By all accounts, Marco Rubio has come a long way since his early days as the Tea Party darling in the Senate. Fast forward to today, and he’s no longer just a voice in the legislative chorus—he’s holding two of the most powerful foreign policy posts in the country. For the past three and a half months, he’s been at the helm of American diplomacy as Secretary of State. Now, in a bold move by President Trump, he’s also been handed the reins as acting National Security Advisor. That’s not just a promotion—it’s a potential powder keg. The responsibilities of either office are massive on their own, but combined, they carry the weight of war, peace, intelligence oversight, and the safety of every American family.

What’s more, this arrangement might not be temporary. Rumors are already swirling that Rubio could hold both roles indefinitely, though Trump has floated Stephen Miller as another possible pick for National Security Advisor. In the meantime, Rubio is expected to juggle both portfolios in a world that’s anything but stable.

So, the question isn’t just whether he can handle it—it’s whether he should. Let’s take an honest, measured look at Rubio’s record so far, with our feet planted firmly in the Constitution and our eyes fixed on the truths of Scripture.

Rubio’s Tenure as Secretary of State: Strong Start with a Few Wobbles

Marco Rubio’s time as Secretary of State has, by most fair accounts, been steady and principled. He’s taken a strong moral stance against foreign regimes that actively suppress freedom, persecute Christians, and spread global instability. From day one, he made it clear that the Chinese Communist Party is not just a trade rival—it’s a moral and geopolitical threat. Rubio has consistently condemned China’s abuses, from its genocide of the Uyghurs to its surveillance state tactics and its aggressive expansion into the South China Sea. That kind of clarity is rare in Washington these days, and it’s a breath of fresh air for conservatives who are tired of hearing about “strategic ambiguity” while our adversaries walk all over us.

He’s also done commendable work in Latin America—a region he knows well. Rubio has pushed back against narco-states and corrupt regimes, especially in Venezuela, Nicaragua, and Cuba. He’s reminded America that the Western Hemisphere matters, not just for national security but also for human rights. As Proverbs 29:2 says, “When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice: but when the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn.” Rubio has stood firmly against the wicked rulers who bring mourning to their nations, and that is worthy of praise.

Internally, he’s made efforts to streamline the bloated bureaucracy of the State Department. Instead of throwing taxpayer money at endless “diversity training” or globalist pet projects, he’s focused on trimming waste and putting America’s interests first—where they belong. A smaller, more efficient government is not only a conservative value, it’s a biblical one. In Exodus 18, Moses was told by his father-in-law Jethro to delegate and streamline for the good of the people. Rubio seems to have taken that advice to heart.

But that’s not to say he’s without flaws. One concern among principled Christian conservatives has been his evolving stance on Ukraine. Early in the conflict, Rubio was one of the most vocal hawks in the Senate, calling for robust U.S. military aid, intelligence sharing, and even no-fly zones to counter Russia’s invasion. He framed the war as a clear-cut moral struggle between tyranny and democracy, and I appreciated his resolve. But since becoming Secretary of State, his tone and support for Ukraine has softened. While a shift toward realism is not inherently wrong, the abruptness of Rubio’s pivot gives me pause. It gives the impression of political calculation rather than principle—a trait that I find deeply concerning. If liberty is worth defending, it should be defended consistently, not only when it polls well.

Additionally, while Rubio’s public statements have remained consistent on issues like religious freedom and foreign aid tied to human rights, some critics argue that he occasionally toes the party line a little too closely. Independence of thought—especially when rooted in moral conviction—is something we need more of in D.C., not less.

Two Roles, One Man: Blessing or Blunder?

Now comes the real curveball: Rubio isn’t just Secretary of State anymore—he’s also acting National Security Advisor. That’s a lot of responsibility on one man’s shoulders, especially in a world teetering between peace and chaos.

On the surface, there are a few arguments in favor of this move. For starters, combining the roles could streamline decision-making. With one man overseeing both diplomatic strategy and security policy, you might eliminate turf wars and bureaucratic delays that often bog down action in Washington. In theory, this kind of setup allows for faster, more coherent responses to global crises. And let’s be honest: Rubio is competent, experienced, and trusted by President Trump. That trust can translate into smoother operations, less miscommunication, and a more unified front on foreign policy.

However, this is where the red flags start waving for principled conservatives who believe in checks and balances, not centralization of power. One man holding both positions is not only unprecedented since the days of Henry Kissinger—it’s risky. Proverbs 11:14 warns, “Where no counsel is, the people fall: but in the multitude of counsellors there is safety.” The National Security Advisor is supposed to offer a distinct perspective, often behind closed doors, that challenges the State Department’s more public and diplomatic angles. When one man holds both titles, who’s there to push back? Who’s there to say, “Hold up, this might not be wise”?

There’s also the simple issue of human limitation. These are not ceremonial posts—they are two of the most demanding roles in government. Expecting anyone, even someone as driven and intelligent as Rubio, to do both jobs effectively over a long period is asking for burnout, oversight, or worse. The job of National Security Advisor requires constant coordination with intelligence agencies, military leaders, and the Oval Office. Secretary of State involves flying around the world, negotiating treaties, managing international crises, and wrangling a massive bureaucracy. No man can do both jobs full-time without one of them—if not both—suffering.

This isn’t about Rubio’s work ethic or ability. It’s about stewardship. Scripture teaches us to delegate wisely and not take on more than we can bear (Exodus 18 again comes to mind). It also reminds us that accountability among leaders is a safeguard, not a threat. Even King David needed the prophet Nathan to call him out when he overstepped.

Doing Well, But Don’t Double-Stack the Desk

So, what’s the final take?

Marco Rubio has done a commendable job as Secretary of State. He’s been morally principled, diplomatically active, and administratively competent. He hasn’t been perfect—no one is—but he’s upheld the kind of clarity, courage, and moral seriousness we want in our top diplomat. He deserves recognition and continued support in that role.

However, the move to make him both Secretary of State and National Security Advisor is deeply unwise in the long term. Temporary? Sure—if it’s just a six-month patch while a permanent replacement is vetted, it might be tolerable. But as a permanent arrangement? Absolutely not. It creates a dangerous concentration of power, undermines the very structure of American national security oversight, and ignores the biblical wisdom of shared counsel and responsibility.

Let Rubio continue doing what he’s doing well. But let’s not try to turn him into Superman.