Somewhere off the coast of Venezuela, a speedboat with 11 people on board is blown to smithereens. Vice President J.D. Vance announces that “killing cartel members who poison our fellow citizens is the highest and best use of our military.”
When challenged that killing citizens without due process is a war crime, the vice president responded that he “didn’t give a shit.”
-
- As a vice-presidential candidate in 2024, Vance consistently dismissed accusations of fascism against Trump. He framed warnings from former Trump administration officials, like retired Marine General John Kelly, as politically motivated and centered on policy disagreements, not personality or authoritarian tendencies.
- He responded to CNN’s Wolf Blitzer in May 2024, saying, “I don’t care what you call this, but this is not the America that I know and love,” rather than rejecting the idea that the US could be described as a fascist state.
- Following an assassination attempt against Trump in July 2024, Vance blamed the “authoritarian fascist” rhetoric of the Biden campaign for contributing to political violence. He has also complained about Democrats calling Trump a “fascist,” despite his running mate having used the same term against Vice President Kamala Harris.
- Targeting universities: An American Association of University Professors (AAUP) article criticized Vance for embracing authoritarian tactics used by Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán to seize state universities, calling it an “annihilation of American higher education”.
- Challenging the judiciary: Vance has publicly stated that a president could ignore the Supreme Court in order to dismantle the federal bureaucracy, a position critics say undermines the rule of law.
- Embracing far-right figures: In February 2025, Vance faced backlash for embracing Germany’s far-right AfD party and meeting with its leader at the Munich Security Conference.
- After the September 2025 murder of right-wing commentator Charlie Kirk, Vance and Trump ally Stephen Miller vowed a crackdown on “far-left” groups and rhetoric.
- Vance has claimed that political violence is not a “both-sides problem” and that the “far left” is responsible for a “much bigger and malignant problem,” despite evidence of violence from multiple parts of the political spectrum.
J.D. Vance
Social conservatism on contentious issues
Vance is strongly opposed to abortion, with only limited exceptions (e.g. life of the mother). The Washington Post+1
He opposes same-sex marriage under federal protections, has made moves to restrict gender-affirming care for minors, and has used rhetoric (e.g. “groomer”) that many say stigmatizes LGBTQ+ people. People.com+3Texas Express+3The Hill+3
He holds views on gender roles and family structure that some consider outside the mainstream or regressive, such as strong natalist policies, and particular beliefs about childlessness and marriage. Politico+2People.com+2
Foreign policy and national security concerns
Vance has expressed isolationist tendencies: opposition to U.S. aid to Ukraine, skepticism about the importance of Ukraine’s sovereignty in certain contexts, and suggestions that the U.S. should instead prioritize other borders (e.g. Mexico) or focus more narrowly on strategic interests. Critics worry this undermines U.S. credibility and alliances. People.com+3US News+3NY1+3
Some of his proposals or statements suggest freezing war lines or negotiating in ways that some say reward aggressors. US News+1
Project 2025, ideology, and institutional change
Vance is associated with Project 2025, a conservative blueprint that critics argue aims at major structural changes to government policy, including reshaping institutions in ways that could threaten civil liberties or minority rights. The Guardian+1
He has taken steps toward reshaping culture or ideology in public institutions (e.g. with the Smithsonian), involving reducing what he considers “improper ideology.” Opponents argue this could lead to suppression of free academic inquiry or diversity of viewpoints. Politico+1
Rhetoric and public trust
Some people believe his rhetoric is divisive: using inflammatory terms (“groomers”), framing issues around culture wars, etc. They argue this increases polarization rather than uniting people. The Guardian+3The Hill+3Texas Express+3
Questions have been raised about whether he has been consistent in his beliefs (e.g. past statements vs. current policies), which some interpret as political opportunism. The Guardian+2People.com+2
Effect on vulnerable groups
Critics argue that his stances on LGBTQ+ rights and healthcare for minors may harm young people who are already vulnerable. Texas Express+1
His immigration and border security positions are considered harsh by some, and might separate families or have negative humanitarian impacts. NY1+1
Perceived conflict between values and governance
Some critics think that a strong ideological bent (whether social, cultural, or religious) could conflict with pluralism in the U.S. — i.e. governing a diverse country means accommodating a range of beliefs and rights.