Staff ReportsVice President J.D. Vance recently demonstrated that he is no stranger to the tough questions that often pepper the world of journalism. During a recent episode of CBS’s “Face the Nation” with journalist Margaret Brennan, Vance took the opportunity to send a few lessons her way—lessons that, given her performance, may not have been necessary if she had been better prepared.
Vance’s debut interview since joining President Trump in the White House quickly set the tone, as he firmly established that his mix of common sense and political savvy would not be easy for Brennan to rattle. She boldly attempted to corner him over the suspension of the Afghan Refugee Program, a move that may have been intended to spotlight Republican shortcomings. Instead, it became a prime example of Vance’s metal. He articulated a standard parents might agree with across the nation: he wants his kids to be safe and believes that proper vetting is essential before bringing anyone into the community. Predictable defense for a conservative, yet effective. Brennan, however, wasn’t about to back down. She tried to counter Vance’s sound reasoning by suggesting some individuals might become “radicalized” after entering the U.S. But Vance quickly dismissed her diversion, asserting that he simply doesn’t want those who could potentially harm American citizens in the country—an assertion likely echoed by many voters.
👇🏻 THIS is one of the many reasons why Americans don’t trust the Legacy Media anymore. This was the reporter that interviewed J.D. Vance, and these are the expressions she made while interviewing him. 👇🏻 pic.twitter.com/OmqxKItERP
— Shane Schaetzel (@ShaneSchaetzel) January 27, 2025
Throughout their discussion, Vance made it quite clear that he wasn’t merely going to play along with Brennan’s narrative. He continually rolled out logical positions while she attempted to question his logic—the typical “gotcha” tactics that were more amusing than substantive. For instance, Brennan couldn’t resist trying to paint the Trump administration’s economic policies in a corner, demanding to know when grocery prices would come down. Vance responded with an economics 101 lesson so clear that it was surprising the host hadn’t previously caught on.
His explanation of the connection between the cost of diesel fuel and grocery prices was both straightforward and undeniably commonsensical. Farmers depend on affordable energy to produce food, and thanks to a few missteps from the Biden administration, energy prices have soared—causing the price of bacon to follow suit. Vance’s point illustrated not just the complexity of economic systems but also how detrimental policy decisions can have immediate effects on the everyday lives of hardworking Americans.
As the interview proceeded, it became evident that Brennan was not equipped to uphold her end of the conversation. Every time she attempted to steer Vance into murky waters, he would simply pull the conversation back to clear, relatable issues, leaving her to flounder. It was like watching a cat play with a ball of yarn, only to realize that the yarn was too tangled for her to grapple with. Vance rolled with the punches, cementing himself as a principal figure who could articulate the concerns of everyday Americans while dismissively swatting away the hypothetical traps set by journalists more interested in the latest tepid talking points.
Overall, Vance’s performance showcased his ability to confront media attempts at discrediting conservative values. If Brennan’s interview aimed to clue viewers in on any supposed weaknesses of the Vance-Trump administration, it, instead, highlighted her inability to penetrate sound conservative logic. In the end, it wasn’t just an interview; it was a master class in political communication, giving the broader audience a lesson in why conservatives often resist the media storm. Vance emerged not just unscathed, but looking like a champion—one who intended to keep America’s interests front and center.
