Vice President JD Vance has launched a scathing attack on Jewish Insider following their publication of an article critical of his foreign policy stance on Yemen, exposing a growing rift within the Republican Party over America’s role in international conflicts.
Key Takeaways
- VP JD Vance labeled Jewish Insider an “anti-JD rag” and called its editor-in-chief “the biggest hack in Washington” after they published criticism of his position on Yemen strikes.
- The controversy stemmed from Vance’s private comments in a Signal chat that were inadvertently shared with The Atlantic, questioning the value of military strikes on Houthi rebels.
- Republican senators anonymously criticized Vance’s non-interventionist stance, while Sen. Thom Tillis acknowledged Vance’s consistency despite disagreeing with his position.
- Vance identified factual errors in the Jewish Insider article, which later issued a correction regarding misidentification of a terror group.
- Donald Trump Jr. defended Vance, dismissing the anonymous critics as “cowardly neocons.”
Vance Blasts Media Coverage of His Foreign Policy Views
Vice President JD Vance has responded forcefully to an article in Jewish Insider that criticized his stance on military action against Houthi militants in Yemen. The controversy began when comments Vance made in a private Signal chat with Trump administration officials were inadvertently shared with Jeffrey Goldberg, editor-in-chief of The Atlantic. In these messages, Vance questioned the strategic value of strikes against Houthi rebels, suggesting they primarily benefited European interests rather than American security priorities.
Vance didn’t mince words in his response, taking to social media to denounce the publication as an “anti-JD rag” and referring to its editor-in-chief Josh Kraushaar as the “biggest hack in Washington.” He particularly objected to the article’s reliance on anonymous Republican senators who criticized his foreign policy positions and the publication’s misattribution of U.S. service member deaths to Houthi actions, a factual error that Jewish Insider later corrected after Vance’s complaints.
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.
But the most glaring factual error is the below, which says the Houthis killed three… pic.twitter.com/kzbzrqjIYC
— JD Vance (@JDVance) March 27, 2025
Growing Divide Within Republican Foreign Policy Circles
The Jewish Insider article highlighted tensions within the GOP regarding America’s international military engagements. While Vance represents a more restrained approach to foreign intervention, several unnamed Republican senators expressed concern that his views could confuse European allies and potentially shift traditional GOP foreign policy. Senator Thom Tillis acknowledged Vance’s consistency in opposing American military power projection unless there’s a direct threat to the U.S., though he made clear his disagreement with the Vice President’s stance.
The article’s anonymous sources created additional controversy, with one senator suggesting President Trump might be disappointed in Vance’s position while another framed the internal debate as healthy for foreign policy discussions. The lack of named sources drew criticism not only from Vance but also from Donald Trump Jr., who dismissed the anonymous critics as “cowardly neocons” attempting to undermine the administration’s America First approach to international relations.
Media Accuracy and Journalistic Integrity Questioned
Beyond policy disagreements, Vance’s response highlighted concerns about media accuracy in covering his positions. He specifically pointed to Jewish Insider’s error in attributing U.S. service members’ deaths to the Houthis, calling Kraushaar the “dumbest journalist in Washington” for allowing such a mistake. The publication later issued a correction, acknowledging the error after Vance’s public criticism, but the damage to credibility had already occurred in the Vice President’s view.
The controversy illustrates the ongoing tensions between the administration and media outlets, particularly regarding foreign policy reporting. Vance’s strong reaction suggests frustration with what he perceives as mischaracterization of his views on America’s military engagements abroad. For many conservative observers, this episode reinforces concerns about media bias in covering the administration and raises questions about journalistic standards when reporting on sensitive national security matters.
