Mr. Rubio and His “Perfect Villain”

By Francisco Delgado Rodriguez on June 7, 2026

“Lying comes at no cost when you go to the U.S. Congress” is the phrase that perhaps best sums up, in the words of Cuban Deputy Foreign Minister Cossio, what has occurred in recent days in both chambers of the U.S. Congress during Mr. Rubio’s participation in his capacity as Secretary of State. And it goes without saying that such remarks were essentially a true reflection of his antiquated mindset—that is, outdated and degraded.

Indeed, not all politicians have the capacity to surpass themselves in terms of malice and a spirit of revenge and confrontation. Such is the case with Mr. Rubio, to whom we must grant the dishonor of lying without batting an eye, and yet still aspiring to lead his country, the U.S.; such is the reality of politics there, where they elect a president without principles, a criminal like Trump, and a man like Mr. Rubio—the perfect heartless individual—reasonably aspires to the same office.

The previous appearance in these chambers by the now-former Senator Rubio was in January of this year, always under the requirement that he must be accountable to Congress, specifically the Foreign Relations Committee, the body that approves the funds for his State Department to operate.

So it should have been a moment for criticism and self-criticism, but in no case did Secretary Rubio engage in the latter—self-criticism. Rather, the meeting with lawmakers turned into a sort of podium where the guest, that is, Mr. Rubio, lectured on the government’s positions regarding foreign policy, more precisely to justify the excesses they commit in any dark corner of the world, to paraphrase the alcoholic former president, Bush Jr.

That being the case, on this occasion Mr. Rubio set aside some of his busy schedule to attack Cuba. There is nothing new to highlight here, as the secretary reiterated his usual fallacies regarding the situation on the island, always seeking to justify the cruel blockade, the threat of aggression, and the psychological warfare that the current Trump administration is waging against Cuba.

But as the saying goes, silence implies consent, so it is well worth addressing some of Mr. Rubio’s lies, as presented in the congressional hearings. To begin with, in the Senate, the Trump-aligned secretary went back on the offensive against one of the institutions that make up Cuba’s economic structures, GAESA; much has been explained on the matter, and the Cuban government itself issued a statement that very same day, June 2, setting the record straight.

The more you look at the GAESA issue, the more evident the tactic employed by the empire becomes to legitimize its cruel aggression against Cuba, because there is an angle of the problem that is less visible but is perhaps the most important in the “made in Rubio” narrative.

That is to say, note that the enemy is supposedly a military entity; the villains in this fantasy are the Cuban military, who are also often accused of being repressors, torturers, etc.; in addition to being “hoarders of wealth,” and therefore, in the event of an attack, they would be “legitimate military targets.” They are not civilians; they are the ones the U.S. Marines can calmly massacre, as the laws of war dictate.

In short, Mr. Rubio believes he has found the “perfect villain”; and through this, he aims to demonstrate that a military invasion of Cuba is also legitimate, even logical, because it would eradicate—from the empire’s constructed perspective—all the evils of communism in Cuba. And they are betting that the entire U.S. political establishment, including senators and many politicians who currently reject that military option, will eventually end up supporting it.

Additionally, it must be emphasized that every country has the right to organize its business sector as it sees fit, in a sovereign manner, and even if it were true—which it is not—that some of its institutions wielded greater control, the country with the least moral standing to criticize that is precisely the U.S., where economic power is hyper-, super-, mega-monopolized.

Furthermore, if GAESA is a military institution, other questions arise: does the Pentagon publish its internal audits? Or worse, is the Pentagon audited by any authority in a transparent manner? Mr. Rubio should look inward, because the shenanigans of President Trump’s family—awarding themselves military projects with federal funding—already shatter the scales of corruption, as Representative Sydney Kamlager-Dove aptly stated a few days later during the House hearing, when she snapped at the secretary, “This is the most corrupt administration in U.S. history.”

Mr. Rubio tried unsuccessfully to explain another of the absurdities: Cuba’s presence on the list of countries that tolerate terrorism—as is well known, one of the ploys invented by U.S. leaders to apply the extraterritoriality of their multidimensional aggression against Cuba.

Well, it turns out that one of the most awkward and absurd moments of the day was when the issue was raised by Senator Chris Van Hollen (Democrat, Maryland), who asked if there was any evidence of such tolerance of terrorism. Mr. Rubio could think of nothing better than to allude to the past—well, that’s where the notion of “outdated thinking” comes from—regarding Cuba’s relationship with guerrilla organizations, confusing terrorism with revolutionary struggle.

That debate—that is, the difference between guerrilla movements and terrorism—is beside the point now, and what matters is that the organizations mentioned by Mr. Rubio either do not exist, like the FARC, or have no links to others, something the Colombian government itself can attest to; so even from the imperial perspective, if Cuba previously sponsored or tolerated “terrorism,” it does not now. And that was made clear; there is not even evidence that the situation has changed in this regard since the previous Biden administration removed Cuba from that spurious list about 15 months ago.

Another issue that threw Mr. Rubio off balance was the reference to the situation regarding the war in Iran. This also carries significant communicational weight, because this conflict and the U.S. defeat are often portrayed as something exclusive to President Trump; but one must not overlook the leading role of Mr. Rubio, the top official for international affairs in this administration, who stands on the front lines of those responsible—before his people and before history—for whatever ultimately happens with Iran.

Senator Hollen began by reminding Mr. Rubio that this was his first official appearance before the Senate since the aggression against the Iranians had begun. Well, Hollen took it upon himself to question the Trumpist foreign policy chief for having dragged the country into this adventure—the attack on Iran—giving him grounds to label the White House’s foreign policy as stupid and reckless; therefore, the “stupid” label also applies to Mr. Rubio, for the reasons already explained.

Hollen himself explained his anger based on the many and obvious harms that this “useless and costly” conflict, as he put it, is causing to the quality of life of the American people—inflation, the cost of gasoline, the squandering of fiscal resources—as well as what he described as the promotion of Israeli regional aggression. “And all for what?” asked the distressed senator, who insisted on the barrage of lies with which the matter has been handled. At one point, Hollen stated: “Let’s face it, Mr. Secretary, Trump’s foreign policy has become a total disaster”—it couldn’t have been put more bluntly.

Mr. Rubio ran out of time, not to address something constructive—at least in a slightly more relaxed manner—but instead emphasized other conflicts that, strictly speaking, are none of the U.S.’s business, such as the situation in Colombia.

And it seems logical because the evidence has already been presented regarding what appears to be a monumental fraud orchestrated by the Colombian far right, with U.S. support, on behalf of candidate Espriella, to whom they have “gifted” no fewer than 600,000 votes; is the democratic process in Colombia of interest? Does Washington care about the sovereign will of the Colombian people? The answers are obvious.

Another issue raised by Mr. Rubio concerns the drones used by drug cartels in Mexico; he speculated that the use of these more sophisticated weapons poses a threat to the U.S., which brings to mind the story published in Axios about Cuban drones. And it is curious that the senators did not ask where nearly 70% of the weapons used by these cartels come from, since they are imported from the U.S. Mr. Rubio should clarify the origin of these mafia-controlled unmanned aircraft; they might even come from some of the factories where the children of Boss Trump are major shareholders. A task for the FBI.

Mr. Rubio’s remarks deserve special and differentiated attention regarding the cases of Colombia and Mexico, even though both follow the same pattern—one with an ideological tinge—but above all because the governments of both countries are viewed, in the offices of the State Department, as a challenge to the Monroe Doctrine. And Mr. Rubio is clear on this: they cannot tolerate such a thing, and if it is inferred that Mexico falls into the category of an “unusual threat,” like Cuba, then it too should be invaded, since Washington already has its “perfect villain” there—the mafia cartels, which exist due to the extremely high drug consumption in Mr. Rubio’s homeland.

During the questioning of Mr. Rubio in the House of Representatives, similar issues were addressed; great concern over the course of the lost war in Iran, to the point that by a majority vote, the House approved in another session that same day a measure to prevent Trump from continuing it, and there was even a heated confrontation with Mr. Rubio over the killings of children in Gaza by Zionism, backed by the secretary; also over the rampant corruption of the Trumps, as already mentioned.

Not satisfied with the nonsense, Mr. Rubio, who a week ago was meeting with his NATO counterparts in Sweden, reiterated his interest in taking over the island of Greenland—unbelievable. And, as was to be expected, the Representatives called out the Secretary over President Trump’s naps—curiously, whenever Rubio speaks—wrapping up what, strictly speaking, turned into a circus, at the moment the Secretary was mocked for the oversized shoes, the ones the President, for reasons unknown, gifted to and forced Mr. Rubio to wear—an incident that went viral, as is to be expected when issues are that trivial.

Hours after the drubbing Mr. Rubio received in both Chambers, he resorted to what is undoubtedly becoming his only strong suit, the area where he feels he has the most merit (or rather, demerit), which is ultimately his primary issue: intensifying the blockade and pressure against Cuba. He imposed sanctions against the Cuban president and his family, against other members of the Cuban government, and even against the Committees for the Defense of the Revolution—in other words, he sanctioned millions of Cubans with a single click, something that has always been the case for over 60 years, only now he gave it a formal veneer. Well, the more “perfect villains” the better—that is the conclusion reached by Mr. Rubio.

Other federal government officials had to parade before Congress, all of them, in one way or another, having been taken to task, because strictly speaking, the task of defending the indefensible—such as the Trump administration—requires not only loyalty but also talent, as they say, something absent in this government.

Exposing Mr. Rubio’s lies remains a priority for anyone with even a shred of ethics; it doesn’t even require much. It’s not just his aggression against Cuba; it’s Rubio against Our America, as Brazilian President Lula aptly warned.

In short, right now, at this very moment, Mr. Rubio is the visible, institutional face of U.S. imperialism—as we all know, the main enemy. And when this is made clear—that is, when the culprit can be identified by name—things become much easier for taking retaliatory measures, for the sake of history, because there are cases where neither forgiveness nor forgetting is possible, and no one holds office forever. Perhaps this logic should be explained to the U.S. Secretary of State.

Source: Cuba en Resumen