Vice President JD Vance has sparked controversy by calling Jewish Insider an “anti-JD rag” after the publication released an article criticizing his stance on military strikes against Yemen’s Houthi militants using anonymous Republican sources.
Key Takeaways
- JD Vance labeled Jewish Insider an “anti-JD rag” and called its editor-in-chief Josh Kraushaar the “biggest hack in Washington” following publication of an article criticizing his foreign policy positions.
- The controversy began when Vance’s comments from a Signal chat questioning the strategic value of striking Houthi rebels were inadvertently shared with The Atlantic.
- Several Republican senators anonymously expressed concerns that Vance’s non-interventionist stance could confuse European allies and shift GOP foreign policy.
- Vance pointed out factual errors in the Jewish Insider article, including misidentifying which terror group was responsible for U.S. service member deaths.
- Donald Trump Jr. defended Vance, dismissing the anonymous senators as “cowardly neocons.”
The Signal Chat Controversy Explained
The controversy originated from a Jewish Insider article about Vance’s comments in a Signal chat that were inadvertently shared with Jeffrey Goldberg, editor-in-chief of The Atlantic. In these messages, Vance questioned the strategic value of military strikes against Houthi rebels in Yemen, suggesting they primarily benefited European interests rather than American ones. This stance, emphasizing a more restrained foreign policy approach, apparently put Vance at odds with some members of his own party who favor more interventionist policies.
The article portrayed Vance as isolated within his party and potentially misaligned with national security priorities. It relied heavily on anonymous criticism from Republican senators concerned that Vance’s non-interventionist stance could fundamentally shift GOP foreign policy direction. The publication’s presentation suggested Vance’s views might perplex European allies at a time when clear messaging is seen as crucial in international relations.
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
Vance’s Forceful Response
Vance did not hold back in his response to the article, taking to social media to label it a “hit piece” and specifically targeting its editor-in-chief. He expressed particular frustration with the publication’s reliance on unnamed sources for criticism. The Vice President pointed out a significant factual error in the article regarding the attribution of U.S. service members’ deaths to the Houthis, which he used to question the overall credibility and journalistic standards of the publication.
Vance’s office later referred to a statement from Donald Trump Jr., who characterized the anonymous senators as “cowardly neocons.” The criticism of anonymity in such reporting suggests a broader concern about accountability in political discourse and potential damage to public trust. Following Vance’s pointed comments about the factual errors, the Jewish Insider ultimately issued a correction to their article, tacitly acknowledging the validity of at least some of Vance’s complaints.
Republican Reactions to Vance’s Foreign Policy
Republican Senator Thom Tillis acknowledged Vance’s consistency in opposing American military projection abroad unless there’s a direct threat to the U.S., while noting his own disagreement with this position. This highlights the divide within the Republican party over foreign policy approaches. Some senators have expressed concern that Vance’s views might send confusing signals to European allies about America’s commitment to global security partnerships and mutual defense obligations.
The internal GOP debate reflects broader tensions about America’s role on the global stage. One senator mentioned President Trump might be disappointed in Vance’s stance, while another portrayed the debate as healthy for developing robust foreign policy positions. This diversity of views illustrates the ongoing evolution of Republican foreign policy thinking in the post-Trump era, with different factions advocating for more nationalist or internationalist approaches to America’s global positioning.
