Rex Tillerson

Rex Tillerson

Prior offices

U.S. Secretary of State

---

Education

Bachelor's

University of Texas, Austin

Personal

Profession

CEO and chairman of ExxonMobil

Rex Tillerson served as the 69th U.S. secretary of state. He was a member of President Donald Trump’s (R) administration. Tillerson served from February 1, 2017, to March 31, 2018.

Career

ExxonMobil

Before becoming secretary of state, Tillerson spent his entire career with ExxonMobil and its subsidiaries. After graduating from the University of Texas with a B.S. in civil engineering, Tillerson joined the Exxon Company (U.S.A.) in 1975 as a production engineer. In 2004, Tillerson became president of ExxonMobil and a member of the board of directors. He was ExxonMobil's chairman and chief executive officer from 2006 to 2016.

U.S. Secretary of State

Confirmation vote

Nomination tracker
Candidate: Rex Tillerson
Position: Secretary of State
Confirmation progress
a	Announced:	December 12, 2016
a	Hearing:	January 11, 2017
a	Committee:	Senate Foreign Relations Committee
a	Reported:	January 23, 2017 11-10
a	Confirmed:	February 1, 2017
a	Vote:	56-43

Tillerson was confirmed by the Senate on February 1, 2017, by a vote of 56-43. The vote fell mostly along party lines with all Republican senators voting in favor of Tillerson’s nomination. Three Democrats—Heidi Heitkamp (N.D.), Joe Manchin (W.Va.), and Mark Warner (Va.)—and Angus King (I-Maine) voted to confirm Tillerson. Delaware Sen. Chris Coons (D) did not vote.

Rex Tillerson confirmation vote, February 1, 2017
Party	Votes for a	Votes against d	Total votes
Democrats	3	42	45
Republicans	52	0	52
Independents	1	1	2
Total Votes	56	43	99

Senate Foreign Relations Committee vote

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee held a confirmation hearing for Tillerson on January 11, 2017, and backed his nomination on January 23, 2017, by a vote of 11-10.

Resignation

On March 13, 2018, Trump announced that Tillerson would step down as U.S. secretary of state and that he would nominate Mike Pompeo to the position. Trump wrote in a tweet, "Mike Pompeo, Director of the CIA, will become our new Secretary of State. He will do a fantastic job! Thank you to Rex Tillerson for his service! Gina Haspel will become the new Director of the CIA, and the first woman so chosen. Congratulations to all!" He officially stepped down from the position on March 31, 2018.

In response to Trump's announcement, Tillerson praised State Department officials and Defense Department officials for their work and thanked members of the military and the American people. He did not thank Trump. Tillerson said, “I received a call today from the president of the United States a little after noon time from Air Force One, and I’ve also spoken to White House chief of staff [John] Kelly to ensure we have clarity about the days ahead. What is most important is to ensure an orderly and smooth transition during a time that the country continues to face significant policy and national security challenges. ... I’ll now return to private life as a private citizen, as a proud American, proud of the opportunity I’ve had to serve my country."

Tillerson also spoke about the challenges that Russia posed to the U.S., saying, “Much work remains to respond to the troubling behavior and actions on the part of the Russian government. Russia must assess carefully as to how its actions are in the best interests of the Russian people and of the world more broadly. Continuing on their current trajectory is likely to lead to greater isolation on their part, a situation which is not in anyone’s interest.”

Issues

Afghanistan

See also: Federal policy on Afghanistan, 2017-2020

• On August 22, 2017, Tillerson discussed Trump's strategy in Afghanistan and South Asia. Excerpts from his speech appear below.

• On Trump's military strategy: "I think the President did a, I think, fairly thorough job in terms of describing the new military approach. And I think the important point in that is a conditions-based approach as opposed to a time-based approach that had specified troop ceiling levels and timetables, and I think the President’s been quite clear that what is – will be different this time is he has empowered our military commanders on the ground to make more timely decisions, to conduct battlefield operations based upon the conditions on the ground, and with the battle plans that Secretary of Defense Mattis will be approving. That is going to change the dynamic on the ground considerably. These are some of the same tactics that have been employed in the very successful campaign to defeat ISIS in Syria and Iraq, and so I think we’re taking a lot of lessons learned from our success there and we’ll translate those to Afghanistan."

• On the diplomatic strategy in Afghanistan and South Asia: "I think similarly on the diplomatic front, we too are going to adopt a conditions-based diplomacy. We’re going to condition our efforts along with the progress we see being made by the Afghan Government, who must continue the reform efforts that we’ve been working on for some time – in particular, much more rigorous efforts around the anti-corruption. Now, part of the corruption challenge in some respects has been the methods and ways in which we have been delivering some of our aid. We’ve not been as accountable, I think, to ourselves in terms of ensuring that our aid programs, development programs are delivering the results that they were intended to deliver. Some of that has been challenged by the security environment. It’s very difficult for many of our aid workers to operate in Afghanistan. So as the security environment improves, we expect to adopt a different approach as to how we deliver on the development and assistance that supports the Afghan Government in their reforms as well."

• On the Taliban and putting pressure on Pakistan: "I think the President was clear this entire effort is intended to put pressure on the Taliban to have the Taliban understand: You will not win a battlefield victory. We may not win one, but neither will you. And so at some point we have to come to the negotiating table and find a way to bring this to an end. Now, this is a regional approach and part of why this effort took as long as it did is we chose not to just focus on Afghanistan, but we undertook a fairly comprehensive review of our relationships in Pakistan and our relationship with India. And we see this approach as requiring an integration of all three of those strategies, and use Pakistan, India to also bring pressure to bear on the situation in Afghanistan. Pakistan in particular can play an important role here, certainly in delivering the Taliban to the negotiating table. Pakistan has suffered acts of terrorism, their citizens have suffered acts of terrorism as – I think as dramatic as any we’ve seen anywhere. And we stand ready to help Pakistan address terrorist organizations inside of their country, but they must – they must adopt a different approach themselves. Pakistan and the U.S. historically had very good relationships, but over the last few years, there has been a real erosion in the confidence between our two governments. There’s been an erosion in trust because we have witnessed terrorist organizations being given safe haven inside of Pakistan to plan and carry out attacks against U.S. servicemen, U.S. officials, disrupting peace efforts inside of Afghanistan. Pakistan must adopt a different approach, and we are ready to work with them to help them protect themselves against these terrorist organizations, but certainly to begin to end their attacks that are disrupting our efforts at peace. We are going to be conditioning our support for Pakistan and our relationship with them on them delivering results in this area. We want to work with Pakistan in a positive way, but they must change their approach."

• On letting Afghanistan choose its form of government: "And Afghanistan, as the President said, can choose its form of government that best suits the needs of its people – as long as it rejects terrorism, never provides territory in Afghanistan to provide safe haven for terrorists, and accommodates all of the groups represented inside of Afghanistan, ethnic groups and others. How they want to organize themselves is up to them. But we have to recognize that their culture is a tribal culture, and their history accommodates the nature of those relationships. There’s no reason their form of government cannot accommodate that as well. So we want to facilitate a reconciliation peace process, and we will facilitate them coming to some conclusion around how they want to govern themselves. That’s really the essence of the strategy."

Approach to foreign policy

• During a press conference on August 1, 2017, Tillerson discussed Trump's foreign policy agenda. He said, "Clearly, I think President Trump’s agenda is articulated really in the platform he ran on, 'Make America Great Again.' And that’s not just a slogan. I think it’s important that people understand as we deal with the President and in helping him formulate and articulate foreign policy, it is those words, Make America Great Again, that we test our policies against, and how are we representing America’s interest first and foremost. And I think you’ve seen that articulated in many different ways by many different people, but it is what guides our formulation of policy here at the State Department. I think the President has been clear though that when we say America first it doesn’t mean America alone, and we do value our friends and allies; we value our partners. And we recognize and acknowledge our adversaries and our enemies, and we tend to think about our relationships in those types of terms. But as we have said, America first is not America alone. We also are wanting to define with our allies and partners what our expectations are, and I think it’s been long overdue that we have that kind of a conversation with others around the world. We have long, longstanding relationships that all of you know well are embedded in shared sacrifice, but more importantly they’re embedded in shared values."

Carbon tax

• In a 2009 speech, Tillerson advocated for a global carbon tax, a proposal at odds with the 2016 Republican Party platform. He said, “Finally, there is another potential advantage to the direct-tax, market-cost approach. A carbon tax may be better suited for setting a uniform standard to hold all nations accountable. This last point is important. Given the global nature of the challenge, and the fact that the economic growth in developing economies will account for a significant portion of future greenhouse-gas emission increases, policy options must encourage and support global engagement.”

China

See also: Federal policy on China, 2017-2020

• Tillerson met with Chinese President Xi Jinping on March 19, 2017, where he described the state of U.S.-China relations as being guided by "non-confrontation, no conflict, mutual respect, and always searching for win-win solutions." Hours prior to the meeting, North Korea, whose primary trading partner is China, tested a rocket. "Although neither side brought up the subject publicly, Tillerson had been expected to raise the prospect of financial penalties on Chinese companies and banks that do business with North Korea," CNN reported.

• During his confirmation hearing on January 11, 2017, Tillerson called China's activity in the South China Sea worrisome. He said, "Building islands and then putting military assets on those islands is akin to Russia's taking of Crimea. Its taking of territory that others lay claim to." Tillerson criticized the Obama administration for its response to China and added, "We're going to have to send China a clear signal that first, the island-building stops, and second, your access to those islands also not going to be allowed."

• Bloomberg reported on December 14, 2016, that as chief executive of ExxonMobil for a decade, Tillerson "has seen his company snared in territorial disputes in the South China Sea. An exploration venture with Vietnam has brought it into the cross hairs of China, one of the countries claiming the disputed waters."

Climate change

• When asked to share his personal views on climate change during his confirmation hearing, Tillerson said, “I came to the conclusion a few years ago that the risk of climate change does exist and that the consequences of it could be serious enough that action should be taken. The type of action seems to be where the largest areas of debate exist in the public discourse. I think it’s important to recognize that the U.S. has done a pretty good job.” Sen. Bob Corker (R-S.C.) then asked if Tillerson believed that human activity contributed to climate change, to which Tillerson responded, “The increase in greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is having an effect. Our ability to predict that effect is very limited.”

• In 2007, Tillerson began working to reduce ExxonMobil’s carbon emissions. In a speech, he said, “While there are a range of possible outcomes, the risk posed by rising greenhouse gas emissions could prove to be significant. So it has been ExxonMobil's view for some time that it is prudent to take action while accommodating the uncertainties that remain.”

Cuba

• During his confirmation hearing, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) asked Tillerson if he would advise the president to veto a bill passed by Congress removing the U.S. embargo against Cuba, without democratic changes having taken place in the country. Tillerson said that he would. He added that he expected the Trump administration to perform a comprehensive review of all of President Barack Obama’s executive orders in regards to Cuba. He said, “I would want to examine carefully the criteria under which Cuba was delisted from the list of terrorist nations that support terrorism, and whether or not the delisting was appropriate.” He also mentioned Cuba in his opening statement, saying, “Our recent engagement with the government of Cuba was not accompanied by any significant concessions on human rights. We have not held them accountable for their conduct. Their leaders received much, while their people received little. That serves neither the interest of Cubans or Americans.”

Cybersecurity

• During his confirmation hearing, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) asked Tillerson if he would support sanctions against a country in reaction to cyberattacks on the U.S. Tillerson responded, “I would certainly want to examine all the four corners of that. … The threat of cyberattacks is a broad issue and they are coming from many, many corners of the world. Certainly this most recent manifestation, and I think the new threat imposed, in terms of how Russia has used this as a tool that introduces even another element of threat, but cyberattacks are occurring from many nations.” Rubio interjected, saying, “No matter where they come from, if they come from Belgium, if they come from France, if someone is conducting cyberattacks against the United States and we pass a law that authorizes the president to sanction them, or actually imposes these sanctions as mandatory, would you advise the president to sign it?” Tillerson said, “I think it is that second element, senator, that you just described that leaves the executive branch no latitude or flexibility in dealing with the broad array of cyber threats. I think it is important that those be dealt with on a country-by-country basis taking all other elements in the relationship. So giving the executive the tool is one thing, requiring the executive to use it without any other considerations I would have concerns about."

International trade

See also: Federal policy on trade, 2017-2020

• In a 2012 interview, Tillerson discussed American security interests around the globe from his perspective as an oil executive. He said that eliminating oil trade between the U.S. and the Middle East “may redefine the priorities of the relationship, but does it fundamentally change the relationship and our interest in the region and our interest in that -- those peoples and their issues?”

• In a 2009 speech, Tillerson called for an expansion of free trade. He said, “The need for international cooperation provides another opportunity for government to exercise a unique and positive role – by fostering free trade. We know from history that innovation and economic progress depend on the free flow of goods, services, capital and expertise across borders. By enabling advanced economies and innovative companies to create partnerships, work across borders, and train local populations, government can support the most efficient use of resources and human capital. And as we confront our current economic challenges, Congress must resist the urge to turn its back on these proven policies. The United States cannot afford to raise barriers to trade.”

Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal

• During his confirmation hearing, Tillerson was asked if he shared Trump’s opposition to trade deals like the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). Tillerson said, “I do not oppose TPP. I share some of his views regarding whether the agreement that was negotiated serves all of America’s interests the best.”

• During a speech in 2013, Tillerson said that the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal would benefit energy trade between the U.S. and the Asia-Pacific region. He said, "Even when a nation does not have a rich endowment of resources, we have learned that open markets and free trade can bring nations the energy supplies they need. But only governments can open the avenues of free trade. In the years ahead, as the economy and energy landscape evolves worldwide, leaders in the United States and Asia will need to examine how their own policies can support international cooperation and energy trade. One of the most promising developments on this front is the ongoing effort for the Trans-Pacific Partnership. The eleven nations that have been working to lower trade barriers and end protectionist policies under this Partnership are a diverse mix of developed and developing economies. But all of them understand the value of open markets to growth and progress for every nation. The prospects for the Trans-Pacific Partnership were recently strengthened as the participating nations announced they will welcome Japan’s entry into the Partnership. Government leaders across Asia have also signaled they understand the potential value of natural gas trade for their economic advancement. Japan’s trade minister recently addressed an audience here in this city, saying that 'a new flow of LNG supply from the U.S. to Asia would be an essential game changer that would contribute to energy security as well as to economic and geopolitical stability in Asia.' By exporting natural gas – which is currently restricted by federal policies in the United States – the United States could shore up the energy security of Asian allies and trading partners and stimulate investment in American domestic production."

Iran

See also: Federal policy on Iran, 2017-2020 and Federal policy on the Iran nuclear deal, 2017-2020

• During an interview on January 5, 2018, Tillerson was asked if he supported regime change in Iran. Tillerson said, “Well, I think the Iranian people have suffered under this regime, the regime that has – it is a revolutionary government. They describe themselves as a revolutionary government. And the Iranian people have suffered under this regime. Very little good has happened for the Iranian people. Ever since this regime has taken power, they have suffered under economic sanctions because of this regime’s destabilizing activities in the region. At some point, people will decide this is not how they want to live any longer, but we always support a peaceful transition of power. We do not support violent transitions of power, but we do support peaceful transitions of power, and we’ve seen those expressions in years past with the large demonstrations at the elections in 2009, the demonstrations that we see in the streets today. We are supportive of the Iranian people achieving their aspirations for a better quality of life, for greater freedom. We believe they deserve that, but it will be up to the Iranian people to manage that peaceful transition. We support that.”

• During a press conference on August 1, 2017, Tillerson discussed the JCPOA, the formal title for the nuclear deal, and Iran's efforts to destabilize the Middle East. He said, "The conversation on Iran does not begin and end with the JCPOA, the nuclear agreement, and I think if there’s one thing I hope I can help people understand it’s that agreement dealt with a very small slice of Iran’s threats, and that was their nuclear program. And one of the unfortunate outcomes of the intensive effort to put that agreement in place is that agreement was put in place almost to the detriment and ignoring all of other Iran’s destabilizing activities in the region, whether it be their ongoing ballistic missile programs, their export of terrorism, their export of instability in Yemen, their export of foreign fighters into Iraq and Syria. And so while this agreement was being developed, it was kind of like we put blinders on and just ignored all those other things. We come onto the scene and we said, 'That agreement doesn’t speak to a lot of the problems we have with Iran,' so I don’t want people to think that’s what defines either the relationship or the policy with Iran is the JCPOA."

• During the same press conference, Tillerson discussed what he thought were the failures and limitations of the JCPOA. He said, "Well, I think the unfortunate aspect of the agreement is that a lot of the – a lot of the benefits to Iran for signing the agreement were up front. I mean, they kind of got the immediate payoff with the release of a lot of cash to them. They got the immediate lifting of the sanctions before they ever had to deliver on anything. And I think that’s the frustrating part of this agreement is there are limited levers available to us if we’re unhappy with what they’re doing, other than to say we’re not going to waive sanctions going forward. It is important in my view that we coordinate as much as we can with our European allies and with Russia and China, who are signatories as well, because the greatest pressure we can put to bear on Iran to change behavior is a collective pressure. We are in discussions with in particular, our European allies about their view of how Iran is doing under the agreement. They have generally acknowledged that in the past, this – the administration and the U.S. in the past did not lean into Iran very hard, they didn’t demand very much of them under the agreement, and in fact, they want to do the same, so we are getting good agreement from them on leaning into Iran. Again, how the agreement serves our purpose going forward, it’s kind of every 90 days we get to ask ourselves that question, and that’s just something that the U.S. Congress put in place. So it is important in our view that we keep the allies with us."

• On April 19, 2017, Tillerson announced that the Trump administration was reviewing the U.S. policy on Iran. After explaining that Iran was the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism, he said, “An unchecked Iran has the potential to travel the same path as North Korea, and take the world along with it. The United States is keen to avoid a second piece of evidence that strategic patience is a failed approach.” Tillerson also discussed the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), informally known as the Iran nuclear deal, saying, “The JCPOA fails to achieve the objective of a non-nuclear Iran; it only delays their goal of becoming a nuclear state. This deal represents the same failed approach of the past that brought us to the current imminent threat we face from North Korea.”

Islamic State

See also: Federal policy on the Islamic State and terrorism, 2017-2020

• On August 15, 2017, the State Department released the annual International Religious Freedom Report for 2016. The report, which is given to Congress each year, "provides a detailed and factual overview of the status of religious freedom in nearly 200 countries and territories, and documents reports of violations and abuses committed by governments, terrorist groups, and individuals." In the preface to the report, Tillerson highlighted "ISIS’ brutal treatment of religious and ethnic minorities in the Middle East." He wrote, "America’s promotion of international religious freedom demands standing up for the rights of the world’s most vulnerable populations. ISIS’ brutal treatment of religious and ethnic minorities in the Middle East has drawn a great degree of attention over the last few years. The 2016 Annual Report details these atrocities. ISIS has and continues to target members of multiple religions and ethnicities for rape, kidnapping, enslavement, and death. ISIS is clearly responsible for genocide against Yezidis, Christians, and Shia Muslims in areas it controlled. ISIS is also responsible for crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing directed at these same groups, and in some cases against Sunni Muslims, Kurds, and other minorities. The protection of these groups – and others who are targets of violent extremism – remains a human rights priority for the Trump Administration."

• During a press conference on August 1, 2017, Tillerson discussed the Trump administration's ongoing effort to defeat ISIS. Some of his comments appear below.

• On the Trump administration's approach to defeating ISIS: "He [Trump] made some very significant shifts in military authorities to put battlefield command decisions closer to the fight, and I think the results are quite evident. More than 70 percent of Iraqi territory that was once held by ISIS has been liberated and recovered. ISIS has been unable to retake any territory that it has been – that has been liberated, and almost 2 million Iraqis have returned home. And this is really the measure of success, I think, is when conditions are such that people feel like they can return to their homes. The liberation of Mosul has really broken an ISIS stronghold, as you all know, in Iraq. It would not have been possible without the strong cooperation of the Iraqi Government. And these battles have been fought by the Iraqi military and their soldiers with our advisors helping them. The State Department’s role in this has been to follow very quickly as areas are liberated with humanitarian assistance and with efforts at stabilization. So that means securing areas so people feel safe to go home, securing them with local law enforcement – faces they recognize are wearing the police uniforms in their communities, bringing back into the community the previous local leaders who fled when ISIS came in, restoring fundamental needs to the community – power, water, sewage. That’s where we stop. We get the essentials in place. We’re not there to rebuild their communities. That’s for them to do and that’s for the international community to marshal the resources to allow them to do that. We liberate the areas, we secure the areas, we restore essential needs so people can begin to move back in, and we consider our task – at that point, our mission’s largely been achieved."

• On the global war to defeat the Islamic State: "I think our next steps on the global war to defeat ISIS are to recognize ISIS is a global issue. We already see elements of ISIS in the Philippines, as you’re aware, gaining a foothold. Some of these fighters have gone to the Philippines from Syria and Iraq. We are in conversations with the Philippine Government, with Indonesia, with Malaysia, with Singapore, with Australia, as partners to recognize this threat, try to get ahead of this threat, and help them with training – training their own law enforcement capabilities, sharing of intelligence, and provide them wherewithal to anticipate what may be coming their direction. This is a battle that’s going to go on for a long time, and this is the battlefield on the ground. The second battlefield is in the cyberspace, social media space, and the disruption of the messaging that allows ISIS and Daesh to attract new recruits to their cause. So this is also a fight that will go on for months and years ahead."

• On April 11, 2017, after Syrian President Bashar al-Assad used chemical weapons against civilians in Syria, Tillerson said that the strike that damaged the base where the chemical weapons were held would not take the focus off of the United States' priority in Syria of destroying ISIS. He said, "To be clear, our military action was a direct response to the Assad regime’s barbarism. The United States priority in Syria and Iraq remains the defeat of ISIS. We are calling on our G7 partners to sustain the fight against ISIS well after the liberation of Mosul and Raqqa. Whether in Iraq and Syria, online, or on the ground in other countries, we must eliminate ISIS. G7 support will be critical. To stabilize Syria we will need the G7’s direct participation helping settle the conflict in Syria, protecting the civilian population, and committing to reconstruction that eventually will lead to normalcy for a unified Syria."

Keystone XL Pipeline

• On March 9, 2017, the State Department announced that Tillerson recused himself from issues related to the Keystone XL Pipeline because of his former role as chief executive officer of Exxon Mobil Corp. In a letter to Greenpeace, Katherine McManus, the State Department's deputy legal adviser, wrote, "He [Tillerson] has not worked on that matter at the Department of State, and will play no role in the deliberations or ultimate resolution of TransCanada's application." Greenpeace requested that Tillerson recuse himself from making decisions about the pipeline because Exxon Mobil would "directly and predictably" benefit from the approval of the project.

North Korea

See also: Federal policy on North Korea, 2017-2020

• During an interview on January 5, 2018, Tillerson was asked what the U.S. policy was on North Korea. He said, “Our policy is the complete, verifiable, irreversible denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. That is a policy that is commonly held by everyone in the region as well. The Chinese have that as a stated policy. Russia has it as a stated policy. So regionally, all of the countries in the neighboring area, as well as the international community, are well aligned on the policy. How we achieve the ultimate endpoint, the final fully – full denuclearization, the verification of that, and the irreversibility of it, clearly that’s going to take some time. So how we begin the talks is yet to be determined, but we clearly need a signal from North Korea that they understand these talks must lead to that conclusion. The pathway of how you get there, that is the nature of the negotiation. There’ll be some give and take to achieve those objectives. So that’s – that objective has never changed.”

• During the same interview, Tillerson was asked about Trump’s rhetoric in dealing with North Korea. Tillerson said, “I think the rhetoric that North Korea understands is while it is our objective – and the President has been very clear – to achieve a denuclearization through diplomatic efforts, those diplomatic efforts are backed by a strong military option if necessary. That is not the first choice, and the President has been clear that’s not his first choice. But it is important that North Korea, as well as other regional players, understand how high the stakes are in an effort to ensure our diplomatic efforts are fully supported. And I think to date, the diplomatic efforts have been supported very well in the international community. If you look at the three UN Security Council resolutions on sanctions, the participation in those sanctions and a number of countries going well beyond the Security Council resolutions and imposing unilateral actions on their own, both economic as well as diplomatic, I think it is a recognition that the President has demonstrated to the world how high the stakes are. That’s why we must achieve a diplomatic outcome. But the North Koreans have to understand that, and they have to understand that the penalties to them will continue and will only grow more severe in terms of sanctions actions and other actions until they do get on a pathway to achieve that objective that the entire world hopes to achieve.”

• On September 30, 2017, Tillerson said that the U.S. has “a couple, three” channels to directly engage with North Korean officials. He said, “We are probing. Stay tuned. We ask, ‘Would you like to talk?’ We have lines of communication to Pyongyang. We’re not in a dark situation, a blackout.” According to The Wall Street Journal, “While U.S. officials previously have said the government has direct contacts with North Korea despite no formal diplomatic ties, Mr. Tillerson’s comments were a rare high-level acknowledgment.”

• The following day, President Donald Trump said on Twitter, “I told Rex Tillerson, our wonderful Secretary of State, that he is wasting his time trying to negotiate with Little Rocket Man. Save your energy Rex, we’ll do what has to be done!”

• State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert commented on Tillerson’s and Trump’s comments, saying, “The president is right. It is obvious that Kim Jong Un isn’t listening but our mandate is to keep trying and the world stands behind us.”

• On August 13, 2017, Tillerson and Secretary of Defense James Mattis wrote in an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal that the United States’ policy of strategic patience towards North Korea would be replaced with a policy of strategic accountability. They wrote that the Trump administration “is applying diplomatic and economic pressure on North Korea to achieve the complete, verifiable and irreversible denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula and a dismantling of the regime’s ballistic-missile programs.” They made clear that the goal of the policy was denuclearization and that the administration “has no interest in regime change or accelerated reunification of Korea.”

• They also called on China to exert economic and diplomatic pressure on North Korea, writing, “China is North Korea’s neighbor, sole treaty ally and main commercial partner. Chinese entities are, in one way or another, involved with roughly 90% of North Korean trade. This affords China an unparalleled opportunity to assert its influence with the regime. … If China wishes to play a more active role in securing regional peace and stability—from which all of us, especially China, derive such great benefit—it must make the decision to exercise its decisive diplomatic and economic leverage over North Korea.”

• The secretaries said that the U.S. preferred diplomacy but that it would be backed by military options, including defensive preparations like the deployment of the U.S. Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) by South Korea’s government and joint military exercises. They added a final warning to North Korea, writing, “Any attack will be defeated, and any use of nuclear weapons will be met with an effective and overwhelming response. North Korea now faces a choice. Take a new path toward peace, prosperity and international acceptance, or continue further down the dead alley of belligerence, poverty and isolation. The U.S. will aspire and work for the former, and will remain vigilant against the latter.”

• On August 9, 2017, during a press conference while en route to Guam, Tillerson was asked if he had considered re-routing after North Korea said it would direct missiles on the island. Tillerson said, "Well, the North Korean missile capability can point in many directions, so Guam is not the only place that would be under threat. No, I never considered re-routing the trip back, and I do not believe that there is any imminent threat, in my own view." When asked if he thought that there was a longer-term threat of North Korea attacking Guam, he said, "Well, I hope not. Again, what we’re hopeful is that this pressure campaign, which the entire world now has joined us in, and with the engagement of China and Russia, two of North Korea’s closest neighbors – that they can begin to persuade the regime that they needed to reconsider the current pathway they’re on and think about engaging in a dialogue about a different future." When asked if Americans should be scared, Tillerson said, "I think Americans should sleep well at night, have no concerns about this particular rhetoric of the last few days. I think that the President, again, as commander-in-chief, I think he felt it necessary to issue a very strong statement directly to North Korea. But I think what the President was just reaffirming is the United States has the capability to fully defend itself with any attack, will defend our allies, and we will do so. So the American people should sleep well at night." On August 8, 2017, President Donald Trump said, “North Korea best not make any more threats to the United States. He [Kim Jong Un] has been very threatening beyond a normal state, and as I said they will be met with fire, fury and frankly power, the likes of which this world has never seen before.” In response, North Korea threatened to attack Guam.

• During a press conference on August 1, 2017, Tillerson discussed the administration's approach to dealing with North Korea. Excerpts appear below.

• On "peaceful pressure": "We initiated a sustained and continued intensified campaign on what I like to call peaceful pressure, because the options available to us, I think as all of you well understand, are limited, and particularly if we think we are operating under a short period of time. So we felt the appropriate thing to do first was to seek peaceful pressure on the regime in North Korea to have them develop a willingness to sit and talk with us and others but with an understanding that a condition of those talks is there is no future where North Korea holds nuclear weapons or the ability to deliver those nuclear weapons to anyone in the region much less to the homeland."

• On getting China to put economic pressure on North Korea: "China does account for 90 percent of economic activity with North Korea. The Chinese have been very clear with us that we share the same objective, a denuclearized Korean Peninsula. They do not see it in their interest for North Korea to have nuclear weapons, just as we do not see it in anyone’s interest. China has ways that they can put pressure on and influence the North Korean regime because of this significant economic relationship that no one else has. We’ve been very clear with the Chinese we certainly don’t blame the Chinese for the situation in North Korea. Only the North Koreans are to blame for this situation. But we do believe China has a special and unique relationship because of this significant economic activity to influence the North Korean regime in ways that no one else can. And that’s why we continue to call upon them to use that influence with North Korea to create the conditions where we can have a productive dialogue. We don’t think having a dialogue where the North Koreans come to the table assuming they’re going to maintain their nuclear weapons is productive. So that’s really what the objective that we are about is."

• On not seeking regime change: "We have reaffirmed our position towards North Korea, that what we are doing, we do not seek a regime change; we do not seek the collapse of the regime; we do not seek an accelerated reunification of the peninsula; we do not seek an excuse to send our military north of the 38th parallel. And we’re trying to convey to the North Koreans we are not your enemy, we are not your threat, but you are presenting an unacceptable threat to us, and we have to respond. And we hope that at some point, they will begin to understand that and that we would like to sit and have a dialogue with them about the future that will give them the security they seek and the future economic prosperity for North Korea, but that will then promote economic prosperity throughout Northeast Asia. This is going to be a continued effort to put ever greater pressure on the North Korean regime because our other options, obviously, are not particularly attractive."

• On July 28, 2017, after North Korea launched an intercontinental ballistic missile, Tillerson released the following statement: "The United States strongly condemns North Korea’s launch of an intercontinental ballistic missile, the second this month, in blatant violation of multiple United Nations Security Council resolutions that reflect the will of the international community. All nations should take a strong public stance against North Korea, by maintaining and strengthening UN sanctions to ensure North Korea will face consequences for its relentless pursuit of nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them. As the principal economic enablers of North Korea’s nuclear weapon and ballistic missile development program, China and Russia bear unique and special responsibility for this growing threat to regional and global stability. The United States seeks the peaceful denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula and the end to belligerent actions by North Korea. As we and others have made clear, we will never accept a nuclear-armed North Korea nor abandon our commitment to our allies and partners in the region."

• On April 4, 2017, North Korea launched a ballistic missile into the Sea of Japan, which borders South Korea, Japan, and Russia. Tillerson released the following statement in response: "North Korea launched yet another intermediate range ballistic missile. The United States has spoken enough about North Korea. We have no further comment."

• During his first visit to Japan as secretary of state on March 16, 2017, Tillerson reaffirmed the United States' commitment to trilateral cooperation with Japan and South Korea against North Korean nuclear development, including the continued implementation of a U.N. security resolution imposing sanctions against North Korea. He said, "North Korea and its people need not fear the United States or their neighbors in the region who seek only to live in peace with North Korea. With this in mind, the United States calls on North Korea to abandon its nuclear and ballistic missile programs and refrain from any further provocations. The U.S. commitment to the defense of Japan and its other treaty allies through the full range of our military capabilities is unwavering."

Russia

See also: Federal policy on Russia, 2017-2020

• During an interview on February 6, 2018, Tillerson discussed potential Russian meddling in the 2018 election. He said, “I don't know that I would say we are better prepared, because the Russians will adapt as well. The point is, if it's their intention to interfere, they are going to find ways to do that. We can take steps we can take but this is something that, once they decide they are going to do it, it's very difficult to preempt it. ... I think it's important we just continue to say to Russia, ‘Look, you think we don't see what you're doing. We do see it and you need to stop. If you don't, you're going to just continue to invite consequences for yourself.’”

• During the same interview, Tillerson also criticized Russia for supporting the Assad regime in Syria. He said, “They are supporting the Assad regime, they are providing the air cover for the regime. Russia is responsible, they agreed that they would take care of the chemical weapons in Syria, clearly they failed to do that. Russia really needs to move to a different place on this, and they can deny it all they want to, but facts are facts and they need to go to another spot.”

• During an interview on January 5, 2018, Tillerson was asked if the investigations into Russian meddling in the 2016 election hurt relations with Russia. He said, “It has had no impact. And I say that -- It’s had none. It never comes up in our conversations or in my bilats or in my dialogues with world leaders elsewhere. The domestic issues in – around the Russia involvement in our elections are not part of our dialogue elsewhere. I think the rest of the world recognizes it is a domestic issue, it’s an important one. The Russians and we talk about it, and we have said to them, look, it’s a problem.”

• During a press conference on August 1, 2017, Tillerson discussed the U.S.' relationship with Russia, saying that it "was at a historic low since the end of the Cold War and it could get worse." He added, "And the question, I think, of the events of the last week or so is: Is it getting worse or can we maintain some level of stability in that relationship, and continue to find ways to address areas of mutual interest and ways in which we can deal with our differences without those becoming open conflicts as well?" He said that one area of agreement and cooperation is how to handle the Islamic State. Tillerson said that both nations agreed that the Islamic State is a threat and must be eradicated."

• After meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Russian President Vladimir Putin on April 12, 2017, Tillerson said during a press conference, "We frankly discussed the current state of U.S.-Russia relations. I expressed the view that the current state of U.S.-Russia relations is at a low point and there is a low level of trust between our two countries. The world’s two foremost nuclear powers cannot have this kind of relationship. We further discussed approaches to improving our channels of communication." He then said that the U.S. and Russia "both believe in a unified and stable Syria, and we agree we want to deny a safe haven for terrorists who want to attack both of our countries. We agree that North Korea has to be de-nuclearized. We agreed there needs to be more senior-level communication between our two countries, both at a diplomatic and military level." He also discussed issues of disagreement, including the situation in Ukraine.

• Tillerson was also asked about Russia's possible involvement with the chemical weapons attacks in Syria. Tillerson said, "With respect to Russia’s complicity or knowledge of the chemical weapons attack, we have no firm information to indicate that there was any involvement by Russia, Russian forces, into this attack. What we do know – and we have very firm and high confidence in our conclusion – is that the attack was planned and carried out by the regime forces at the direction of Bashar al-Assad."

• On April 11, 2017, Tillerson spoke about Russia's failure to keep chemical weapons out of Syria. He said, "It is also clear Russia has failed to uphold the agreements that had been entered into under multiple UN Security Council resolutions. These agreements stipulated Russia as the guarantor of a Syria free of chemical weapons, that they would also locate, secure, and destroy all such armaments in Syria. Stockpiles and continued use demonstrate that Russia has failed in its responsibility to deliver on this 2013 commitment. It is unclear whether Russia failed to take this obligation seriously or Russia has been incompetent, but this distinction doesn’t much matter to the dead. We can’t let this happen again."

• After President Trump authorized U.S. missile strikes against Syria, Tillerson criticized Russia for failing to prevent Syrian President Bashar al-Assad from using chemical weapons on Syrian citizens. Tillerson said, "Either Russia has been complicit or Russia has been simply incompetent." According to ABC News, "Tillerson pointedly said the United States did not discuss the military strike with Russian President Vladimir Putin or the Russian political leadership in Moscow either before or after it occurred. But the U.S. military said it communicated with the Russian military to minimize any chance of Russian casualties -- in particular Russians operating out of the targeted airfield." Speaking about the strikes, Tillerson added, "The response from our allies in Europe as well as in the region in the Middle East has been overwhelmingly supportive. ... I think it does demonstrate that President Trump is willing to act when governments and government actors cross the line. It's clear that President Trump made that statement to the world tonight."

• After meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov on February 16, 2017, Tillerson commented on the U.S.-Russia relationship, saying, “As we search for new common ground, we expect Russia to honor its commitment to the Minsk agreements and work to de-escalate the violence in Ukraine."

• During his confirmation hearing, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) asked Tillerson if he thought that Russian President Vladimir Putin was a war criminal. Tillerson responded, “I would not use that term.” When pressed further on the issue, he added, “Those are very, very serious charges to make and I would want to have much more information before reaching a conclusion.” Later during the hearing, he said, “I think the important conversation that we have to have with them is does Russia want to now and forever be an adversary of the the [sic] United States. Do you want this to get worse or does [Russia] desire a different relationship? We are not likely ever to be friends. I think as others noted, our value systems are starkly different. … But I also know the Russian people. ... There is scope to define a different relationship that can bring down the temperature about the conflicts we have today. … Dialogue is critical so that these things do not spin out of control.”

• On December 12, 2016, The New York Times reported that Trump would nominate ExxonMobil CEO Tillerson for secretary of state. Tillerson served as president of Exxon Neftegas Limited, the portion of the company that runs Exxon’s operations in eastern Russia’s Sakhalin Island. In 2012, he was awarded Russia’s Order of Friendship, one of the highest honors the country bestows upon non-citizens. Speaking with Chris Wallace on “Fox News Sunday" on December 11, 2016, Trump described what he saw as Tillerson’s strongest attributes, saying, “And to me, a great advantage is he knows many of the players. And he knows them well. He does massive deals in Russia. He does massive deals for the company, not for himself, but the company.”

• In 2011, Tillerson brokered an agreement with Russian President Vladimir Putin to gain access to Arctic resources and authorized OAO Rosneft, Russia’s state oil company, to invest in Exxon's global concessions. In 2014, U.S. sanctions against Russia halted the deal.

Syria

See also: Federal policy on Syria, 2017-2020

• On April 12, 2017, after meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Russian President Vladimir Putin, Tillerson was asked how the U.S. and Russia would handle Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Tillerson said, "Clearly, our view is that the reign of the Assad family is coming to an end, and they have again brought this on themselves with their conduct of the war these past few years. We discussed our view that Russia, as their closest ally in the conflict, perhaps has the best means of helping Assad recognize this reality. We do think it’s important that Assad’s departure is done in an orderly way – an orderly way – so that certain interests and constituencies that he represents feel they have been represented at the negotiating table for a political solution. How that occurs, we leave that to the process going forward. We do not think one has to occur before the other can begin. And it will take a pace of its own. But the final outcome in our view does not provide for a role for the Assad – for Assad or for the Assad family in the future governance of Syria. We do not think the international community will accept that. We do not think the world will accept that."

• On April 11, 2017, Tillerson said that chemical weapons needed to be removed from Syria and that Assad's rule in Syria needed to end. He said, "Well, I think as I just indicated, the strike that was undertaken was in direct response to the use of the chemical weapons by the Syrian regime under the leadership of Bashar al-Assad. And as I indicated, we do believe that it is in the national interest because of the threat that unsecured chemical weapons pose given the chaotic conditions on the ground in Syria. We have a fight going on against ISIS, we have an internal civil war, we have a large presence of al-Qaida individuals, so it is important to us that whatever weapons are there are found, are secured, and destroyed ultimately. In terms of the future of Bashar al-Assad, it is important to us that we undertake a political process that leads to the final conclusion of how Syria will be governed. It is our policy for a unified Syria that is governed by the people of Syria. I think it is clear to all of us that the reign of the Assad family is coming to an end; but the question of how that ends and the transition itself could be very important, in our view, to the durability, the stability inside of a unified Syria, and its stability and durability of the outcome going forward. So that’s why we are not presupposing how that occurs, but I think it is clear that we see no further role for the Assad regime longer-term given that they have effectively given up their legitimacy with these type of attacks."

• On April 6, 2017, Tillerson discussed the administration's response to hundreds of Syrian civilians being injured or killed in a chemical attack in the rebel-held area of Khan Shaykhun. Tillerson said, "Well, obviously, the events that have occurred in Syria with the chemical weapons attack here in the past day have just, I think, horrified all of us and brought to the front pages and to our television screens as well the tragedy that is part of the Syrian conflict. There is no doubt in our minds, and the information we have supports, that Syria, the Syrian regime under the leadership of President Bashar al-Assad, are responsible for this attack. And I think further, it is very important that the Russian Government consider carefully their continued support for the Assad regime."

• When asked if Assad should be removed as president of Syria, Tillerson said, "Assad’s role in the future is uncertain, clearly. And with the acts that he has taken, it would seem that there would be no role for him to govern the Syrian people. ... [T]he process by which Assad would leave is something that I think requires an international community effort, both to first defeat ISIS within Syria, to stabilize the Syrian country, to avoid further civil war, and then to work collectively with our partners around the world through a political process that would lead to Assad leaving."

• When asked if the administration was considering military strikes, Tillerson said, "We are considering an appropriate response for this chemical weapons attack which violates all previous UN resolutions, violates international norms and long-held agreements between parties, including the Syrian regime, the Russian Government, and all other members of the UN Security Council. It’s a serious matter; it requires a serious response."

Terrorism

• During the 2016 campaign, Trump proposed a temporary ban on Muslims from entering the U.S. as well as more stringent vetting practices for individuals from countries with a history of terrorism. When asked if he would support restrictions on Muslims entering the country, Tillerson said, “I think what's important is that we are able to make a judgment about the people that are coming into the country and so no, I do not support a blanket type rejection of any particular group of people, but clearly, we have serious challenges.”

Personal

Note: Please contact us if the personal information below requires an update.
Tillerson is married and has four children.

See also

• U.S. Department of State
• Donald Trump potential high-level administration appointments

• Federal policy on Iran, 2017-2020
• Federal policy on the Iran nuclear deal, 2017-2020
• Federal policy on the Islamic State and terrorism, 2017-2020
• Federal policy on Russia, 2017-2020

External links

• U.S. Department of State

Footnotes

Political offices
Preceded by John Kerry	U.S. Secretary of State 2017-2018	Succeeded by Mike Pompeo