The following is an adaptation of an argument of Serre, explaining why there shouldn't be a universal cohomology theory for $\mathbb{F}_p$ varieties taking values in $\mathbb{Q}$ vetor spaces. Be warned that this is not my field, so I may be missing something basic.

Let $p$ be a prime which is $3 \bmod 4$, let $X$ be the elliptic curve $y^2 = x^3-x$ over $\mathbb{Q}_p$ and let $Y$ be the base change of $X$ to $\mathbb{Q}_p(i)$. In any of the cohomology theories you describe, $H^1(X)$ and $H^1(Y)$ are two dimensional. In etale cohomology, $H^1(X) \cong H^1(Y)$; in $p$-adic cohomologies I believe you usually have $H^1(X) \otimes_{\mathbb{Q}_p} \mathbb{Q}_p(i) \cong H^1(Y)$. I assume in your hypothetical $\mathbb{Q}$-valued theory, you would have $H^1(X) \cong H^1(Y)$.

Let $F$ be the Frobenius automorphism of $H^1(X)$; let $J$ be the automorphism of $H^1(Y)$ induced by $(x,y) \mapsto (-x, iy)$. Identifying $H^1(X)$ and $H^1(Y)$, these maps should obey the relations $$F^2 = -p \quad J^2 = -1 \quad FJ=-JF$$ These equations are not solvable in $2 \times 2$ matrices over $\mathbb{Q}$ (or even over $\mathbb{R}$).

So any theory would have to be "unnatural" enough that this is not an obstacle.

The category of motives is designed to be the recipient of a universal cohomology theory. It gets around this issue by being $\mathbb{Q}$-linear, meaning that $\mathrm{Hom}(U,V)$ is a $\mathbb{Q}$-vector space for any motives $U$ and $V$, but not having a natural functor to $\mathbb{Q}$-vector spaces, so the motives themselves cannot be thought of as $\mathbb{Q}$-vector spaces.

I don't know if there is any way in which motives over $p$-adic fields are better than motives over general fields.

The following is an adaptation of an argument of Serre, explaining why there shouldn't be a universal cohomology theory for $\mathbb{F}_p$ varieties taking values in $\mathbb{Q}$ vector spaces. Be warned that this is not my field, so I may be missing something basic.

Let $p$ be a prime which is $3 \bmod 4$, let $X$ be the elliptic curve $y^2 = x^3-x$ over $\mathbb{Q}_p$ and let $Y$ be the base change of $X$ to $\mathbb{Q}_p(i)$. In any of the cohomology theories you describe, $H^1(X)$ and $H^1(Y)$ are two dimensional. In etale cohomology, $H^1(X) \cong H^1(Y)$; in $p$-adic cohomologies I believe you usually have $H^1(X) \otimes_{\mathbb{Q}_p} \mathbb{Q}_p(i) \cong H^1(Y)$. I assume in your hypothetical $\mathbb{Q}$-valued theory, you would have $H^1(X) \cong H^1(Y)$.

Let $F$ be the Frobenius automorphism of $H^1(X)$; let $J$ be the automorphism of $H^1(Y)$ induced by $(x,y) \mapsto (-x, iy)$. Identifying $H^1(X)$ and $H^1(Y)$, these maps should obey the relations $$F^2 = -p \quad J^2 = -1 \quad FJ=-JF$$ These equations are not solvable in $2 \times 2$ matrices over $\mathbb{Q}$ (or even over $\mathbb{R}$).

So any theory would have to be "unnatural" enough that this is not an obstacle.

The category of motives is designed to be the recipient of a universal cohomology theory. It gets around this issue by being $\mathbb{Q}$-linear, meaning that $\mathrm{Hom}(U,V)$ is a $\mathbb{Q}$-vector space for any motives $U$ and $V$, but not having a natural functor to $\mathbb{Q}$-vector spaces, so the motives themselves cannot be thought of as $\mathbb{Q}$-vector spaces.

I don't know if there is any way in which motives over $p$-adic fields are better than motives over general fields.

The following is an adaptation of an argument of Serre, explaining why there shouldn't be a universal cohomology theory for $\mathbb{F}_p$ varieties taking values in $\mathbb{Q}$ vetor spaces. Be warned that this is not my field, so I may be missing something basic.

Let $p$ be a prime which is $3 \bmod 4$, let $X$ be the elliptic curve $y^2 = x^3-x$ over $\mathbb{Q}_p$ and let $Y$ be the base change of $X$ to $\mathbb{Q}_p(i)$. In any of the cohomology theories you describe, $H^1(X)$ is naturally isomorphic to $H^1(Y)$, and both are two dimensional. Let $F$ be the Frobenius automorphism of $H^1(X)$; let $J$ be the automorphism of $H^1(Y)$ induced by $(x,y) \mapsto (-x, iy)$. Identifying $H^1(X)$ and $H^1(Y)$, these maps obey the relations $$F^2 = -p \quad J^2 = -1 \quad FJ=-JF$$ These equations are not solvable in $2 \times 2$ matrices over $\mathbb{Q}$ (or even over $\mathbb{R}$).

So any theory would have to be "unnatural" enough that this is not an obstacle.

The category of motives is designed to be the recipient of a universal cohomology theory. It gets around this issue by being $\mathbb{Q}$-linear, meaning that $\mathrm{Hom}(U,V)$ is a $\mathbb{Q}$-vector space for any motives $U$ and $V$, but not having a natural functor to $\mathbb{Q}$-vector spaces, so the motives themselves cannot be thought of as $\mathbb{Q}$-vector spaces.

I don't know if there is any way in which motives over $p$-adic fields are better than motives over general fields.

The following is an adaptation of an argument of Serre, explaining why there shouldn't be a universal cohomology theory for $\mathbb{F}_p$ varieties taking values in $\mathbb{Q}$ vetor spaces. Be warned that this is not my field, so I may be missing something basic.

Let $p$ be a prime which is $3 \bmod 4$, let $X$ be the elliptic curve $y^2 = x^3-x$ over $\mathbb{Q}_p$ and let $Y$ be the base change of $X$ to $\mathbb{Q}_p(i)$. In any of the cohomology theories you describe, $H^1(X)$ and $H^1(Y)$ are two dimensional. In etale cohomology, $H^1(X) \cong H^1(Y)$; in $p$-adic cohomologies I believe you usually have $H^1(X) \otimes_{\mathbb{Q}_p} \mathbb{Q}_p(i) \cong H^1(Y)$. I assume in your hypothetical $\mathbb{Q}$-valued theory, you would have $H^1(X) \cong H^1(Y)$.

Let $F$ be the Frobenius automorphism of $H^1(X)$; let $J$ be the automorphism of $H^1(Y)$ induced by $(x,y) \mapsto (-x, iy)$. Identifying $H^1(X)$ and $H^1(Y)$, these maps should obey the relations $$F^2 = -p \quad J^2 = -1 \quad FJ=-JF$$ These equations are not solvable in $2 \times 2$ matrices over $\mathbb{Q}$ (or even over $\mathbb{R}$).

So any theory would have to be "unnatural" enough that this is not an obstacle.

The category of motives is designed to be the recipient of a universal cohomology theory. It gets around this issue by being $\mathbb{Q}$-linear, meaning that $\mathrm{Hom}(U,V)$ is a $\mathbb{Q}$-vector space for any motives $U$ and $V$, but not having a natural functor to $\mathbb{Q}$-vector spaces, so the motives themselves cannot be thought of as $\mathbb{Q}$-vector spaces.

I don't know if there is any way in which motives over $p$-adic fields are better than motives over general fields.