Vice President JD Vance slammed a journalist for writing a “hit piece” about his views on foreign intervention in the aftermath of “Signalgate.”
In a Thursday post on X, the vice president criticized a piece written by journalist Josh Kraushaar in the Jewish Insider, which he referred to as “an anti-JD rag.” Vance bashed the piece for “including seven anonymous quotes from cowardly Republicans” who criticized him for arguing against bombing the Houthi rebels in a group chat that inadvertently included The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg.
Vance included a screenshot of the article, highlighting some of the errors Kraushaar made.
But the most glaring factual error is the below, which says the Houthis killed three Americans last January. Actually, the group responsible for that attack was "Islamic Resistance in Iraq," which is an entirely different militia group.
Now, you might say this is evidence of Kraushaar being the biggest hack in Washington, and you *may* be correct. Another very plausible explanation is that he's the dumbest journalist in Washington. Either way, shocking an error like this could get through his vaunted editorial process!
This morning, @JoshKraushaar ran a hit piece against me in Jewish Insider, which has become an anti-JD rag. It has many problems, including seven anonymous quotes from cowardly Republicans.
— JD Vance (@JDVance) March 27, 2025
But the most glaring factual error is the below, which says the Houthis killed three… pic.twitter.com/kzbzrqjIYC
Donald Trump Jr. also chimed in, claiming those who spoke with Jewish Insider were “some of the same ones who have constantly trashed my father behind his back for years.”
How much do you want to bet that the 7 RINO Senators anonymously crying about @JDVance to the leftist media are some of the same ones who have constantly trashed my father behind his back for years? https://t.co/d1QX1DOx7p
— Donald Trump Jr. (@DonaldJTrumpJr) March 27, 2025
The article features comments from several Republican lawmakers who had reservations about Vance’s contention that the U.S. should not strike the Houthis in Yemen because they pose a far greater threat to European nations than the United States. In the group chat, the vice president suggested that the airstrikes were largely about “bailing Europe out again.”
Although some lawmakers have publicly defended Vance’s right to express his views privately, some told Kraushaar that they disagreed with his anti-interventionist stance.
One senator stated that Vance’s position on the matter was “very disappointing,” saying that “It was shocking to me that he didn’t see the need to strike back when they struck our naval vessels.”
Another lawmaker stated that the vice president “has a very narrow view of when the United States should be involved in the world.”
Vance has been an ardent critic of U.S. foreign intervention and has opposed further military aid to Ukraine and getting involved in foreign military conflicts. This put him in the minority when he served as a senator.
However, Vance’s views are more popular among Republican voters, according to a recent Gallup poll. The poll showed that 56 percent of Republicans believe the United States is doing to much to aid Ukraine. About 53 percent of Independents believe the level of support for Ukraine is “too much” or the “right amount” while 79 percent of Democrats believe it is “not enough.”
Among Republicans, there has been a debate between the interventionist and anti-interventionist wings of the party. Vance has been consistent in his opposition to more intervention, a reality that Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) acknowledged. “JD is consistent on this,” Tillis told the Jewish Insider. “He does not like to see the deployment or the projection of American power outside of a direct threat to the United States.”
While many GOP senators disagreed with Vance, some viewed the internal debate as healthy. Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) said confidential conversations allow the president to field candid arguments. “When things aren’t confidential, then people don’t feel free to express themselves,” he said.
The article doesn’t come off as a full-on hit piece, per se. It did include viewpoints from senators who agreed with Vance. But it is clear that most Republican officials wish to continue intervening in foreign matters that may not affect the U.S. directly. These folks are out of step with most Republican voters, who wish to see an end to the government’s interventionist policies.
If anything, this article revealed the fact that too many Republicans want to bring back the days when America was the world’s police – even if that was not Kraushaar’s intent.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member