Which factions are vying for the party, what are their ideas, and what chance do they have in the midterm and 2028 elections?

On 6 May, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio posted a video on his social media in which he explains his ‘vision for America’, echoing a speech he had made at a press conference at the White House the day before. In this speech, Rubio explains that America is the place where ‘anyone, from anywhere in the world, can do anything’ and describes its history as ‘imperfect but characterised by perpetual improvement’.

This speech was also analysed by CNN, which called it “campaign material for the 2028 presidential election”, and this should come as no surprise. Marco Rubio, in fact, since entering the national political scene during the 2015 Republican primaries, when he ran to become the party’s candidate for the 2016 presidential election, became a figurehead within the party. In the primaries, however, Rubio did not achieve much and withdrew after losing in his own state, Florida, to another Republican candidate: Donald Trump.

Rubio, throughout his campaign, was highly critical of the new MAGA movement and Donald Trump, going so far as to call him a ‘shoddy businessman’ and a ‘crook’. Trump responded in kind by giving him the nickname ‘Little Marco’. Rubio, however, is not the only person within the Republican Party, now extremely close to the Trump administration, who has been highly critical of him in the past. Vice-President JD Vance also brought forward very strong criticism during the 2015-2016 Republican primary campaign, despite not running for office, even going so far as to call him an ‘idiot’ and ‘the Hitler of America’. He is also considered by many analysts to be a possible Republican candidate for the 2028 presidential election.

The Vance- Rubio division

However, these two political figures have very different visions of what the future of the United States should be. JD Vance, since he has stopped openly criticising Trump, has moved closer and closer to the more nationalist areas of the party, while Rubio has always been a Republican closer to the classical conservative area, also referred to as ‘Reaganite’, which dominated the party before 2015. This has often created friction within the administration on key issues, from the economy to foreign policy.

A very important example of the political division between Rubio and Vance concerns the positioning of the United States vis-à-vis Europe. Rubio wants to keep good relations with Ukraine and other European and NATO countries, and in fact, he has found himself very uneasy with President Trump’s threats to annex Greenland. Even, in a speech at the Munich Security Conference on 14 February this year, Rubio described America as ‘daughter of Europe’ and part of Western civilisation itself. Vance, on the other hand, is much more aggressive towards Europe, describing it as a more worrying domestic threat than Russia and China.

This division within the Republican Party is very important to analyse, especially when we consider that the midterm elections will be held on 3 November, which will determine whether the majority of the US House and Senate will go to the Democrats or the Republicans. It will be the first time, since Trump’s re-election, that the American people will be called to the polls to express themselves on the performance of their political class. Right now, the Republicans do not seem to be doing well in the polls, which show that more than 60 per cent of Americans express disagreement with the administration.

The GOP is therefore faced with three possibilities for the next election. The first is to continue using Donald Trump, despite his unpopularity, as an electoral frontman. The second is to propose a new version of the MAGA movement led by JD Vance, more nationalist, religiously rooted and isolationist, which would ensure ideological continuity with the current administration. The third is to return to the ‘Reagan’ and neo-cons origins, proposing instead Marco Rubio as the new face of the party. Depending on the choice they make, incumbent President permitting, will also determine the results of the midterm elections.

What should Europe do?

These elections are very important in determining the medium-term fate of the United States and, consequently, of our transatlantic alliance and the European geopolitical position. Europe, however, cannot be unprepared, so we must organise ourselves for the worst-case scenario. What we need to do now is to continue a process of gradual strategic, economic and military independence from the United States, so that, regardless of the outcome of these elections and the direction Washington takes, Europe is prepared for the consequences and repercussions.

Is NATO really brain dead?

This is because, just as we are not terrified by the outcome of any other allied nation’s elections – elections that should only affect the people of that nation – the same principle should also apply to the United States. It is not possible that every four years Europe has to stand at attention because decisions taken by voters in a nation thousands of miles away, and over which we have no decision-making power, can upset our economic, political and strategic balance.

It would obviously be desirable to have a transatlantic alliance that could bring together the United States and Europe and then possibly all the liberal democracies against the autocracies. This alliance was there, on paper it still is, and it was also very strong, so much so that, after the horrendous terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 on the Twin Towers, Europe ran to the aid of the United States by activating Article 5 of NATO and participating in military operations against the Taliban in Afghanistan. But such an alliance must be based on cooperation between partners who have equal powers, and Europe does not have them at the moment, so it must begin to become independent from the United States. So that we are ready to inherit the leadership of the free world, should the latter continue to isolate itself diplomatically by treating us as ‘parasites’.

On the other hand, the great contradiction of this administration is that when they extol the rhetoric of ‘America great again’, they do not know or do not want to know that their country has become the superpower it is also thanks to the European contribution, with which they invented, carried on and defended a system of order, free trade and globalisation that this administration now wants to destroy.

Trump and his derivatives, in any case, hurt Europe

Be that as it may, it would be preferable for Europe for the Democrats to win in the next midterm or, at the very least, for the Republicans to start distancing themselves from the Trump administration and reintroduce a version of the party that they have unfortunately lost in recent years. A proudly American party and defender of freedom, in opposition to any world regime that restricts it.

The reference of this political idea undoubtedly remains Ronald Reagan, whose legacy also represents a possible opportunity to rebuild those diplomatic bridges with Europe that have cracked during the Trump administration, a legacy that seems to be picked up by Secretary of State and possibly future Republican candidate Marco Rubio.