Vice President JD Vance sat down with Margaret Brennan of CBS over the weekend, marking his first formal interview since assuming office. As Matt noted in his piece about the exchange, quite a few conservatives have expressed some bafflement and frustration over why Vance would 'reward' that network, and that anchor, specifically. I have some theories on why that choice was made, but as Matt also covered, even many of the critics ended up being pleased with its outcome. In terms of substantive back-and-forth -- and, yes, meme-worthy dunks -- Vance performed quite well, as he so often does in these settings. Vance maintained a hard line on immigration-related topics, getting the better of Brennan across her peppering of challenges. He also easily swatted away her attempted 'gotcha' question on grocery prices:
The best part about this is how pleased Margaret Brennan looks with herself when she thinks she’s stumped Vance, and how you can almost hear her disappointment when he immediately dismantles her party’s talking points
— Ian Miller (@ianmSC) January 26, 2025
pic.twitter.com/oO5aQ4OAKP
NEW: JD Vance continuously shuts down CBS News’ Margaret Brennan after she kept arguing in favor of illegal immigration.
— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) January 26, 2025
I could watch this all day.
Vance: We absolutely cannot unleash thousands of unvetted people into our country.
Brennan: These people are vetted.
Vance:… pic.twitter.com/mZSxg6dwyz
Watch: VP JD Vance camly dismantles Margaret Brennan over executive orders and energy inputs with regard to food prices. pic.twitter.com/SjobTfwOuQ
— Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) January 26, 2025
It's as if these journalists gather much of their information, and do oppo research for their interviews with Republicans (and yes, opposition is how they regard it), on left-wing Twitter. This approach often doesn't end well, especially when the Republicans in question are aware of facts that lead to brutal Community Notes like this one:
Democrats are trying to blame Biden’s high egg prices on Trump. It didn’t work out so well for them pic.twitter.com/q9rPeOGI5O
— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) January 26, 2025
"It's gonna take a little bit of time, right? The president has been president for all of five days" is an effective (and polite) way of handling a question that some might consider unserious and hacktastic. Vance's Face the Nation showing may have won plaudits for how he engaged with Brennan, but what about the criticism of choosing her for his initial Vice Presidential sit-down in the first place? I may be wrong, but my guess is that Vance's team did this very deliberately. There's some history at play, and perhaps even a sense of unfinished business. Vance handily won his debate against Tim Walz, despite CBS News trying to stack the deck against him -- including shutting off his microphone at one point, in violation of an agreed-upon ground rule. One of faces of that display by the network was none other than Margaret Brennan. Relatedly, Vance has thrived in debate/interview settings, and some of the 'interviews' very much feel like debates. Once he found his stride during the campaign (eventually overcoming a significant popularity hole to become the candidate with the highest favorability rating of anybody on either major party ticket), Vance clearly became an asset for the Trump campaign. And his ability to be an asset arguably shone brightest while sitting across from hostile journalists.
My suspicion is that Vance wants to do these types of interviews. He wants to demonstrate that the Trump administration will not shy away from tough questions, knowing that he is particularly well equipped to 'win' the exchanges. He is interested in delivering the president's point of view beyond friendlier precincts, of course, but I don't necessarily think he sees granting these sit-downs as a 'reward' for the interviewer or the outlet. I think he's more likely to see these events as rewards for himself and opportunities to advance the administration's messaging. Given the role CBS played at his lone debate last fall, plus their overall reputation these days, I wouldn't be surprised if Vance intentionally selected Brennan and Face the Nation as a message unto itself, confident that Brennan would represent a useful foil. If that was the calculation, it was the right one. Vance isn't alone in proving that if Republicans are quick on their feet and equipped with facts, they can dominate interviews meant to be adversarial. Here's another recent example from a man who'd be unanimously confirmed as Secretary of State just days later:
THIS IS A MASTERCLASS.
— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) January 18, 2025
WELKER: You support deporting millions of people?
RUBIO: Yes. This is mass migration to the tune of 20, 30 unvetted people. Nobody allows this. 10 million in just the last 3 years.
WELKER: Ok, but in the past, you said you disagreed with mass… pic.twitter.com/j9bHHgX9tp
"No, no, no -- we can't move on." Polite but firm aggression, a refusal to allow unfair or biased framing go unchallenged, an insistence on meeting each point. This is the way. I'll leave you with this answer from Trump about his decision to green-light a Biden-delayed weapons transfer to Israel, showing how sometimes the best answer to a question is the shortest and simplest one:
🚨Trump on Air Force One. Journalist: Mr. President, why did you release the 2,000-pound bomb shipment to Israel?
— Raylan Givens (@JewishWarrior13) January 26, 2025
President Trump: Because they bought and paid for them. 🤣 pic.twitter.com/DytTnsPszv
"Because they bought 'em." This move from Trump is also a statement, in light of recent agenda-driven propaganda from -- you guessed it -- CBS News. Sending these bombs to Israel is a direct and immediate rejection of a dishonest media pressure campaign. Good.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member