECRETARY RUBIO:  No, there was not – this was not a warning type meeting. 

QUESTION:  All right.

SECRETARY RUBIO:  I mean, obviously we understand their viewpoints on Taiwan.  They’re well stated.  They’ve been stated for many years.  And – but this was not a meeting where any – each – either side warned each other about anything.  This was very constructive and productive, and I hope that that’s how they reflect it as well, because I thought it was a very positive meeting. 

QUESTION:  Any surprises over the last two days? 

SECRETARY RUBIO:  Surprises? 

QUESTION:  Yeah. 

SECRETARY RUBIO:  No, I don’t think so.  We were very warmly received.  I tell you, I mean, the reception’s been great.

QUESTION:  And that was a surprise?  (Laughter.)

SECRETARY RUBIO:  No, I’m just saying that it was a very friendly environment, and I think the reiteration to the point we made, and that is, look, I read these things about how the U.S. is not focused on the Indo-Pacific.  But it’s funny – everywhere I travel in the world, the headline is:  The U.S. is not paying enough attention, whether it’s the Western Hemisphere or NATO or even in the Middle East.  I think sometimes there’s a media dynamic that covers certain parts of the world more than others, but the relationships we have here have existed for a long time – a long time.  When you talk about 6,000 American companies that are directly invested in the economies of Southeast Asia, we’re not walking away from that.  We’re not walking away from that; we’re not walking away from our defense ties that we have in the region; we’re not walking away from the strong economic ties we have in the region.  On the contrary, we want to build on it. 

Just yesterday we signed a Memorandum of Understanding with Malaysia on civil nuclear cooperation.  The – I believe as early – either last night or early this morning, our arrangement with – on another civil nuclear program with Thailand came into effect.  So we have a lot of positive things going on and we’re going to continue to build on those.  We’re excited about them and we’re not going to walk away from them.

QUESTION:  Mr. Secretary, while you were in Malaysia, the Trump Administration announced – yeah – a new nomination for – to be ambassador of Malaysia.  Nick Adams, he’s sort of well known on X as a sort of social media personality and does lots of other things.  I was wondering what you could say about this nomination, why Mr. Adams was the right person for this pretty important position in the Indo-Pacific. 

SECRETARY RUBIO:  Yeah, the President makes those nominations.  I support the nomination.  He went through our process of the Presidential Personnel Office, and we look forward to the Senate confirming him so he can get here and be a part of our team. 

QUESTION:  Can I ask a step-back question on trade strategy?  You’ve talked many times now about how decades of trade policy have led to the deindustrialization of the U.S.  And so obviously you and other aides are trying to bring manufacturing or other industrial processes back to the U.S., but you haven’t really given us a vision of what exactly that entails.  I mean, what kinds of jobs are supposed to be coming back to the U.S.?  Howard Lutnick talked about people screwing in tiny things into iPhones, which people mocked after he said that line.  But so what about you?  Like, what vision of industrialization do you see that’s —  

SECRETARY RUBIO:  Well, there’s certain capacities countries have to be able to have.  For example – I’m just using these as examples – the ability to build a ship.  Right now we go around the world and people say, well, we bought 200 Boeing jets.  Well, Boeing has to be able to make them.  And frankly, we have huge backlogs on that.  So you talk about pharmaceuticals as an example.  Talk about national security – we’ve lost our ability to make pharmaceuticals in the United States and become heavily dependent on the foreign supply chain of the active ingredients that are necessary for pharmaceuticals. 

So I could go on and on, but, I mean, the capability of making things has a national security component to it, not just a jobs component to it.  They’re both important.  So I would look to those as examples of things that the U.S., because of certain decisions that were made by previous policymakers, we’ve seen some of these core industrial capabilities that are necessary not just for economic stability but for national security, leave the United States. 

I would also argue that in addition to our domestic manufacturing capability, I think we and others should be deeply concerned about certain supply chain vulnerabilities and overreliance on one part of the world versus anywhere else.  I don’t think it’s healthy for the United States or for the global economy to be so heavily dependent, as an example, on China or any other country for that matter, where all of the industrial or manufacturing capacity or supplies in the supply chain of a key element is all derived in one place.  So I’m sure you’ve seen the announcement yesterday where the Department of Defense has entered – has taken an equity stake in a company that will be able to process rare earths.  One thing is to have access to raw material; the other thing is to be able to process that raw material into something that’s usable for everything from high technology to anything that has a motor in it.

So I think we at a minimum have to diversify supply chains and secure them.  Some of that will be domestic; others will be in allied nation-states.  But these are the core components of the kinds of things we need to be focused on.  And the – it’s not just the deindustrialization of America.  It’s the loss of these key components and the concentration of those in one or two countries around the world that leave not just us but many countries vulnerable.  That’s just not a sustainable or acceptable situation to find ourselves in.

STAFF:  Thank you, everybody.  Thank you.

SECRETARY RUBIO:  All right, guys. 

STAFF:  Thank you.  

SECRETARY RUBIO:  Thank you.

Tags

Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs China Japan Malaysia Media Engagement Office of the Spokesperson Official International Travel Russia The Secretary of State Trade and Trade Agreements Ukraine Vietnam
]]> Marco Rubio, Secretary of State

Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Kuala Lumpur Convention Center

Secretary of State Marco Rubio Remarks to the Traveling Press

Remarks to the Press

July 11, 2025

SECRETARY RUBIO:  You guys don’t look nearly as excited to see me as the foreign press briefing.  (Laughter.)  I’m going to spend more time with them.  Which way am I facing, this way?  It’s been – this has been really good.  I mean, we’ve had really great interactions, very positive – everyone’s been very positive and enthusiastic.  Obviously, the issue of trade comes up.  But as I remind everybody, there’s no country in the world that I can meet with right now where the issue of trade and tariffs wouldn’t come up, because this is a global action.

So our negotiators, the baseline will take effect the 1st of August, but obviously, as the President’s made clear, there are opportunities for adjustments based on arrangements that could be made between now and then.  But beyond that, it’s been very positive; all of our engagements here have been very positive.  We’ve been very warmly received, and everyone’s excited we’re here and excited about the opportunities to work together on a number of things.  We’ll have even a few more announcements to make about some elevation of strategic partnerships.  Obviously the Memorandum of Understanding we signed yesterday was very positive with the host country.  They did a great job hosting this, by the way.  This has been a great forum to be able to interact with a lot of different countries, and hopefully to take back some potential decisions that can be made that further strengthen our commitment to this part of the world.

As I pointed out today on two occasions during our interventions and opportunity to speak, the United States is a Pacific nation – not just the mainland of the United States that faces the Pacific, but we have American citizens, and one of our 50 states.  We have – the United States is the number one source of foreign direct investment in Southeast Asia.  We’re not abandoning any of that nor are we abandoning these strong bilateral ties that we have with many of these countries, some of which go back decades and decades.  In fact, today is the 30th anniversary of U.S. diplomatic relations with Vietnam, and think about how far that relationship has come.  We had a very positive meeting today, and with the Vietnamese, as an example, and we’re looking forward to building on – continue to build on that relationship, which is both deeply symbolic given how far our two countries have come, but also we have very exciting opportunities we’re going to be able to work together with them on, and we’re excited to be able to do that. 

So it’s been a great trip, it’s been a great visit.  It’s exceeded all of our expectations. 

QUESTION:  How was —

QUESTION:  Mr. Secretary, how does —

QUESTION:  Mr. Secretary, you met the Chinese – your Chinese counterpart earlier today.

SECRETARY RUBIO:  I did.

QUESTION:  The President said just a couple of days ago that he enjoys good relations with China and the Chinese president.  At your meeting, is that the sense you get – that you have good relations with China?

SECRETARY RUBIO:  It was a very constructive meeting.  Obviously, look, we’re two big, powerful countries, and there are always going to be issues that we disagree on.  I think there are some areas of potential cooperation.  I thought it was a very constructive, positive meeting, and a lot of work to do.  He’s absolutely right that the President has a very good relationship with President Xi.  It tracks back to his first term.  And obviously there are some issues we’re going to have to work through, and that’s to be expected with countries of our size and scope and influence in the world – two global powers such as the United States and China.  But I thought it was a very constructive and positive meeting and gave us some things we can work on together.

QUESTION:  Do you think they’re going to —

QUESTION:  Mr. Secretary, what was your message to the foreign minister in the meeting?

SECRETARY RUBIO:  Which foreign minister?   I’ve been meeting the foreign minister —

QUESTION:  Foreign Minister Wang Yi.

SECRETARY RUBIO:  Oh.  Well, look, it’s very constructive.  I think as I said, the President has a very positive working relationship with President Xi, and obviously the relationship I have with the foreign minister should reflect that.  So we acknowledged there are some issues that are going to be – we have to work through, not just beyond trade but others, but I thought it was a very constructive and positive meeting and gave us a lot to work on.  So that was our message, was the opportunity here to achieve some strategic stability and identify areas where we can cooperate together on and build better communications and working trust.

QUESTION:  What are the odds of a meeting —

QUESTION:  What are some areas of cooperation?

SECRETARY RUBIO:  What? 

QUESTION:  What are some of those areas of cooperation?  The administration hasn’t spelled those out yet, so —

SECRETARY RUBIO:  Well, we’re going to work through those.  We’re not – we don’t – I don’t have any announcement for you right now.  But it was a very constructive meeting.  I think we left it feeling as though there are some areas we’re going to be able to work together on.  And obviously, as we work through those and we do that in conjunction with the Chinese side, we’ll make public announcements.  The last interaction of our trade representatives was quite positive, and we can build on that and other areas of potential cooperation.

Yeah.

QUESTION:  What are the odds for a meeting or the outlook for a meeting?  We know President Trump has expressed interest in a meeting with President Xi this year, and President Xi has reciprocated with an invitation to China for the President and First Lady.  What’s the outlook or what are the odds of a meeting happening this year after this – after your initial —

SECRETARY RUBIO:  Yeah, no, the odds are high.  I think both sides want to see it happen.  Obviously we have to build the right atmosphere and the right deliverables so that a visit isn’t just a visit, but it actually has some takeaways from it that are concrete.  But there’s a strong desire on both sides to do it.  The President wants to do it.  The Chinese side wants to see it happen.  President Xi has said that publicly.  So I think the odds are high.  I don’t have a date for  you, but I think it’s coming.  It’ll happen.

QUESTION:  Mr. Secretary, what do you say to those who make the argument that the U.S. tariffs or the threat of those tariffs in the region actually creates an opening for China to be seen as the stable economic partner here?

SECRETARY RUBIO:  I don’t agree with that assessment.  I mean, look, at the end of the day the United States has built these tremendous trade imbalances over the last 30 or 40 years.  It’s unfair to America and American workers and American – in addition to threaten our industrial capacity.  Trade needed to be revisited.  The President campaigned on that, and that’s what he’s doing, and he’s resetting it on a global scale. 

At the end of the day, look, I think countries are going to trade with multiple countries.  We don’t view this as an opening for anyone.  We don’t view it that way.  We view it as an opportunity to reset global trade in a way that’s fair for Americans after two or three decades of unfairness.  If you look at some of these trade deficits, they’re massive.  They’re massive.  That has to be addressed, and that’s not sustainable at its current – the current direction that it had gone.  This should have been done a long time ago.  President Trump’s finally done it.  And I think countries understand that.

This was different.  If this was us targeting 10 countries or five countries, then I would understand why countries would be upset.  But the truth of the matter is we’re resetting tariff levels with virtually every country in the world.  And so I understand – if you had a deal where you were running these huge trade deficits with the United States and exporting a lot to the U.S. and built your economy around exports, but had very little import or very little economic activity coming in from the United States, I understand why you don’t want that to change.  But I think most mature leaders – and everybody here is a mature leader – understands that that’s not a sustainable dynamic.  It was one that had to be changed, and that’s what the President’s doing.  So we’re going to be okay. 

QUESTION:  And in discussing trade with these counterparts in the region, did you open the aperture at all and also tell them that this is an opportunity for them to bring into the conversation or the negotiation other elements of the U.S. relationship, whether it be security elements, broader than trade?

SECRETARY RUBIO:  Well, I think that we want to expand on all the other issues, but I think we need to bifurcate the two.  Primarily the trade conversations have been about trade, and that’s how the President’s treated it.  Now, that doesn’t mean that there – the bulk of our meetings here were not about trade.  I’m not the trade negotiator for the United States.  We certainly appreciate the role that trade plays in our bilateral relationships with individual countries.  But the bulk of our talks here have been about all the other things that we cooperate on, whether it’s civil nuclear cooperation, whether it’s respecting international law when it comes to air rights and maritime rights and freedom of navigation and things of this nature, and other opportunities to work together.

So what’s been the bulk of our conversations and it’s been very positively received. 

QUESTION:  To follow up on that, Mr. Secretary, Japan’s prime minister said his country needs to wean itself from U.S. dependence in key areas such as security, as Tokyo faces the prospect of tariffs.  Did you discuss that in your meeting with the Japanese?

SECRETARY RUBIO:  No, we haven’t.  But at the end of the day, look, I don’t think that that’s a negative comment per se.  We obviously have very strong commitments and an alliance with Japan.  We continue to cooperate very closely with them.  As I speak to you now, there are active exercises going on between the United States and Japan.  So our relationship with them will continue to exist.  The idea that somehow Japan would be able to develop domestic – their own capabilities for mutual self-defense is not – not only is not something that we find offensive, it’s something we’d be supportive of, obviously within the confines of their constitutional system.  But they have some limitations on what they can do.  But the idea that Japan’s military would become more capable is not something we would be offended by; it’s something we would actually be encouraged by.

QUESTION:  So can you talk – you talked about points of possible cooperation with the Chinese.  But on the points, which are well known, of contention, did you get a sense that there was a willingness — 

SECRETARY RUBIO:  Yeah.

QUESTION:  — of the Chinese to move, or are they just —

SECRETARY RUBIO:  Well, I wouldn’t – look, today’s meeting with our Chinese counterparts was not a negotiation on any of these matters.  It is the first time that I met my counterpart in person, who, by the way, happens to also be the national security advisor, so he’s also – he’s not the archivist, though.  (Laughter.)  But I suggested that perhaps he ask for that title and that way we’d be equal.  But —

QUESTION:  That’s a hell of a – that’s a lot bigger job than archivist in the U.S.

SECRETARY RUBIO:  Well, there they have 5,000 years of archives too, so – (laughter) – but I would say that it was a very positive relation, a very positive interaction, and constructive is the most important part.  At the end of the day, no matter what, the United States and China have to have relations.  We have to have communication.  We have to be able to interact with one another.  And it’s just impossible for the foreign ministers of our respective countries to not engage in conversation. 

So I’m glad we had that meeting today.  There’s a lot of work to be done.  No one’s saying it’s easy, but we do have some opportunities on some things we might be able to work on to begin to build some momentum in our relationship.  I thought it was a very good meeting.  I really felt encouraged by it.  But look, there’s work to be done. 

QUESTION:  Secretary, if I can ask a follow-up question.  You mentioned that you see high odds of a meeting between the presidents of the U.S. and China.  There is a big Chinese military parade happening; it’s scheduled for September 3rd.  Did the Chinese foreign minister extend an invitation to that?  Was that discussed as a potential opportunity?

SECRETARY RUBIO:  No, we didn’t discuss any specific date in mind in that regard.  But the reason why I tell you there’s a high probability they’re going to meet is that they both want to meet, and my – I don’t know President Xi but I know President Trump, and I can tell you that he’s committed to having that meeting happen.  So the reason why I think there’s high odds of it happening is they both want it to happen. 

So I’m sure we’ll work on a date and find a mutually acceptable date for both sides, and I’m pretty confident.  We want it to be a good meeting and we’re going to work hard between now and whatever date that is to make sure that when that visit does happen, it’s as productive as possible. 

QUESTION:  We saw you today seek out the Russian foreign minister in the larger gathering.  Why did you go up and talk to him?  What did you guys discuss?  Did you give him a response from President Trump to the conversation you had yesterday? 

SECRETARY RUBIO:  No, it was just a follow-up on an unrelated item to our conversation yesterday, and I’ll leave it at that. 

QUESTION:  Mr. Secretary, many Japanese people are concerning about the U.S. policy, which is demanding drastically increased defense spending.  Do you have something to comment?  How do you think of this? 

SECRETARY RUBIO:  Well, I wouldn’t characterize it as a demand.  I mean, we’ve encouraged them to invest in certain capabilities.  It’s less to do with the amount of money and more to do about certain things they can do.  At the end of the day we are in an agreement with Japan on collective self-defense, on the ability to come to each other’s aid in a time of conflict or in a time of danger, and there are certain capacities that we think they have high capability.  We understand there are dynamics that – constitutional and legal that limit their ability to invest in certain things versus other things, and – but we have a very close relationship with Japan, very close. 

You may not know this – it’s an inside joke that’s now an outside joke, and I’ll share it with you, and that is that I have – I believe I have met with the foreign minister of Japan more than any other foreign minister on the planet in my five and a half months in office.  I think we’re up to, like, nine or 10 meetings.  We interact, and how we joke with each other is that we see each other more than we see our respective spouses.  And so it’s a very close relationship, a very historic relationship, and one that’s going to continue.

So again, I think anyone who’s looking for, like, drama or division there is – shouldn’t be doing it because the truth of the matter is our relationship with Japan is very solid, and obviously we’re both open, democratic governments.  So when there are some differences of opinion, it’s going to be public, not private – but I don’t see that as a negative.  We have a very strong and very good relationship with Japan, and that’s not going to change. 

QUESTION:  Mr. Secretary – Mr. Secretary, in your conversation with Foreign Minister Wang, did the subject of Taiwan come up too, and in particular the recent military drills being held by the Taiwanese? 

SECRETARY RUBIO:  No issue about drills.  I think the Chinese position on Taiwan has been expressed.  I don’t think it’s a mystery to anyone in terms of where they stand on it.  And our position has also been expressed pretty openly.  So it was not – as I said, our meeting today was not a negotiation or a back-and-forth on items.  It was more about establishing a constructive baseline where we can continue to talk on multiple fronts, including trade but beyond trade.

QUESTION:  Secretary, if I can ask a question about your meeting with Vietnam, a country with one of the largest trade surpluses with the U.S.  We’ve heard that there was maybe some misunderstanding on – about the agreement announced last week for a 20 percent tariff, that the Vietnamese weren’t confident that that was fully agreed to, that perhaps they were looking for a 10 to 15 percent tariff.  Was that an issue that they raised, trying to lower their tariff level?  Was that – the tariff – an issue that they raised during the bilateral meeting today?

SECRETARY RUBIO:  Well, the issue of trade was raised.  We don’t – I’m not – I’m not the negotiator on trade —

QUESTION:  Sure.

SECRETARY RUBIO:  — and neither is the foreign minister.  And so we weren’t here to negotiate a trade deal.  And I’ll refer you to our trade negotiators as far as the status of that.  Clearly, Vietnam feels that if they enter into an agreement with the United States, they want to have a tariff rate that’s at least as good as if not better than other countries that don’t have a trade agreement with us.  But I’ll leave – you’ll have to – I have to refer you to our negotiators because I just don’t know what the status of those negotiations are at this point.

QUESTION:  But just to – on that, the President did announce that there was an agreement reached with Vietnam, and yet Vietnam is saying that they never reached that agreement.  So they must have raised this issue with you today. 

SECRETARY RUBIO:  No.  I mean, that – neither that issue – it just wasn’t a trade meeting.  We didn’t – I’m not saying it’s not a relevant issue, it’s just not what the purpose of our meeting was about today.  We talked about a lot of other issues.  But perhaps the reason why it wasn’t raised is because I’m not the trade negotiator and these are not trade meetings. 

QUESTION:  Mr. Secretary, can I follow up on your meeting with Lavrov yesterday?  Have you had a chance to speak to the President about the ideas that were discussed in that meeting?  And what did you discuss with the foreign minister this morning? 

SECRETARY RUBIO:  Which one?  Lavrov?

QUESTION:  Lavrov, when you spoke to him on —

SECRETARY RUBIO:  I went to talk to him about another topic.  It’s not big or mysterious, it’s just another topic.  So it’s – and I’m not going to – we’ll leave it at that.  And as far as – I did speak to the President last night, and – but I have no news to report to you on it right now.  But like I said, I thought yesterday’s meeting – I’m not – I don’t want to oversell it, okay, but it was constructive and there was some things that perhaps we can build on.  Maybe not.  I don’t know.  We’ll find out.  But there are some things that we will potentially explore, and I relayed that to the President and our team here last night.

QUESTION:  The President says that there’s going to be an announcement coming relevant or relating to Russia on Monday. 

SECRETARY RUBIO:  Mm-hmm.

QUESTION:  Can you tell us a little bit about what his thinking is, based on your conversation last night, where things currently stand?

SECRETARY RUBIO:  No.  No.  (Laughter.)  That’s what Monday will be about. 

QUESTION:  Can I follow up on —

QUESTION:  What about he did say that there’s a new agreement between the U.S. and NATO to get new U.S. weaponry through NATO to Ukraine, and NATO is going to fully pay for that, according to the President?  Can you explain to us exactly, number one, how that’s going to work and when those weapons, as part of this agreement, will actually get to Ukraine? 

SECRETARY RUBIO:  Well, I think what you’re referring to is something that Ukraine has already offered, and so has Europe, and that is to buy weapons from the United States and then provide them to Ukraine.  At the end of the day, some of the systems that Ukraine requires are systems that Europe doesn’t make.  They would have to purchase them from the United States. 

In addition to that, I would point to the fact that a number of the defensive weapons that Ukraine seeks are in – our Allies in NATO have them.  So as an example, Germany, I believe, has 13 or 14 Patriot batteries.  Other countries do as well, some others, and some have placed orders for that.  And so we continue to encourage our NATO Allies to provide those weapons, those systems, those defensive systems that Ukraine seeks – that they should provide those weapons to Ukraine since they have them in their stocks, and then we can enter into financial agreements with us where they can purchase the replacements. 

QUESTION:  So these are existing systems?  This is nothing new? 

SECRETARY RUBIO:  It can be both.  I mean, but at the end of the day, I mean, it’s a lot faster to move something, for example, from Germany to Ukraine than it is to order it from a factory and get it there.  So there are a couple different ways to approach it, but the key is that there are existing capacities within existing U.S. systems within Europe right now that can be transferred to Ukraine, and then the Europeans could purchase the replacements from the United States.  That’s one aspect of what I think the President was referring to yesterday. 

QUESTION:  Just to follow up on the Taiwan issue —

QUESTION:  And that’s why you gave —

QUESTION:  — did Foreign Minister Wang warn you against welcoming President Lai at – through – in a transit visa through the U.S.?  Did he – transit visit through the U.S., did he mention anything about that?

SECRETARY RUBIO:  No, there was not – this was not a warning type meeting. 

QUESTION:  All right.

SECRETARY RUBIO:  I mean, obviously we understand their viewpoints on Taiwan.  They’re well stated.  They’ve been stated for many years.  And – but this was not a meeting where any – each – either side warned each other about anything.  This was very constructive and productive, and I hope that that’s how they reflect it as well, because I thought it was a very positive meeting. 

QUESTION:  Any surprises over the last two days? 

SECRETARY RUBIO:  Surprises? 

QUESTION:  Yeah. 

SECRETARY RUBIO:  No, I don’t think so.  We were very warmly received.  I tell you, I mean, the reception’s been great.

QUESTION:  And that was a surprise?  (Laughter.)

SECRETARY RUBIO:  No, I’m just saying that it was a very friendly environment, and I think the reiteration to the point we made, and that is, look, I read these things about how the U.S. is not focused on the Indo-Pacific.  But it’s funny – everywhere I travel in the world, the headline is:  The U.S. is not paying enough attention, whether it’s the Western Hemisphere or NATO or even in the Middle East.  I think sometimes there’s a media dynamic that covers certain parts of the world more than others, but the relationships we have here have existed for a long time – a long time.  When you talk about 6,000 American companies that are directly invested in the economies of Southeast Asia, we’re not walking away from that.  We’re not walking away from that; we’re not walking away from our defense ties that we have in the region; we’re not walking away from the strong economic ties we have in the region.  On the contrary, we want to build on it. 

Just yesterday we signed a Memorandum of Understanding with Malaysia on civil nuclear cooperation.  The – I believe as early – either last night or early this morning, our arrangement with – on another civil nuclear program with Thailand came into effect.  So we have a lot of positive things going on and we’re going to continue to build on those.  We’re excited about them and we’re not going to walk away from them.

QUESTION:  Mr. Secretary, while you were in Malaysia, the Trump Administration announced – yeah – a new nomination for – to be ambassador of Malaysia.  Nick Adams, he’s sort of well known on X as a sort of social media personality and does lots of other things.  I was wondering what you could say about this nomination, why Mr. Adams was the right person for this pretty important position in the Indo-Pacific. 

SECRETARY RUBIO:  Yeah, the President makes those nominations.  I support the nomination.  He went through our process of the Presidential Personnel Office, and we look forward to the Senate confirming him so he can get here and be a part of our team. 

QUESTION:  Can I ask a step-back question on trade strategy?  You’ve talked many times now about how decades of trade policy have led to the deindustrialization of the U.S.  And so obviously you and other aides are trying to bring manufacturing or other industrial processes back to the U.S., but you haven’t really given us a vision of what exactly that entails.  I mean, what kinds of jobs are supposed to be coming back to the U.S.?  Howard Lutnick talked about people screwing in tiny things into iPhones, which people mocked after he said that line.  But so what about you?  Like, what vision of industrialization do you see that’s —  

SECRETARY RUBIO:  Well, there’s certain capacities countries have to be able to have.  For example – I’m just using these as examples – the ability to build a ship.  Right now we go around the world and people say, well, we bought 200 Boeing jets.  Well, Boeing has to be able to make them.  And frankly, we have huge backlogs on that.  So you talk about pharmaceuticals as an example.  Talk about national security – we’ve lost our ability to make pharmaceuticals in the United States and become heavily dependent on the foreign supply chain of the active ingredients that are necessary for pharmaceuticals. 

So I could go on and on, but, I mean, the capability of making things has a national security component to it, not just a jobs component to it.  They’re both important.  So I would look to those as examples of things that the U.S., because of certain decisions that were made by previous policymakers, we’ve seen some of these core industrial capabilities that are necessary not just for economic stability but for national security, leave the United States. 

I would also argue that in addition to our domestic manufacturing capability, I think we and others should be deeply concerned about certain supply chain vulnerabilities and overreliance on one part of the world versus anywhere else.  I don’t think it’s healthy for the United States or for the global economy to be so heavily dependent, as an example, on China or any other country for that matter, where all of the industrial or manufacturing capacity or supplies in the supply chain of a key element is all derived in one place.  So I’m sure you’ve seen the announcement yesterday where the Department of Defense has entered – has taken an equity stake in a company that will be able to process rare earths.  One thing is to have access to raw material; the other thing is to be able to process that raw material into something that’s usable for everything from high technology to anything that has a motor in it.

So I think we at a minimum have to diversify supply chains and secure them.  Some of that will be domestic; others will be in allied nation-states.  But these are the core components of the kinds of things we need to be focused on.  And the – it’s not just the deindustrialization of America.  It’s the loss of these key components and the concentration of those in one or two countries around the world that leave not just us but many countries vulnerable.  That’s just not a sustainable or acceptable situation to find ourselves in.

STAFF:  Thank you, everybody.  Thank you.

SECRETARY RUBIO:  All right, guys. 

STAFF:  Thank you.  

SECRETARY RUBIO:  Thank you.

Tags

Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs China Japan Malaysia Media Engagement Office of the Spokesperson Official International Travel Russia The Secretary of State Trade and Trade Agreements Ukraine Vietnam
]]> Secretary of State Marco Rubio: Remarks to the International Press https://www.state.gov/releases/office-of-the-spokesperson/2025/07/secretary-of-state-marco-rubio-remarks-to-the-international-press/ Thu, 10 Jul 2025 18:02:12 +0000 https://www.state.gov/releases/preview/638661/ Marco Rubio, Secretary of State

Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Kuala Lumpur Convention Center

Secretary of State Marco Rubio: Remarks to the International Press

Remarks

July 10, 2025

QUESTION:  How was the meeting?

QUESTION:  The trilateral meeting. 

SECRETARY RUBIO:  It was excellent.  We have a great relationship with Japan and the Philippines, and work very closely with them on the economic corridor, on maritime security, and territorial integrity – and continue to build upon that partnership, and look forward to hosting the president of the Philippines in Washington in a few days. 

QUESTION:  Is there progress with Russia? 

QUESTION:  Mr. — 

QUESTION:  Is there progress with Russia after your meeting? 

SECRETARY RUBIO:  We had a productive, I think constructive, and frank meeting.  And hopefully it’ll lead to progress. 

QUESTION:  Mr. Rubio, you mentioned that Lavrov has presented a so-called new approach on Ukraine.  What is that new approach?

SECRETARY RUBIO:  Well, it’s not a new approach.  It’s a new idea, a new concept that will – I’ll take back to the President to discuss.  That new concept is – this new approach is not something that automatically leads to peace, but it could potentially open the door to a path.  But as I said, again, the President’s been pretty clear.  I mean, he’s been frustrated by the lack of progress on a war that he thinks should have never happened – very costly, very bloody.  The President wants to end wars.  He’s not a fan of wars.  He thinks wars are a waste of time and a waste of lives.  And we’re going to continue to do everything we can and engage in every productive way possible to bring an end to this war.

QUESTION:  How was the engagement with (inaudible)?

SECRETARY RUBIO:  With what?  I’m sorry. 

QUESTION:  On tariffs.  How did the engagement with (inaudible) regarding the tariffs?

SECRETARY RUBIO:  With tariffs?

QUESTION:  Yeah.

SECRETARY RUBIO:  Well, every country in the world is going to get a letter at some point, for the most part, about the President’s rebalancing of trade.  The President’s been clear – he’s been clear for 30 years, even before he was in politics, that he felt that the status of global trade was unfair to American workers and the American economy.  And this is an effort to rebalance that at a global scale. 

I would say that when all is said and done, many of the countries in Southeast Asia are going to have tariff rates that are actually better than countries in other parts of the world, and it could be a benefit.  And by the way, the door always remains open to adjustments, if in fact agreements can be reached.  And we are actively in conversations with multiple countries that are represented here on ways to make even further progress.  But the markets demand certainty, and so we need to let everyone know what the baseline is starting August 1st. 

But these talks continue.  There’ll be talks next week with Japan.  There’s ongoing talks with virtually every country represented here.  So, these are important partners.  The history of the 21st century will largely be written in the Indo-Pacific and particularly in Southeast Asia.  This is a part of the world where over 6,000 American companies have invested.  These are important partnerships, both economic and defense cooperation partnerships that we’re not going to abandon and walk away from.  We’re going to continue to build on them.  We think it’s that important.

If you look at the demographics of Southeast Asia, this is the youngest part of the world.  You’re about to see an enormous growth in the labor pool and in workers.  This is an exciting time – an extraordinary, a historic time.  So, we’re excited about what economic cooperation is going to mean in this region, and trade is going to be a key component of it.  We’re – we wanted to be here today to express that and to show that our commitment – we’ve spent decades building these relationships.  Not only are we not going to walk away from them, but we seek to expand them and build upon them with a part of the world that is essential.  The history of the 21st century will be written in Asia, given all the dynamics that are happening here economically, and we intend to be a full part of it.

QUESTION:  Have you received the concern – have you received the concern from the ASEAN foreign minister?

SECRETARY RUBIO:  Have I received the what?  I’m sorry.

QUESTION:  About the tariffs.  Have you received the concern from the —

SECRETARY RUBIO:  Concerns?

QUESTION:  ASEAN foreign minister.  Yes, on the tariffs. 

SECRETARY RUBIO:  I’ve received concerns from foreign ministers of every part of the world about tariffs, obviously.  And – but look, at the end of the day, this is about a rebalancing of our trade relationship.  Different countries have different rates based on the status of our trade, and there is always the opportunity to negotiate.  We’ve seen that with Vietnam already, we’ve seen it with the UK, and I think we’ll see it with several other countries over time. 

QUESTION:  Any developments on the summit between Mr. Trump and Putin?

SECRETARY RUBIO:  Any developments on what?  I’m sorry.

QUESTION:  On the possible summit between Mr. Trump and Putin. 

SECRETARY RUBIO:  On a summit?  No, there’s no summit scheduled yet.

QUESTION:  In the future?

SECRETARY RUBIO:  But look, we’re going to continue to engage with the Russian side on – any time there’s an opportunity to engage with them, we’re going to do so.  I mean, at the end of the day, the United States and Russia still have to have a relationship.  These are two important countries in the world, and we’re going to continue to engage and talk.  And if we see opportunities to make progress on peace, we want to be involved in pursuing that. 

Obviously, Minister Lavrov was here today.  We had an opportunity to discuss some things, and I thought it was important and good that we talked.  And we shared some information and ideas that I intend to take back to the President.  Hopefully, it will lead to something positive.  I can’t guarantee it.  The President has been frustrated at the lack of progress.  He’s made that clear publicly.  But we’ll see if that changes.

QUESTION:  So – but would possible to see the President Trump in coming October ASEAN summit?

SECRETARY RUBIO:  It’s possible, yes.  And I think he’ll —

QUESTION:  ASEAN-U.S.?

SECRETARY RUBIO:  I’m sorry?

QUESTION:  ASEAN-U.S. summit in October.

SECRETARY RUBIO:  Oh, we’re working on getting a date for that, absolutely. 

Okay.  Thank you.

QUESTION:  Thank you.

QUESTION:  Thank you, sir.

QUESTION:  Thank you so much.

Tags

Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs Japan Malaysia Office of the Spokesperson Official International Travel Philippines Russia The Secretary of State Ukraine
]]> Marco Rubio, Secretary of State

Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Kuala Lumpur Convention Center

Secretary of State Marco Rubio: Remarks to the International Press

Remarks

July 10, 2025

QUESTION:  How was the meeting?

QUESTION:  The trilateral meeting. 

SECRETARY RUBIO:  It was excellent.  We have a great relationship with Japan and the Philippines, and work very closely with them on the economic corridor, on maritime security, and territorial integrity – and continue to build upon that partnership, and look forward to hosting the president of the Philippines in Washington in a few days. 

QUESTION:  Is there progress with Russia? 

QUESTION:  Mr. — 

QUESTION:  Is there progress with Russia after your meeting? 

SECRETARY RUBIO:  We had a productive, I think constructive, and frank meeting.  And hopefully it’ll lead to progress. 

QUESTION:  Mr. Rubio, you mentioned that Lavrov has presented a so-called new approach on Ukraine.  What is that new approach?

SECRETARY RUBIO:  Well, it’s not a new approach.  It’s a new idea, a new concept that will – I’ll take back to the President to discuss.  That new concept is – this new approach is not something that automatically leads to peace, but it could potentially open the door to a path.  But as I said, again, the President’s been pretty clear.  I mean, he’s been frustrated by the lack of progress on a war that he thinks should have never happened – very costly, very bloody.  The President wants to end wars.  He’s not a fan of wars.  He thinks wars are a waste of time and a waste of lives.  And we’re going to continue to do everything we can and engage in every productive way possible to bring an end to this war.

QUESTION:  How was the engagement with (inaudible)?

SECRETARY RUBIO:  With what?  I’m sorry. 

QUESTION:  On tariffs.  How did the engagement with (inaudible) regarding the tariffs?

SECRETARY RUBIO:  With tariffs?

QUESTION:  Yeah.

SECRETARY RUBIO:  Well, every country in the world is going to get a letter at some point, for the most part, about the President’s rebalancing of trade.  The President’s been clear – he’s been clear for 30 years, even before he was in politics, that he felt that the status of global trade was unfair to American workers and the American economy.  And this is an effort to rebalance that at a global scale. 

I would say that when all is said and done, many of the countries in Southeast Asia are going to have tariff rates that are actually better than countries in other parts of the world, and it could be a benefit.  And by the way, the door always remains open to adjustments, if in fact agreements can be reached.  And we are actively in conversations with multiple countries that are represented here on ways to make even further progress.  But the markets demand certainty, and so we need to let everyone know what the baseline is starting August 1st. 

But these talks continue.  There’ll be talks next week with Japan.  There’s ongoing talks with virtually every country represented here.  So, these are important partners.  The history of the 21st century will largely be written in the Indo-Pacific and particularly in Southeast Asia.  This is a part of the world where over 6,000 American companies have invested.  These are important partnerships, both economic and defense cooperation partnerships that we’re not going to abandon and walk away from.  We’re going to continue to build on them.  We think it’s that important.

If you look at the demographics of Southeast Asia, this is the youngest part of the world.  You’re about to see an enormous growth in the labor pool and in workers.  This is an exciting time – an extraordinary, a historic time.  So, we’re excited about what economic cooperation is going to mean in this region, and trade is going to be a key component of it.  We’re – we wanted to be here today to express that and to show that our commitment – we’ve spent decades building these relationships.  Not only are we not going to walk away from them, but we seek to expand them and build upon them with a part of the world that is essential.  The history of the 21st century will be written in Asia, given all the dynamics that are happening here economically, and we intend to be a full part of it.

QUESTION:  Have you received the concern – have you received the concern from the ASEAN foreign minister?

SECRETARY RUBIO:  Have I received the what?  I’m sorry.

QUESTION:  About the tariffs.  Have you received the concern from the —

SECRETARY RUBIO:  Concerns?

QUESTION:  ASEAN foreign minister.  Yes, on the tariffs. 

SECRETARY RUBIO:  I’ve received concerns from foreign ministers of every part of the world about tariffs, obviously.  And – but look, at the end of the day, this is about a rebalancing of our trade relationship.  Different countries have different rates based on the status of our trade, and there is always the opportunity to negotiate.  We’ve seen that with Vietnam already, we’ve seen it with the UK, and I think we’ll see it with several other countries over time. 

QUESTION:  Any developments on the summit between Mr. Trump and Putin?

SECRETARY RUBIO:  Any developments on what?  I’m sorry.

QUESTION:  On the possible summit between Mr. Trump and Putin. 

SECRETARY RUBIO:  On a summit?  No, there’s no summit scheduled yet.

QUESTION:  In the future?

SECRETARY RUBIO:  But look, we’re going to continue to engage with the Russian side on – any time there’s an opportunity to engage with them, we’re going to do so.  I mean, at the end of the day, the United States and Russia still have to have a relationship.  These are two important countries in the world, and we’re going to continue to engage and talk.  And if we see opportunities to make progress on peace, we want to be involved in pursuing that. 

Obviously, Minister Lavrov was here today.  We had an opportunity to discuss some things, and I thought it was important and good that we talked.  And we shared some information and ideas that I intend to take back to the President.  Hopefully, it will lead to something positive.  I can’t guarantee it.  The President has been frustrated at the lack of progress.  He’s made that clear publicly.  But we’ll see if that changes.

QUESTION:  So – but would possible to see the President Trump in coming October ASEAN summit?

SECRETARY RUBIO:  It’s possible, yes.  And I think he’ll —

QUESTION:  ASEAN-U.S.?

SECRETARY RUBIO:  I’m sorry?

QUESTION:  ASEAN-U.S. summit in October.

SECRETARY RUBIO:  Oh, we’re working on getting a date for that, absolutely. 

Okay.  Thank you.

QUESTION:  Thank you.

QUESTION:  Thank you, sir.

QUESTION:  Thank you so much.

Tags

Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs Japan Malaysia Office of the Spokesperson Official International Travel Philippines Russia The Secretary of State Ukraine
]]> Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s Remarks to the Press at the Kuala Lumpur Convention Center https://www.state.gov/releases/office-of-the-spokesperson/2025/07/secretary-of-state-marco-rubios-remarks-to-the-press-at-the-kuala-lumpur-convention-center/ Thu, 10 Jul 2025 15:51:27 +0000 https://www.state.gov/releases/preview/638623/ Marco Rubio, Secretary of State

Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Kuala Lumpur Convention Center

Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s Remarks to the Press at the Kuala Lumpur Convention Center

Remarks to the Press

July 10, 2025

SECRETARY RUBIO:  Hello, boys and girls. 

QUESTION:  Good evening, Secretary.

SECRETARY RUBIO:  Hello.  How are you doing? 

QUESTION:  Mr. – are you doing remarks? 

SECRETARY RUBIO:  Should I?  (Laughter.)  Sure enough.  I’m sure we’ve covered all your questions.  Go ahead.

QUESTION:  We have a long — 

QUESTION:  What was your message to the Russian foreign minister today?  And what is the Trump Administration’s strategy now to end the Ukraine war?

SECRETARY RUBIO:  Our strategy is to continue to engage all the parties that are involved in finding an outcome to this conflict.  We will engage anytime that we have an opportunity to do so, like we did today.  I echoed what the President said – both the disappointment and frustration at the lack of progress in peace talks or in a path forward.  So, we’ll continue to engage. 

We shared some ideas and comments, which I’ll take back to Washington as early as this evening in terms of calls and reflected, and perhaps there’s something to build on there.  So – but it was a frank conversation.  It was an important one.  We had it, and we talked about some other items as well unrelated to the war in Ukraine, but that was the – obviously, the first and foremost topic that we discussed.  And look, the President’s been pretty clear.  He’s disappointed and frustrated that there’s not been more flexibility on the Russian side to bring about an end to this conflict.  We hope that can change, and we’re going to continue to stay involved where we see opportunities to make a difference. 

QUESTION:  Mr. Secretary —

QUESTION:  Without speaking for the foreign minister, which I know you don’t want to know to do — 

SECRETARY RUBIO:  Which foreign minister?

QUESTION:  This one. 

SECRETARY RUBIO:  Oh, Sergei Lavrov.

QUESTION:  Mr. Lavrov.

SECRETARY RUBIO:  Yes.

QUESTION:  Yeah.  Without speaking for him, do you get the sense that they’re moving towards flexibility or —  

SECRETARY RUBIO:  Yeah, I’m not going to characterize our conversation other than to tell you that I expressed what the President said publicly, which is that we feel as if we’ve dedicated a lot of time and energy to this matter and just not enough progress has been made.  We need to see a roadmap moving forward about how this conflict can conclude, and then we shared some ideas about what that might look like.  And obviously, I’ll take that back to the President here as early as this evening, and hopefully there’s something that we can build on there.  But we’ll — 

QUESTION:  Secretary —   

QUESTION:  Mr. Secretary — 

QUESTION:  — a couple of months ago, you said that what was necessary to end this war would be a conversation between President Trump and President Putin, but there have now been multiple phone calls between the two of them, and yet the war in Ukraine goes on.  Does this speak to any weakness, in terms of the President’s ability to negotiate an end to this conflict?  Or why does it persist, despite them having spoken? 

SECRETARY RUBIO:  Well, this is a war that the President inherited, right?  He got elected, and it had already been going on, and no progress had been made up to that point towards peace of any kind.  In fact, there had not even been any meetings between the Ukrainians and the Russians for quite some time.  So, while there’s been some humanitarian exchanges made – obviously, that’s our goal here is to end this war and any role we can play. 

So, this is not a war that started under President Trump.  It’s a war that wouldn’t have happened had he been president, but now it’s here.  And we’ll continue to engage and do everything we can and hopefully make progress.  As I said, and I said repeatedly, look, we are – if we see an opportunity to make a difference in this, we’re going to take it and we’re going to pursue it.  And that’s what the President has done.  And he deserves tremendous credit for having multiple phone calls with leaders from both countries —  

QUESTION:  With sanctions? 

SECRETARY RUBIO:  — and anybody else. 

QUESTION:  Mr. Secretary —  

QUESTION:  Mr. Secretary, Poland —  

 QUESTION:  — the – Russia has launched its most massive attacks in the last three days.  And you, of course, saw your counterpart today.  Are you willing now to put stronger sanctions on Russia? 

SECRETARY RUBIO:  Well, the President has said that that’s an option that’s available to him – both under existing authorities, but primarily if the Senate and the House can pass legislation that gives him the opportunity to do that.  So, we’ve been engaging with Congress on what that bill would like.  Obviously, the President needs flexibility on how those sanctions would be applied and when, because it gives him maximum leverage in any conversation and negotiation.  So, he has talked about that as being a real option. 

And now obviously, we’ll – we’ve been engaging with the Senate in particular over the last week on what that bill would look like, and the leaders of both chambers have said that they’re prepared to begin to move forward on that.  We’ve expressed this to the Russians weeks ago.  We told them that the moment would come where something like this could happen, and we’ll continue to express it because that’s the reality. 

QUESTION:  But has the moment come, or not yet?

SECRETARY RUBIO:  Well, again, that’s the President’s decision to make.  We are – obviously, he’s frustrated by the fact that more progress has not been made. 

QUESTION:  Mr. Secretary —  

QUESTION:  Mr. Secretary —  

QUESTION:  — there were reports earlier this week that you and the President were unaware that the Pentagon had made a decision to at least temporarily halt the arms shipments to Ukraine.  Were you – what’s your take on that decision by the Pentagon?  And what is your general take —  

SECRETARY RUBIO:  Well, I think that decision has been —  

QUESTION:  — on the arm shipments?

SECRETARY RUBIO:  Yeah, that decision unfortunately was mischaracterized.  It was a pause, pending review, on a handful of specific type munitions.  That frankly is something that is logical that you would do, especially after an extended engagement that we saw both in defense of Israel and in defense of our own bases.  And so, it was a very limited review of certain types of munitions to ensure that we had sufficient stockpiles.  And it’s typical when you do these reviews that there’s a short term pause because if, in fact, the review comes back that you have a shortage, you can’t pull it back once it’s been sent.  But generally speaking, aid to Ukraine continues along the schedule that Congress appropriated. 

QUESTION:  Mr. Secretary —  

QUESTION:  Which types were paused? 

SECRETARY RUBIO:  Huh?

QUESTION:  Which types of weapons were paused? 

SECRETARY RUBIO:  Largely defensive in nature.  Some were offensive.  But again, the ones that were expended in recent conflicts in the Middle East – and again, not because there is a shortage but because it’s prudent to look at it and say, okay, do we have enough of these in our stockpiles for all of our obligations around the world – both in defense of our bases in the Middle East but also our obligations to our Indo-Pacific partners and any other contingencies that might arise. 

But in the end, I would say that the overwhelming majority of defense – of military aid that the United States provides Ukraine has never been paused and continues along the same schedules that it’s been. 

I think there’s a broader issue unrelated to the pause, and that involves the defense productive capabilities of the West, not just us but of Europe.  As an example, one of the things that the Ukrainians need is more Patriot batteries.  There are Patriot batteries available in multiple countries in Europe, yet no one wants to part with them.  So, I hope that will change.  If, in fact, Ukraine is the priority that so many in countries – so many countries in Europe say it is, they should be willing to share batteries that right now they don’t have a need to use. 

So, hopefully, we’ll be able to convince some of our NATO partners to provide those Patriot batteries to Ukraine, because there are a number of countries that have them, but no one wants to part with what they have, so perhaps that’ll change.  That’s important. 

QUESTION:  Mr. Secretary, you mentioned wanting to see a roadmap for how this conflict can conclude.  What concrete ideas have been presented, and how did Russia respond in this meeting? 

SECRETARY RUBIO:  Well, I – again, these things are best negotiated – I don’t want to – in private, and that’s how these things generally work.  There were some ideas exchanged today, some viewpoints that they expressed to us that I’ll take back to the President for his consideration, and hopefully it will lead to something.  I don’t want to over-promise something.  Again, as I said, this is a conflict that’s been going on now for three – over three years, and as has already been pointed out by one of the questions here, we’ve seen an acceleration of attacks.  I think it’s the – probably the largest drone attack in a city close to the Polish border, actually.  So, it’s a pretty deep strike. 

And again, I mean, it’s – every time you see this in the headlines and people die, it reminds you of why the President wants this war to end.  As he has said from the beginning, his number one interest here is to stop people from dying and the destruction that’s ongoing every single day.  They’re going to be having a conference – maybe it starts today, if I’m not mistaken – about reconstruction and the rebuilding of Ukraine.  Every time one of these strikes is launched, the price of reconstruction goes up, right?  There’s also the destruction of the country’s capabilities, the country’s economic capabilities, that has to be added to this. 

But obviously the loss of life is something of grave interest – of great interest to the President.  It’s important to note that since January of this year, as an example just to give you, on the Russian side, they’ve lost 100,000 soldiers – dead – not injured – dead.  And on the Ukrainian side, the numbers are less but still very significant.  And so that’s – the President doesn’t like wars.  He thinks wars are a waste of money and a waste of lives, and he wants them to end.  And he’s going to do everything he can within his power to end this war and any other war he has a chance to end, as you’ve seen in the past. 

And so, we’re going to continue to work at it.  We understand that these things take time and patience, but obviously we’re also frustrated that more progress has not been made.  And hopefully, based on today and in the days to come, we’ll have more clarity about what exactly the Russian position and priorities are in this regard, and can begin to make some progress.  But it’s been difficult, as you’ve seen. 

QUESTION:  May I ask an ASEAN question? 

QUESTION:  China’s been supporting Russia.  Will you meet with your Chinese counterpart here this week to speak with him about —

SECRETARY RUBIO:  I think we’re working on that.  Maybe – maybe we’ll meet, and obviously we’ll talk about it.  I think the Chinese clearly have been supportive of the Russian effort, and I think that generally they’ve been willing to help them as much as they can without getting caught.  But people in Europe and other parts of the world have noticed.  But in the end, this peace, if it’s possible and doable, will happen between Ukraine and Russia, and we are willing to do whatever we can to help bring it to an end. 

QUESTION:  Can I ask an ASEAN question?

QUESTION:  These ideas that Russia —

SECRETARY RUBIO:  A what? 

QUESTION:  An ASEAN question?

SECRETARY RUBIO:  Yeah, of course.  That’s why we’re here, right? 

QUESTION:  Can I ask you one more quick question on Russia?  Just these ideas that were put on the table today, would you characterize them as new ideas from the Russian side that the Trump Administration had not heard before? 

SECRETARY RUBIO:  Yes.  Well, I think maybe – yes, I think it’s a new and a different approach.  Again, I wouldn’t characterize it as something that guarantees a peace, but it’s a concept that we’ll – I’ll take back to the President today and – here as soon as I finish with you. 

QUESTION:  I just wanted to know – what was your sense today after your meeting, the PMC meeting with the ASEAN foreign ministers, about how big an irritant tariffs are to U.S. relations, both with ASEAN as a bloc but individual countries?

SECRETARY RUBIO:  Well, I think – look, there are two things to understand.  Number one is these letters that are going out and these trade changes, they’re happening with every country in the world – I mean, basically every country in the world.  The President’s been very clear, and he has been – frankly, if you go back to videos of him speaking in the ’80s about his feeling that the state of global trade is unfair to the United States, that for far too long we allowed these imbalances to develop.  We are the world’s largest consumer.  We’re a huge market, where people export things to us, and these huge and unsustainable imbalances have developed with countries all over the world. 

And so, this is a globalized effort to reset U.S. trade in a way that’s beneficial to the United States, and not just in dollars and cents but also in our own domestic industrial capacity.  So, this has been made clear to countries around the world.  We were coming up upon June – about the middle of this month, and the markets demand certainty, and so these letters set a baseline. 

Now, obviously that does not foreclose the opportunity for individual countries to enter into negotiations that perhaps can adjust those numbers.  But in the end, the President still remains very committed to a rebalancing of trade that’s fair to America and also, at the same time, protects our own industrial capabilities. 

QUESTION:  Right.  But you’re here today meeting with ASEAN countries, and those countries, almost all of them, got letters.  So, I’m just wondering —

SECRETARY RUBIO:  But anywhere in the world – well —

QUESTION:  I understand that, but —

SECRETARY RUBIO:  My point to you is anywhere in the world I would have traveled this week, they got a letter.  So, everybody got a letter, and in some cases, some of these countries got a letter where their tariff rate is lower than some of their neighbors or maybe a country somewhere else in the world that might even serve as an advantage.  But of course, it’s raised. It’s an issue, but I wouldn’t say it solely defines our relationship with many of these countries.  There are a lot of other issues that we work together on, and I think there was great enthusiasm that we were here and that we’re a part of this.  A reminder that next week, we’ll have another high-ranking delegation, including Secretary Lutnick.  Deputy Landau from the Department of State will be traveling to Japan for the World Expo there, and they’ll be involved in talks there as well.

You know my very first meeting – I don’t know if you know this, but when I was sworn in I went to the State Department, I gave a speech on the steps, and then my first meeting right out of the box was with Japan, South Korea, and India.  And we’ve repeated that meeting numerous times since then with that group (inaudible).  We have a running internal joke with my counterpart from Japan:  I have literally now seen him about 8 to 12 times, and our joke is that we see each other more than we see our own – our own families. 

And so, these engagements are very important to us.  And we’re going to continue to stay very committed, because this – as I said to all of our partners, this notion or idea that the United States would ever be distracted by the Indo-Pacific or even Southeast Asia is impossible.  You can’t be – maybe it doesn’t always – wars get more attention, but it’s impossible to not be focused.  This is where much of the story of the 21st century is going to be written.  This is where two thirds of economic growth is going to happen over the next 25 or 30 years. 

And many of the countries of Southeast Asia – not only are they some of the youngest countries in the world, but they’re about to see an enormous expansion of their labor markets, their labor pool, number of workers.  This is a historic, once-in-a-generation opportunity not just for these countries to revolutionize themselves from an economic standpoint, but further strengthen our relationship.  We have over 6,000 American companies that have invested heavily in these economies over the last 20 or 30 years.  These are – we’re not abandoning those relationships.  On the contrary, we want to strengthen and build upon them. 

And there are a bunch of other issues.  And certainly, trade is part of it, but there are a lot of other issues that we work together on, and we continue to highly prioritize that.  The story of the 21st century will be written in the Indo-Pacific.  And the countries represented here today, along with others that have joined to be a part of this, represent some of the – not just important markets, some of the most important partners we have in the world.

QUESTION:  Secretary Rubio —

MODERATOR:  Last question.

QUESTION:  This is obviously a very quick trip.  Do you intend to come back to Asia or to Southeast Asia —  

SECRETARY RUBIO:  Sure.

QUESTION:  — maybe on a longer trip sometime in the future, near future?

SECRETARY RUBIO:  Sure, absolutely.  This was a great trip because we got to see 12, 13, 14, 15 countries that are all here.  So, these forums – there’ll be a leaders forum here in October, which we look forward to being a part of it.  We’ve also engaged with many of our colleagues here at different forums – many of them, for example, not just at the G7 foreign ministers, they also attended on the sidelines of NATO at the foreign minister level and also at the leaders level.  So, we’ll continue to engage with the region, both in Washington and other places around the world, and in our return travel here.  And so, we’ll be back. 

In addition – and it’s not just me.  The Secretary of Defense has been out here, the Deputy Secretary of State will be here next week.  So, we’ll look for other – obviously, the leaders forum will be here in October as well.  So, we’ll be here, we’ll be engaged, as we do every single day.

MODERATOR:  (Inaudible).

QUESTION:  Secretary, there’s a review right now by the administration of the AUKUS deal that the last administration forged, and I think that raises some question among Asian-Pacific allies and partners about the U.S. defense commitment here in Asia.  What do you say to people who are —   

SECRETARY RUBIO:  Yeah.  Well, look, anytime a new administration takes over, there’s a review of all policies.  I mean, policies are reviewed; doesn’t necessarily mean you’re against it.  We did a review at the State Department of our diplomatic presence around the world, because I wanted to know which consulates and embassies could be adjusted both in their size and in their presence, could we consolidate their presence.  We did a review; we haven’t closed any embassies.  But we did a review.  So just because you’re reviewing something doesn’t mean you’re going to necessarily act on it.  It means you’re a new administration, and you want to take an audit, an account, about all the policies that you’ve inherited – and policies, how they’ve changed since the last time you were in office when it comes to the Trump administration.

So – but our policies on AUKUS have not changed.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.

SECRETARY RUBIO:  What else?

QUESTION:  Are you hopeful on a Gaza ceasefire in the next few days?

SECRETARY RUBIO:  Well, we’re hopeful.  I mean, in the end, we’re hoping they’ll move to proximity talks.  It appears that generally the terms have been agreed to, but obviously now you need to have talks about you implement those terms.  And I spoke to Steve Witkoff last night, and he’s optimistic that proximity talks will begin fairly soon, expedited and facilitated by the Qataris and the Egyptians.  And so – but we’ve seen talks fall apart in the past at that stage of proximity talks. 

So, I think we’re closer, and I think perhaps we’re closer than we’ve been in quite a while, and we’re hopeful.  But we also recognize there are still some challenges in the way, and one of the fundamental challenges is Hamas’s unwillingness to disarm, which would end this conflict immediately.  If they just released the hostages – there shouldn’t be a single hostage.  There shouldn’t be a single hostage body still left.  If they released that and disarmed, this would end. 

But that said, the Israelis have shown some flexibility here, and so I think we’ve – we’ve seen progress made.  So, we’re hopeful, but we also understand that these things are – have been difficult for a reason.  But we are – we’re hopeful that they can move to proximity talks pretty quickly and go from there, and have a ceasefire in place in the near future.

QUESTION:  Are there any sticking points from the Israeli side, such as on aid or the withdrawal of Israeli troops?  Where does that stand?

SECRETARY RUBIO:  Well, the sticking point would be on the Hamas side.  I mean, Hamas – they should want Israel to withdraw completely and allow them to go back to being Hamas.  Obviously, the Israelis aren’t going to agree to that. 

I think the easiest way to end this – that’s not what the agreement is, but the easiest way to end this is for all the hostages to be released and for Hamas to disarm.  Absent that, the Israelis and Hamas, through the intermediation – in the intermediation of Qatar and Egypt, have reached an understanding: a 60-day ceasefire, and some elements of that with regards to humanitarian aid through international agencies resuming, and so forth.  But now you’ve got to have talks about how you implement that.  And that’s where this has fallen apart in the past.  We’re hopeful that’ll work out.  We’re doing everything we can.  We’d like to see a ceasefire.  The President’s been clear he wants to see a ceasefire, and we’ve invested a lot of time and energy.  I know Steve Witkoff works every – hours every single day on this topic alone.  So, we’ve invested a lot of time into that.  We’d like to see it happen.

Okay?

QUESTION:  The AI impersonator of you, anything you can say about who is behind that? 

SECRETARY RUBIO:  No – no, I mean, anybody – it could happen to anybody and every – especially if you’re a public figure, there’s got to be – like, they could take the interview I did here today and change it around, so – but as soon as I found out about it last week, I referred it to the FBI, Diplomatic Security, and others.  It won’t be the last time you see me or others, for that matter – maybe some of you will be impersonated, but it’s just a reality of this AI technology that’s going on, and it’s a real threat.  But —

QUESTION:  How did you find out? 

SECRETARY RUBIO:  Oh, somebody called me – the senator that called me and said, “Hey, did you just try to reach me?” and actually sent me a voice recording – it didn’t sound – I don’t think it really sounded like me.  Maybe he fell for that call, but – but maybe there was a better one that I didn’t see. 

QUESTION:  It was on Signal, right?  So does this —

SECRETARY RUBIO:  I don’t know how they got it or if it was a voicemail.  No, it doesn’t matter what form you use.  I mean, it doesn’t matter if it’s Signal or anything else.  

QUESTION:  But there are more secure methods, though.  On Signal, you can create an account with an email address, and that is one of the reasons that they were able to reach out to people and then use the voicemail messages to imitate your voice. 

SECRETARY RUBIO:  I’ve had people in the past ask me if I texted – like, within days of becoming Secretary of State, I had foreign ministers calling the State Department asking if I had just texted them.  So, I don’t know, guys.  This is just the reality of the 21st century with AI and fake stuff that’s going on.  It’s – generally I communicate with my counterparts around the world through official channels for a reason, and that’s to avoid this.  So —

QUESTION:  Do you have any sense of who the perpetrator is? 

SECRETARY RUBIO:  No.  I mean, the perpetrator is somebody with an AI software.  That could be anybody in the world.  My sense is the target really isn’t me.  The target is the people they’re reaching out to, to try to trick them into a call or whatever.  And who knows what they do with it?  But you’re going to hear about this for a long time, and not just me.  It’ll happen to other people, because all you need is a recording of someone’s voice and you can come up with it.  So yeah, it’s just one of the other great challenges posed to us by AI.  I’m sure there’s a lot of positive aspects to AI as well, but this ain’t one of them. 

QUESTION:  You said, Secretary, that the weapons pause by the Pentagon, in the narrow scope in which it occurred, made sense.  But was it a decision on which the State Department was consulted, or what was the level of —

SECRETARY RUBIO:  No, it wasn’t a – I know, I said it was a review, a pause pending a review.  And so, you – we’re constantly – the Pentagon is constantly reviewing stockpiles, especially after an engagement such as the one we had in the Middle East.  So, my point is that there wasn’t a policy decision not to give weapons to Ukraine.  It was a review in which certain munitions were temporarily paused for that review and for that purpose.  And this reporting out there that there was no awareness of it is not true.  Now – but no policy decision was made, in essence.  No one ever said we’re not sending weapons to Ukraine.  That’s been appropriated by Congress, and that’s continued, and that continues to this very day. 

But when you’re doing a review, there’s some period of time in which during that review, it’s possible that some shipping is slowed down – not stopped, but because it’s being reviewed, someone would say, okay, well, let’s not send it today, let’s wait a couple days because we’re conducting a review of that particular munition.  So that’s what happened here, and I think it was not appropriately reported, initially.  But nonetheless, it’s pretty clear now that review has occurred.  And as the President’s made clear, there has been no change to our posture with regards to providing what we have available. 

Now, I would remind everybody – again, I go back to the point I made, and that is that there are certain things that Ukraine needs like Patriot batteries.  Those are available.  There are multiple countries in Europe that possess Patriot batteries that they could share with Ukraine, and we’re actively talking to countries about doing that. 

QUESTION:  Anyone specifically?

SECRETARY RUBIO:  Well, the Spaniards have them.  They’re really far from Ukraine and they have one.  The Germans have, others have them – I’m not singling them out, but I’m just telling you those are two that I know.  There are other Patriot batteries, and there are other opportunities.  Countries that have ordered Patriot batteries that are about to receive shipments of them, it’d be great if one of them volunteered to defer that shipment and send it to Ukraine instead.  So, we’re looking for creative ways to provide them these defensive weapons that they would need. 

Now, that’s not going to help them with the drone attacks.  That’s a very different technique that we use in order to bring those down.  But it would help them with some of these missile attacks that we’re seeing.  Again, these are defensive weapons. 

QUESTION:  The reduction in force of the State Department, is that something that we should expect to happen while you are traveling, or is it something you want to be in Washington, D.C. while it happens?

SECRETARY RUBIO:  No, I mean, we’ve already notified that to Congress.  Understand our reduction in force was done – I’m very proud to say, I think, I would argue, probably in the most deliberate way of anyone that’s done one.  We went very specifically through and reorganized the State Department.  And when you reorganize the State Department, there were certain bureaus we wanted to empower, the regional bureaus, and there were certain bureaus, these functional bureaus, that were closed.  And so, it made sense to – so that’s been notified to Congress and to the workforce for some period of time.  And so, we’ve been ready to implement it pending a court decision, which now has been reached. 

There’s some timing associated with how you do that, how you actually implement it, but our intent is to move forward with the plans that we’ve notified Congress of weeks ago and that we took months to design. 

QUESTION:  Will the numbers be the same as what was notified to Congress?

SECRETARY RUBIO:  Sure.  I mean, our plan that we notified to Congress is what we intend to do, and then we’ll have (inaudible) our – again, the reduction of force is a consequence of the reorg.  It’s not a consequence of getting – trying to get rid of people.  But if you close the bureau, you don’t need those positions.  Understand that some of these are positions that are being eliminated, not people.  Some of them are unfilled positions for potential – or positions that someone took early retirement, and therefore are now – or about to be unfilled.

So – but we took a very deliberate step to reorganize the State Department to be more efficient and more focused.  That’s been publicly noticed to Congress months ago; we’ve been prepared to implement it.  And the thing that slowed us down was a court decision by a district judge in the northern district of California.  The Supreme Court has ruled on that, and so we’re prepared to act on it.  It’ll come as no surprise, and that is our reorg.  That’ll be the extent of what we intend to do, and we’re already operating under the new organizational structure as-is for the most part.  So, this will further enhance that. 

Okay?  Thank you. 

QUESTION:  Thank you. 

Tags

Bilateral Relations and Engagement Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs Malaysia Office of the Spokesperson Official International Travel The Secretary of State
]]> Marco Rubio, Secretary of State

Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Kuala Lumpur Convention Center

Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s Remarks to the Press at the Kuala Lumpur Convention Center

Remarks to the Press

July 10, 2025

SECRETARY RUBIO:  Hello, boys and girls. 

QUESTION:  Good evening, Secretary.

SECRETARY RUBIO:  Hello.  How are you doing? 

QUESTION:  Mr. – are you doing remarks? 

SECRETARY RUBIO:  Should I?  (Laughter.)  Sure enough.  I’m sure we’ve covered all your questions.  Go ahead.

QUESTION:  We have a long — 

QUESTION:  What was your message to the Russian foreign minister today?  And what is the Trump Administration’s strategy now to end the Ukraine war?

SECRETARY RUBIO:  Our strategy is to continue to engage all the parties that are involved in finding an outcome to this conflict.  We will engage anytime that we have an opportunity to do so, like we did today.  I echoed what the President said – both the disappointment and frustration at the lack of progress in peace talks or in a path forward.  So, we’ll continue to engage. 

We shared some ideas and comments, which I’ll take back to Washington as early as this evening in terms of calls and reflected, and perhaps there’s something to build on there.  So – but it was a frank conversation.  It was an important one.  We had it, and we talked about some other items as well unrelated to the war in Ukraine, but that was the – obviously, the first and foremost topic that we discussed.  And look, the President’s been pretty clear.  He’s disappointed and frustrated that there’s not been more flexibility on the Russian side to bring about an end to this conflict.  We hope that can change, and we’re going to continue to stay involved where we see opportunities to make a difference. 

QUESTION:  Mr. Secretary —

QUESTION:  Without speaking for the foreign minister, which I know you don’t want to know to do — 

SECRETARY RUBIO:  Which foreign minister?

QUESTION:  This one. 

SECRETARY RUBIO:  Oh, Sergei Lavrov.

QUESTION:  Mr. Lavrov.

SECRETARY RUBIO:  Yes.

QUESTION:  Yeah.  Without speaking for him, do you get the sense that they’re moving towards flexibility or —  

SECRETARY RUBIO:  Yeah, I’m not going to characterize our conversation other than to tell you that I expressed what the President said publicly, which is that we feel as if we’ve dedicated a lot of time and energy to this matter and just not enough progress has been made.  We need to see a roadmap moving forward about how this conflict can conclude, and then we shared some ideas about what that might look like.  And obviously, I’ll take that back to the President here as early as this evening, and hopefully there’s something that we can build on there.  But we’ll — 

QUESTION:  Secretary —   

QUESTION:  Mr. Secretary — 

QUESTION:  — a couple of months ago, you said that what was necessary to end this war would be a conversation between President Trump and President Putin, but there have now been multiple phone calls between the two of them, and yet the war in Ukraine goes on.  Does this speak to any weakness, in terms of the President’s ability to negotiate an end to this conflict?  Or why does it persist, despite them having spoken? 

SECRETARY RUBIO:  Well, this is a war that the President inherited, right?  He got elected, and it had already been going on, and no progress had been made up to that point towards peace of any kind.  In fact, there had not even been any meetings between the Ukrainians and the Russians for quite some time.  So, while there’s been some humanitarian exchanges made – obviously, that’s our goal here is to end this war and any role we can play. 

So, this is not a war that started under President Trump.  It’s a war that wouldn’t have happened had he been president, but now it’s here.  And we’ll continue to engage and do everything we can and hopefully make progress.  As I said, and I said repeatedly, look, we are – if we see an opportunity to make a difference in this, we’re going to take it and we’re going to pursue it.  And that’s what the President has done.  And he deserves tremendous credit for having multiple phone calls with leaders from both countries —  

QUESTION:  With sanctions? 

SECRETARY RUBIO:  — and anybody else. 

QUESTION:  Mr. Secretary —  

QUESTION:  Mr. Secretary, Poland —  

 QUESTION:  — the – Russia has launched its most massive attacks in the last three days.  And you, of course, saw your counterpart today.  Are you willing now to put stronger sanctions on Russia? 

SECRETARY RUBIO:  Well, the President has said that that’s an option that’s available to him – both under existing authorities, but primarily if the Senate and the House can pass legislation that gives him the opportunity to do that.  So, we’ve been engaging with Congress on what that bill would like.  Obviously, the President needs flexibility on how those sanctions would be applied and when, because it gives him maximum leverage in any conversation and negotiation.  So, he has talked about that as being a real option. 

And now obviously, we’ll – we’ve been engaging with the Senate in particular over the last week on what that bill would look like, and the leaders of both chambers have said that they’re prepared to begin to move forward on that.  We’ve expressed this to the Russians weeks ago.  We told them that the moment would come where something like this could happen, and we’ll continue to express it because that’s the reality. 

QUESTION:  But has the moment come, or not yet?

SECRETARY RUBIO:  Well, again, that’s the President’s decision to make.  We are – obviously, he’s frustrated by the fact that more progress has not been made. 

QUESTION:  Mr. Secretary —  

QUESTION:  Mr. Secretary —  

QUESTION:  — there were reports earlier this week that you and the President were unaware that the Pentagon had made a decision to at least temporarily halt the arms shipments to Ukraine.  Were you – what’s your take on that decision by the Pentagon?  And what is your general take —  

SECRETARY RUBIO:  Well, I think that decision has been —  

QUESTION:  — on the arm shipments?

SECRETARY RUBIO:  Yeah, that decision unfortunately was mischaracterized.  It was a pause, pending review, on a handful of specific type munitions.  That frankly is something that is logical that you would do, especially after an extended engagement that we saw both in defense of Israel and in defense of our own bases.  And so, it was a very limited review of certain types of munitions to ensure that we had sufficient stockpiles.  And it’s typical when you do these reviews that there’s a short term pause because if, in fact, the review comes back that you have a shortage, you can’t pull it back once it’s been sent.  But generally speaking, aid to Ukraine continues along the schedule that Congress appropriated. 

QUESTION:  Mr. Secretary —  

QUESTION:  Which types were paused? 

SECRETARY RUBIO:  Huh?

QUESTION:  Which types of weapons were paused? 

SECRETARY RUBIO:  Largely defensive in nature.  Some were offensive.  But again, the ones that were expended in recent conflicts in the Middle East – and again, not because there is a shortage but because it’s prudent to look at it and say, okay, do we have enough of these in our stockpiles for all of our obligations around the world – both in defense of our bases in the Middle East but also our obligations to our Indo-Pacific partners and any other contingencies that might arise. 

But in the end, I would say that the overwhelming majority of defense – of military aid that the United States provides Ukraine has never been paused and continues along the same schedules that it’s been. 

I think there’s a broader issue unrelated to the pause, and that involves the defense productive capabilities of the West, not just us but of Europe.  As an example, one of the things that the Ukrainians need is more Patriot batteries.  There are Patriot batteries available in multiple countries in Europe, yet no one wants to part with them.  So, I hope that will change.  If, in fact, Ukraine is the priority that so many in countries – so many countries in Europe say it is, they should be willing to share batteries that right now they don’t have a need to use. 

So, hopefully, we’ll be able to convince some of our NATO partners to provide those Patriot batteries to Ukraine, because there are a number of countries that have them, but no one wants to part with what they have, so perhaps that’ll change.  That’s important. 

QUESTION:  Mr. Secretary, you mentioned wanting to see a roadmap for how this conflict can conclude.  What concrete ideas have been presented, and how did Russia respond in this meeting? 

SECRETARY RUBIO:  Well, I – again, these things are best negotiated – I don’t want to – in private, and that’s how these things generally work.  There were some ideas exchanged today, some viewpoints that they expressed to us that I’ll take back to the President for his consideration, and hopefully it will lead to something.  I don’t want to over-promise something.  Again, as I said, this is a conflict that’s been going on now for three – over three years, and as has already been pointed out by one of the questions here, we’ve seen an acceleration of attacks.  I think it’s the – probably the largest drone attack in a city close to the Polish border, actually.  So, it’s a pretty deep strike. 

And again, I mean, it’s – every time you see this in the headlines and people die, it reminds you of why the President wants this war to end.  As he has said from the beginning, his number one interest here is to stop people from dying and the destruction that’s ongoing every single day.  They’re going to be having a conference – maybe it starts today, if I’m not mistaken – about reconstruction and the rebuilding of Ukraine.  Every time one of these strikes is launched, the price of reconstruction goes up, right?  There’s also the destruction of the country’s capabilities, the country’s economic capabilities, that has to be added to this. 

But obviously the loss of life is something of grave interest – of great interest to the President.  It’s important to note that since January of this year, as an example just to give you, on the Russian side, they’ve lost 100,000 soldiers – dead – not injured – dead.  And on the Ukrainian side, the numbers are less but still very significant.  And so that’s – the President doesn’t like wars.  He thinks wars are a waste of money and a waste of lives, and he wants them to end.  And he’s going to do everything he can within his power to end this war and any other war he has a chance to end, as you’ve seen in the past. 

And so, we’re going to continue to work at it.  We understand that these things take time and patience, but obviously we’re also frustrated that more progress has not been made.  And hopefully, based on today and in the days to come, we’ll have more clarity about what exactly the Russian position and priorities are in this regard, and can begin to make some progress.  But it’s been difficult, as you’ve seen. 

QUESTION:  May I ask an ASEAN question? 

QUESTION:  China’s been supporting Russia.  Will you meet with your Chinese counterpart here this week to speak with him about —

SECRETARY RUBIO:  I think we’re working on that.  Maybe – maybe we’ll meet, and obviously we’ll talk about it.  I think the Chinese clearly have been supportive of the Russian effort, and I think that generally they’ve been willing to help them as much as they can without getting caught.  But people in Europe and other parts of the world have noticed.  But in the end, this peace, if it’s possible and doable, will happen between Ukraine and Russia, and we are willing to do whatever we can to help bring it to an end. 

QUESTION:  Can I ask an ASEAN question?

QUESTION:  These ideas that Russia —

SECRETARY RUBIO:  A what? 

QUESTION:  An ASEAN question?

SECRETARY RUBIO:  Yeah, of course.  That’s why we’re here, right? 

QUESTION:  Can I ask you one more quick question on Russia?  Just these ideas that were put on the table today, would you characterize them as new ideas from the Russian side that the Trump Administration had not heard before? 

SECRETARY RUBIO:  Yes.  Well, I think maybe – yes, I think it’s a new and a different approach.  Again, I wouldn’t characterize it as something that guarantees a peace, but it’s a concept that we’ll – I’ll take back to the President today and – here as soon as I finish with you. 

QUESTION:  I just wanted to know – what was your sense today after your meeting, the PMC meeting with the ASEAN foreign ministers, about how big an irritant tariffs are to U.S. relations, both with ASEAN as a bloc but individual countries?

SECRETARY RUBIO:  Well, I think – look, there are two things to understand.  Number one is these letters that are going out and these trade changes, they’re happening with every country in the world – I mean, basically every country in the world.  The President’s been very clear, and he has been – frankly, if you go back to videos of him speaking in the ’80s about his feeling that the state of global trade is unfair to the United States, that for far too long we allowed these imbalances to develop.  We are the world’s largest consumer.  We’re a huge market, where people export things to us, and these huge and unsustainable imbalances have developed with countries all over the world. 

And so, this is a globalized effort to reset U.S. trade in a way that’s beneficial to the United States, and not just in dollars and cents but also in our own domestic industrial capacity.  So, this has been made clear to countries around the world.  We were coming up upon June – about the middle of this month, and the markets demand certainty, and so these letters set a baseline. 

Now, obviously that does not foreclose the opportunity for individual countries to enter into negotiations that perhaps can adjust those numbers.  But in the end, the President still remains very committed to a rebalancing of trade that’s fair to America and also, at the same time, protects our own industrial capabilities. 

QUESTION:  Right.  But you’re here today meeting with ASEAN countries, and those countries, almost all of them, got letters.  So, I’m just wondering —

SECRETARY RUBIO:  But anywhere in the world – well —

QUESTION:  I understand that, but —

SECRETARY RUBIO:  My point to you is anywhere in the world I would have traveled this week, they got a letter.  So, everybody got a letter, and in some cases, some of these countries got a letter where their tariff rate is lower than some of their neighbors or maybe a country somewhere else in the world that might even serve as an advantage.  But of course, it’s raised. It’s an issue, but I wouldn’t say it solely defines our relationship with many of these countries.  There are a lot of other issues that we work together on, and I think there was great enthusiasm that we were here and that we’re a part of this.  A reminder that next week, we’ll have another high-ranking delegation, including Secretary Lutnick.  Deputy Landau from the Department of State will be traveling to Japan for the World Expo there, and they’ll be involved in talks there as well.

You know my very first meeting – I don’t know if you know this, but when I was sworn in I went to the State Department, I gave a speech on the steps, and then my first meeting right out of the box was with Japan, South Korea, and India.  And we’ve repeated that meeting numerous times since then with that group (inaudible).  We have a running internal joke with my counterpart from Japan:  I have literally now seen him about 8 to 12 times, and our joke is that we see each other more than we see our own – our own families. 

And so, these engagements are very important to us.  And we’re going to continue to stay very committed, because this – as I said to all of our partners, this notion or idea that the United States would ever be distracted by the Indo-Pacific or even Southeast Asia is impossible.  You can’t be – maybe it doesn’t always – wars get more attention, but it’s impossible to not be focused.  This is where much of the story of the 21st century is going to be written.  This is where two thirds of economic growth is going to happen over the next 25 or 30 years. 

And many of the countries of Southeast Asia – not only are they some of the youngest countries in the world, but they’re about to see an enormous expansion of their labor markets, their labor pool, number of workers.  This is a historic, once-in-a-generation opportunity not just for these countries to revolutionize themselves from an economic standpoint, but further strengthen our relationship.  We have over 6,000 American companies that have invested heavily in these economies over the last 20 or 30 years.  These are – we’re not abandoning those relationships.  On the contrary, we want to strengthen and build upon them. 

And there are a bunch of other issues.  And certainly, trade is part of it, but there are a lot of other issues that we work together on, and we continue to highly prioritize that.  The story of the 21st century will be written in the Indo-Pacific.  And the countries represented here today, along with others that have joined to be a part of this, represent some of the – not just important markets, some of the most important partners we have in the world.

QUESTION:  Secretary Rubio —

MODERATOR:  Last question.

QUESTION:  This is obviously a very quick trip.  Do you intend to come back to Asia or to Southeast Asia —  

SECRETARY RUBIO:  Sure.

QUESTION:  — maybe on a longer trip sometime in the future, near future?

SECRETARY RUBIO:  Sure, absolutely.  This was a great trip because we got to see 12, 13, 14, 15 countries that are all here.  So, these forums – there’ll be a leaders forum here in October, which we look forward to being a part of it.  We’ve also engaged with many of our colleagues here at different forums – many of them, for example, not just at the G7 foreign ministers, they also attended on the sidelines of NATO at the foreign minister level and also at the leaders level.  So, we’ll continue to engage with the region, both in Washington and other places around the world, and in our return travel here.  And so, we’ll be back. 

In addition – and it’s not just me.  The Secretary of Defense has been out here, the Deputy Secretary of State will be here next week.  So, we’ll look for other – obviously, the leaders forum will be here in October as well.  So, we’ll be here, we’ll be engaged, as we do every single day.

MODERATOR:  (Inaudible).

QUESTION:  Secretary, there’s a review right now by the administration of the AUKUS deal that the last administration forged, and I think that raises some question among Asian-Pacific allies and partners about the U.S. defense commitment here in Asia.  What do you say to people who are —   

SECRETARY RUBIO:  Yeah.  Well, look, anytime a new administration takes over, there’s a review of all policies.  I mean, policies are reviewed; doesn’t necessarily mean you’re against it.  We did a review at the State Department of our diplomatic presence around the world, because I wanted to know which consulates and embassies could be adjusted both in their size and in their presence, could we consolidate their presence.  We did a review; we haven’t closed any embassies.  But we did a review.  So just because you’re reviewing something doesn’t mean you’re going to necessarily act on it.  It means you’re a new administration, and you want to take an audit, an account, about all the policies that you’ve inherited – and policies, how they’ve changed since the last time you were in office when it comes to the Trump administration.

So – but our policies on AUKUS have not changed.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.

SECRETARY RUBIO:  What else?

QUESTION:  Are you hopeful on a Gaza ceasefire in the next few days?

SECRETARY RUBIO:  Well, we’re hopeful.  I mean, in the end, we’re hoping they’ll move to proximity talks.  It appears that generally the terms have been agreed to, but obviously now you need to have talks about you implement those terms.  And I spoke to Steve Witkoff last night, and he’s optimistic that proximity talks will begin fairly soon, expedited and facilitated by the Qataris and the Egyptians.  And so – but we’ve seen talks fall apart in the past at that stage of proximity talks. 

So, I think we’re closer, and I think perhaps we’re closer than we’ve been in quite a while, and we’re hopeful.  But we also recognize there are still some challenges in the way, and one of the fundamental challenges is Hamas’s unwillingness to disarm, which would end this conflict immediately.  If they just released the hostages – there shouldn’t be a single hostage.  There shouldn’t be a single hostage body still left.  If they released that and disarmed, this would end. 

But that said, the Israelis have shown some flexibility here, and so I think we’ve – we’ve seen progress made.  So, we’re hopeful, but we also understand that these things are – have been difficult for a reason.  But we are – we’re hopeful that they can move to proximity talks pretty quickly and go from there, and have a ceasefire in place in the near future.

QUESTION:  Are there any sticking points from the Israeli side, such as on aid or the withdrawal of Israeli troops?  Where does that stand?

SECRETARY RUBIO:  Well, the sticking point would be on the Hamas side.  I mean, Hamas – they should want Israel to withdraw completely and allow them to go back to being Hamas.  Obviously, the Israelis aren’t going to agree to that. 

I think the easiest way to end this – that’s not what the agreement is, but the easiest way to end this is for all the hostages to be released and for Hamas to disarm.  Absent that, the Israelis and Hamas, through the intermediation – in the intermediation of Qatar and Egypt, have reached an understanding: a 60-day ceasefire, and some elements of that with regards to humanitarian aid through international agencies resuming, and so forth.  But now you’ve got to have talks about how you implement that.  And that’s where this has fallen apart in the past.  We’re hopeful that’ll work out.  We’re doing everything we can.  We’d like to see a ceasefire.  The President’s been clear he wants to see a ceasefire, and we’ve invested a lot of time and energy.  I know Steve Witkoff works every – hours every single day on this topic alone.  So, we’ve invested a lot of time into that.  We’d like to see it happen.

Okay?

QUESTION:  The AI impersonator of you, anything you can say about who is behind that? 

SECRETARY RUBIO:  No – no, I mean, anybody – it could happen to anybody and every – especially if you’re a public figure, there’s got to be – like, they could take the interview I did here today and change it around, so – but as soon as I found out about it last week, I referred it to the FBI, Diplomatic Security, and others.  It won’t be the last time you see me or others, for that matter – maybe some of you will be impersonated, but it’s just a reality of this AI technology that’s going on, and it’s a real threat.  But —

QUESTION:  How did you find out? 

SECRETARY RUBIO:  Oh, somebody called me – the senator that called me and said, “Hey, did you just try to reach me?” and actually sent me a voice recording – it didn’t sound – I don’t think it really sounded like me.  Maybe he fell for that call, but – but maybe there was a better one that I didn’t see. 

QUESTION:  It was on Signal, right?  So does this —

SECRETARY RUBIO:  I don’t know how they got it or if it was a voicemail.  No, it doesn’t matter what form you use.  I mean, it doesn’t matter if it’s Signal or anything else.  

QUESTION:  But there are more secure methods, though.  On Signal, you can create an account with an email address, and that is one of the reasons that they were able to reach out to people and then use the voicemail messages to imitate your voice. 

SECRETARY RUBIO:  I’ve had people in the past ask me if I texted – like, within days of becoming Secretary of State, I had foreign ministers calling the State Department asking if I had just texted them.  So, I don’t know, guys.  This is just the reality of the 21st century with AI and fake stuff that’s going on.  It’s – generally I communicate with my counterparts around the world through official channels for a reason, and that’s to avoid this.  So —

QUESTION:  Do you have any sense of who the perpetrator is? 

SECRETARY RUBIO:  No.  I mean, the perpetrator is somebody with an AI software.  That could be anybody in the world.  My sense is the target really isn’t me.  The target is the people they’re reaching out to, to try to trick them into a call or whatever.  And who knows what they do with it?  But you’re going to hear about this for a long time, and not just me.  It’ll happen to other people, because all you need is a recording of someone’s voice and you can come up with it.  So yeah, it’s just one of the other great challenges posed to us by AI.  I’m sure there’s a lot of positive aspects to AI as well, but this ain’t one of them. 

QUESTION:  You said, Secretary, that the weapons pause by the Pentagon, in the narrow scope in which it occurred, made sense.  But was it a decision on which the State Department was consulted, or what was the level of —

SECRETARY RUBIO:  No, it wasn’t a – I know, I said it was a review, a pause pending a review.  And so, you – we’re constantly – the Pentagon is constantly reviewing stockpiles, especially after an engagement such as the one we had in the Middle East.  So, my point is that there wasn’t a policy decision not to give weapons to Ukraine.  It was a review in which certain munitions were temporarily paused for that review and for that purpose.  And this reporting out there that there was no awareness of it is not true.  Now – but no policy decision was made, in essence.  No one ever said we’re not sending weapons to Ukraine.  That’s been appropriated by Congress, and that’s continued, and that continues to this very day. 

But when you’re doing a review, there’s some period of time in which during that review, it’s possible that some shipping is slowed down – not stopped, but because it’s being reviewed, someone would say, okay, well, let’s not send it today, let’s wait a couple days because we’re conducting a review of that particular munition.  So that’s what happened here, and I think it was not appropriately reported, initially.  But nonetheless, it’s pretty clear now that review has occurred.  And as the President’s made clear, there has been no change to our posture with regards to providing what we have available. 

Now, I would remind everybody – again, I go back to the point I made, and that is that there are certain things that Ukraine needs like Patriot batteries.  Those are available.  There are multiple countries in Europe that possess Patriot batteries that they could share with Ukraine, and we’re actively talking to countries about doing that. 

QUESTION:  Anyone specifically?

SECRETARY RUBIO:  Well, the Spaniards have them.  They’re really far from Ukraine and they have one.  The Germans have, others have them – I’m not singling them out, but I’m just telling you those are two that I know.  There are other Patriot batteries, and there are other opportunities.  Countries that have ordered Patriot batteries that are about to receive shipments of them, it’d be great if one of them volunteered to defer that shipment and send it to Ukraine instead.  So, we’re looking for creative ways to provide them these defensive weapons that they would need. 

Now, that’s not going to help them with the drone attacks.  That’s a very different technique that we use in order to bring those down.  But it would help them with some of these missile attacks that we’re seeing.  Again, these are defensive weapons. 

QUESTION:  The reduction in force of the State Department, is that something that we should expect to happen while you are traveling, or is it something you want to be in Washington, D.C. while it happens?

SECRETARY RUBIO:  No, I mean, we’ve already notified that to Congress.  Understand our reduction in force was done – I’m very proud to say, I think, I would argue, probably in the most deliberate way of anyone that’s done one.  We went very specifically through and reorganized the State Department.  And when you reorganize the State Department, there were certain bureaus we wanted to empower, the regional bureaus, and there were certain bureaus, these functional bureaus, that were closed.  And so, it made sense to – so that’s been notified to Congress and to the workforce for some period of time.  And so, we’ve been ready to implement it pending a court decision, which now has been reached. 

There’s some timing associated with how you do that, how you actually implement it, but our intent is to move forward with the plans that we’ve notified Congress of weeks ago and that we took months to design. 

QUESTION:  Will the numbers be the same as what was notified to Congress?

SECRETARY RUBIO:  Sure.  I mean, our plan that we notified to Congress is what we intend to do, and then we’ll have (inaudible) our – again, the reduction of force is a consequence of the reorg.  It’s not a consequence of getting – trying to get rid of people.  But if you close the bureau, you don’t need those positions.  Understand that some of these are positions that are being eliminated, not people.  Some of them are unfilled positions for potential – or positions that someone took early retirement, and therefore are now – or about to be unfilled.

So – but we took a very deliberate step to reorganize the State Department to be more efficient and more focused.  That’s been publicly noticed to Congress months ago; we’ve been prepared to implement it.  And the thing that slowed us down was a court decision by a district judge in the northern district of California.  The Supreme Court has ruled on that, and so we’re prepared to act on it.  It’ll come as no surprise, and that is our reorg.  That’ll be the extent of what we intend to do, and we’re already operating under the new organizational structure as-is for the most part.  So, this will further enhance that. 

Okay?  Thank you. 

QUESTION:  Thank you. 

Tags

Bilateral Relations and Engagement Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs Malaysia Office of the Spokesperson Official International Travel The Secretary of State
]]> Secretary Rubio’s Meeting with Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar https://www.state.gov/releases/office-of-the-spokesperson/2025/07/secretary-rubios-meeting-with-malaysian-prime-minister-anwar/ Thu, 10 Jul 2025 12:54:19 +0000 https://www.state.gov/releases/preview/638510/ Office of the Spokesperson

Secretary Rubio’s Meeting with Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar

Readout

July 10, 2025

The below is attributable to Spokesperson Tammy Bruce:

Secretary of State Marco Rubio met today with Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim in Kuala Lumpur.  Secretary Rubio congratulated Prime Minister Anwar on Malaysia’s successful ASEAN Chair year and thanked Malaysia for hosting the ASEAN-related Foreign Ministers’ Meetings.  Secretary Rubio further reaffirmed the United States’ commitment to the U.S.-Malaysia Comprehensive Partnership and to deepening our nations’ economic and security ties.

Secretary Rubio reiterated our shared interest in promoting a free and open Indo-Pacific and discussed ways to deepen our defense and security cooperation through enhanced maritime law enforcement operations in the South China Sea.  Secretary Rubio and Prime Minister Anwar also committed to strengthen cooperation in civil nuclear energy, critical minerals, and advanced technology, including joint efforts to build resilient critical mineral supply chains and enhance the security of AI chip technologies.  Secretary Rubio and Prime Minister Anwar underscored the importance of continuing to advance our partnership to mutually benefit Americans and Malaysians.

Tags

Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Bilateral Relations and Engagement Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs Indo-Pacific Malaysia Office of the Spokesperson Official International Travel The Secretary of State
]]> Office of the Spokesperson

Secretary Rubio’s Meeting with Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar

Readout

July 10, 2025

The below is attributable to Spokesperson Tammy Bruce:

Secretary of State Marco Rubio met today with Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim in Kuala Lumpur.  Secretary Rubio congratulated Prime Minister Anwar on Malaysia’s successful ASEAN Chair year and thanked Malaysia for hosting the ASEAN-related Foreign Ministers’ Meetings.  Secretary Rubio further reaffirmed the United States’ commitment to the U.S.-Malaysia Comprehensive Partnership and to deepening our nations’ economic and security ties.

Secretary Rubio reiterated our shared interest in promoting a free and open Indo-Pacific and discussed ways to deepen our defense and security cooperation through enhanced maritime law enforcement operations in the South China Sea.  Secretary Rubio and Prime Minister Anwar also committed to strengthen cooperation in civil nuclear energy, critical minerals, and advanced technology, including joint efforts to build resilient critical mineral supply chains and enhance the security of AI chip technologies.  Secretary Rubio and Prime Minister Anwar underscored the importance of continuing to advance our partnership to mutually benefit Americans and Malaysians.

Tags

Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Bilateral Relations and Engagement Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs Indo-Pacific Malaysia Office of the Spokesperson Official International Travel The Secretary of State
]]> United States and Malaysia Sign Memorandum of Understanding Concerning Strategic Civil Nuclear Cooperation and Launch Negotiations for a Civil Nuclear Cooperation Agreement https://www.state.gov/releases/office-of-the-spokesperson/2025/07/united-states-and-malaysia-sign-memorandum-of-understanding-concerning-strategic-civil-nuclear-cooperation-and-launch-negotiations-for-a-civil-nuclear-cooperation-agreement/ Thu, 10 Jul 2025 12:12:42 +0000 https://www.state.gov/releases/preview/638488/ Tammy Bruce, Department Spokesperson

United States and Malaysia Sign Memorandum of Understanding Concerning Strategic Civil Nuclear Cooperation and Launch Negotiations for a Civil Nuclear Cooperation Agreement

Press Statement

July 10, 2025

Today, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Foreign Minister Mohamad Hasan of Malaysia signed a Memorandum of Understanding Concerning Strategic Civil Nuclear Cooperation (NCMOU) with the aim of advancing peaceful nuclear cooperation between the United States and Malaysia.

The United States and Malaysia enjoy a longstanding and multifaceted diplomatic relationship strengthened by decades of cooperation in security, energy, and commerce.  The signing of this NCMOU marks an important step toward establishing a robust civil nuclear partnership between the United States and Malaysia.

In addition, the two countries have launched negotiations on a civil nuclear cooperation agreement. The launching of negotiations for a civil nuclear cooperation agreement (123 Agreement) advances the Trump Administration’s Executive Order 14299, “Deploying Advanced Nuclear Reactor Technologies for National Security” and will promote international civil nuclear cooperation; advance American energy dominance, establish multidecade strategic energy partnerships with U.S. allies and partners; and promote the highest international standards of nuclear safety, security, and nonproliferation.

123 Agreements establish a legally binding framework for significant peaceful nuclear cooperation between the United States and its partners, providing a foundation for long-term, strategic civil nuclear partnerships globally.  123 Agreements also aid the United States economy by promoting U.S. commercial competitiveness in the global civil nuclear market and providing greater opportunities for increased civil nuclear sales globally.

Tags

Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs Malaysia Office of the Spokesperson Peaceful Nuclear Cooperation
]]> Tammy Bruce, Department Spokesperson

United States and Malaysia Sign Memorandum of Understanding Concerning Strategic Civil Nuclear Cooperation and Launch Negotiations for a Civil Nuclear Cooperation Agreement

Press Statement

July 10, 2025

Today, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Foreign Minister Mohamad Hasan of Malaysia signed a Memorandum of Understanding Concerning Strategic Civil Nuclear Cooperation (NCMOU) with the aim of advancing peaceful nuclear cooperation between the United States and Malaysia.

The United States and Malaysia enjoy a longstanding and multifaceted diplomatic relationship strengthened by decades of cooperation in security, energy, and commerce.  The signing of this NCMOU marks an important step toward establishing a robust civil nuclear partnership between the United States and Malaysia.

In addition, the two countries have launched negotiations on a civil nuclear cooperation agreement. The launching of negotiations for a civil nuclear cooperation agreement (123 Agreement) advances the Trump Administration’s Executive Order 14299, “Deploying Advanced Nuclear Reactor Technologies for National Security” and will promote international civil nuclear cooperation; advance American energy dominance, establish multidecade strategic energy partnerships with U.S. allies and partners; and promote the highest international standards of nuclear safety, security, and nonproliferation.

123 Agreements establish a legally binding framework for significant peaceful nuclear cooperation between the United States and its partners, providing a foundation for long-term, strategic civil nuclear partnerships globally.  123 Agreements also aid the United States economy by promoting U.S. commercial competitiveness in the global civil nuclear market and providing greater opportunities for increased civil nuclear sales globally.

Tags

Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs Malaysia Office of the Spokesperson Peaceful Nuclear Cooperation
]]> Secretary of State Marco Rubio at the ASEAN Post Ministerial Conference with the United States https://www.state.gov/releases/office-of-the-spokesperson/2025/07/secretary-of-state-marco-rubioat-the-asean-post-ministerial-conference-with-the-united-states/ Thu, 10 Jul 2025 10:18:10 +0000 https://www.state.gov/releases/preview/638460/ Marco Rubio, Secretary of State

Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Kuala Lumpur Convention Centre

Secretary of State Marco Rubio at the ASEAN Post Ministerial Conference with the United States

Remarks

July 10, 2025

FOREIGN MINISTER SOKHONN:  Thank you (inaudible).  Secretary Marco Rubio, dear colleagues, at the outset, I wish to express my sincere appreciation to Malaysia as ASEAN chair for the excellent arrangement of this meeting.  I wish to extend a warm welcome to Secretary Rubio on his first ASEAN Post Ministerial Conference with the United States.

We gather at a moment of increasing global uncertainty, marked by heightened (inaudible) tension, internal challenges, and complex, interconnected transnational issues.  In this evolving environment, the ASEAN-U.S. partnership has proven not only resilient but essential.  Since elevating our relationship to a Comprehensive Strategic Partnership in 2022, we have made significant progress in turning our shared vision into concrete action.

Over the years, ASEAN and the United States has built a relationship that is both broad in scope and deep in substance.  Our collaboration encompass economic engagement, (inaudible) innovation, combating transnational crime, maritime cooperation, health security, and vibrant people-to-people exchanges.  Together, these effort demonstrate our collective confidence in the enduring future of our strategic partnership.

Today, we reaffirm our determination to deepen and broaden our cooperation even further.  I look forward to a productive discussion that will generate fresh ideas, strengthen mutual trust, and chart a clear course forward.  Thank you.

Now may I invite my co-chair to deliver his opening remarks.  The floor is yours, Secretary Rubio.

SECRETARY RUBIO:  Thank you, and thank you, Mr. Minister.  We’re thankful to Cambodia’s partnership as the U.S. country coordinator in the past year, and we look forward to continuing to work together for the next few years as well in this regard.  We’re also grateful to our host here, Malaysia, for your hospitality, your strong leadership as the chair.  I look forward to working with the Philippines, who will be the chair next year, and we’re excited about that.  Thank you to the ASEAN secretary as well for your support, and a special thanks to the Committee of Permanent Representatives for hard work – the hard work of supporting our partnership work.

I’m honored to represent the administration of President Donald Trump in my first foreign ministerial between ASEAN and the United States.  The Indo-Pacific, the region, remains a focal point of U.S. foreign policy.  When I hear in the news that perhaps the United States or the world might be distracted by events in other parts of the planet, I would say distraction is impossible, because it is our view – our strong view and the reality – that this century and the next – the story of the next 50 years will largely be written here in this region, in this part of the world. 

Because of your youth, because of your – two-thirds of global growth will happen in this region, it is impossible to ignore it, to sideline it, and we have no intention of doing so.  In fact, we intend it to be – a key component of our engagement with the world is to be engaged here in the region.  We’ve been engaged for a very long time.  We have strong partnerships we have no intention of abandoning, but rather strengthening and building upon. 

The United States is a committed partner to ASEAN.  It’s central to the regional architecture that shapes these dynamics.  In fact, ASEAN is the preeminent mechanism by which we engage with a region, a region that we do not consider to be a periphery of any nation-state.  We consider it to be sovereign, independent states with whom we have longstanding relationships and partnerships, and these are relationships and partnerships that we intend to continue to build on without seeking the approval or permission of any other actor in the region or the world.

Together, we believe that in doing this we’re going to be able to advance our common goal and interest, which is a free and open Indo-Pacific that is secure and that is prosperous, and that is in line with our national priority and objective of promoting the safety, the security, and the prosperity of the people of the United States of America.  Our nearly 50-year partnership demonstrates that there are many areas where our interests align and we can work together to achieve shared goals, and I look forward to discussing areas of cooperation as we advance our Comprehensive Strategic Partnership. 

Thank you.  I yield the floor back to the co-chair.

Tags

Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs Malaysia Office of the Spokesperson The Secretary of State
]]> Marco Rubio, Secretary of State

Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Kuala Lumpur Convention Centre

Secretary of State Marco Rubio at the ASEAN Post Ministerial Conference with the United States

Remarks

July 10, 2025

FOREIGN MINISTER SOKHONN:  Thank you (inaudible).  Secretary Marco Rubio, dear colleagues, at the outset, I wish to express my sincere appreciation to Malaysia as ASEAN chair for the excellent arrangement of this meeting.  I wish to extend a warm welcome to Secretary Rubio on his first ASEAN Post Ministerial Conference with the United States.

We gather at a moment of increasing global uncertainty, marked by heightened (inaudible) tension, internal challenges, and complex, interconnected transnational issues.  In this evolving environment, the ASEAN-U.S. partnership has proven not only resilient but essential.  Since elevating our relationship to a Comprehensive Strategic Partnership in 2022, we have made significant progress in turning our shared vision into concrete action.

Over the years, ASEAN and the United States has built a relationship that is both broad in scope and deep in substance.  Our collaboration encompass economic engagement, (inaudible) innovation, combating transnational crime, maritime cooperation, health security, and vibrant people-to-people exchanges.  Together, these effort demonstrate our collective confidence in the enduring future of our strategic partnership.

Today, we reaffirm our determination to deepen and broaden our cooperation even further.  I look forward to a productive discussion that will generate fresh ideas, strengthen mutual trust, and chart a clear course forward.  Thank you.

Now may I invite my co-chair to deliver his opening remarks.  The floor is yours, Secretary Rubio.

SECRETARY RUBIO:  Thank you, and thank you, Mr. Minister.  We’re thankful to Cambodia’s partnership as the U.S. country coordinator in the past year, and we look forward to continuing to work together for the next few years as well in this regard.  We’re also grateful to our host here, Malaysia, for your hospitality, your strong leadership as the chair.  I look forward to working with the Philippines, who will be the chair next year, and we’re excited about that.  Thank you to the ASEAN secretary as well for your support, and a special thanks to the Committee of Permanent Representatives for hard work – the hard work of supporting our partnership work.

I’m honored to represent the administration of President Donald Trump in my first foreign ministerial between ASEAN and the United States.  The Indo-Pacific, the region, remains a focal point of U.S. foreign policy.  When I hear in the news that perhaps the United States or the world might be distracted by events in other parts of the planet, I would say distraction is impossible, because it is our view – our strong view and the reality – that this century and the next – the story of the next 50 years will largely be written here in this region, in this part of the world. 

Because of your youth, because of your – two-thirds of global growth will happen in this region, it is impossible to ignore it, to sideline it, and we have no intention of doing so.  In fact, we intend it to be – a key component of our engagement with the world is to be engaged here in the region.  We’ve been engaged for a very long time.  We have strong partnerships we have no intention of abandoning, but rather strengthening and building upon. 

The United States is a committed partner to ASEAN.  It’s central to the regional architecture that shapes these dynamics.  In fact, ASEAN is the preeminent mechanism by which we engage with a region, a region that we do not consider to be a periphery of any nation-state.  We consider it to be sovereign, independent states with whom we have longstanding relationships and partnerships, and these are relationships and partnerships that we intend to continue to build on without seeking the approval or permission of any other actor in the region or the world.

Together, we believe that in doing this we’re going to be able to advance our common goal and interest, which is a free and open Indo-Pacific that is secure and that is prosperous, and that is in line with our national priority and objective of promoting the safety, the security, and the prosperity of the people of the United States of America.  Our nearly 50-year partnership demonstrates that there are many areas where our interests align and we can work together to achieve shared goals, and I look forward to discussing areas of cooperation as we advance our Comprehensive Strategic Partnership. 

Thank you.  I yield the floor back to the co-chair.

Tags

Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs Malaysia Office of the Spokesperson The Secretary of State
]]>