U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s decision to skip the upcoming NATO foreign ministers meeting in Brussels has sent ripples through diplomatic circles on both sides of the Atlantic. The gathering, set for December 3, 2025, is widely regarded as one of the most significant transatlantic events of the year—a stage where the U.S. traditionally asserts its leadership within the alliance. Yet, as reported by Reuters, two U.S. officials confirmed that Rubio will be absent, with Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau stepping in to represent Washington instead.
It’s a move that’s as rare as it is controversial. In fact, the last time a U.S. Secretary of State actually missed such a meeting was back in 2003, during the Iraq war, according to the Kyiv Post. Even then, absences were typically explained by extraordinary circumstances. In 2017, for example, then-Secretary of State Rex Tillerson initially planned to skip a NATO meeting, but the event was ultimately rescheduled to fit his calendar. This time, the reason for Rubio’s absence remains shrouded in mystery—and as of press time, the State Department has declined to offer any explanation.
The timing could hardly be more delicate. The absence comes as U.S. and Ukrainian officials are scrambling to bridge gaps over President Donald Trump’s highly scrutinized plan to end Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. A draft 28-point peace plan, leaked to the media on November 18, 2025, has only heightened tensions. European diplomats, according to Reuters and the Kyiv Post, have voiced concerns about being excluded from the peace process and worry that any deal might tilt too far in Russia’s favor.
Rubio’s absence risks adding fuel to those anxieties. Washington’s commitment to European security has already come under scrutiny in recent years, with President Trump repeatedly questioning the necessity of NATO and suggesting, at times, that America could even pull out of the alliance. While Trump reaffirmed his support for NATO during a summit in June 2025—an event widely seen as a diplomatic success—he also pressed member states to boost their defense spending, warning that the U.S. would no longer "bail them out."
For some, Rubio’s no-show is a worrying signal. "Rubio's absence risks deepening questions over Washington's commitment to European security, which has already taken a hit in recent years," Reuters reported. The U.S. is, after all, the de facto leader of NATO, and the Secretary of State’s presence at such meetings is usually seen as a barometer of American engagement and resolve.
Yet, the State Department has pushed back against the idea that Rubio’s absence is a sign of waning commitment. A spokesperson, as quoted by Reuters, emphasized that the alliance had been "completely revitalized" during the Trump administration, adding, "Secretary Rubio also meets with and talks to NATO allies regularly, including last weekend in Geneva." A senior official echoed this sentiment, stating, "Secretary Rubio has already attended dozens of meetings with NATO allies, and it would be completely impractical to expect him at every meeting."
Some NATO insiders appear less alarmed. A NATO official, speaking to Reuters, deferred to the U.S. regarding Rubio’s attendance and noted that it’s not unusual for some foreign ministers to miss the event. Still, the symbolic weight of a U.S. Secretary of State’s absence is hard to ignore, especially when so much is at stake for Ukraine and the broader European security architecture.
The choice of Deputy Secretary Landau as Rubio’s stand-in has raised eyebrows for another reason. Landau, the No. 2 U.S. diplomat, previously questioned the need for NATO in a June 2025 post on X (formerly Twitter)—a statement he later deleted. According to Reuters, this history has left some European diplomats feeling uneasy about the message Washington is sending at a time of heightened uncertainty.
Meanwhile, the situation in Ukraine remains precarious. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s chief of staff, Andriy Yermak, resigned abruptly on November 28, 2025, just hours after anti-corruption agents searched his home, as reported by Reuters and the Kyiv Post. The move adds another layer of instability to Kyiv’s political landscape, even as peace negotiations with Russia hang in the balance.
Speaking of negotiations, Russia announced on Friday that it had received the "main parameters" of a U.S.-drafted peace plan to end the war in Ukraine. U.S. officials, including Trump’s envoy Steve Witkoff and son-in-law Jared Kushner, are expected in Moscow next week to discuss the details, according to the Kyiv Post. This development has only intensified European concerns about being sidelined from the process—a process that could reshape the continent’s security order for years to come.
For European diplomats, the optics are troubling. Some have complained, as Reuters reported, about being “cut out of the process,” and worry that the U.S. is prioritizing expediency over consensus. The leaked 28-point plan has done little to reassure them. Ukrainian and European officials are wary of being pressured into accepting a deal that’s too favorable to Russian interests, especially as the U.S. appears to be driving the negotiations behind closed doors.
Yet, the State Department insists that American engagement remains robust. In addition to regular meetings with European counterparts, officials point to the Trump administration’s efforts to “revitalize” NATO and keep the alliance relevant in a rapidly changing world. As one spokesperson put it, “The historic foreign policy achievements in just 10 months of this Administration speak for themselves.”
Still, the diplomatic world is not easily convinced. The absence of the U.S. Secretary of State from a key NATO meeting—especially at a moment when Ukraine’s fate and European security are on the line—is bound to raise questions, fair or not, about where Washington’s priorities truly lie.
As the December 3 meeting approaches, all eyes will be on Brussels to see how Deputy Secretary Landau handles the spotlight—and whether Rubio’s absence proves to be a mere footnote or a sign of shifting tides in transatlantic relations.
One thing’s for sure: in the world of diplomacy, even a single empty chair can speak volumes.