Tipsheet

Why Did JD Vance Grant His First Vice Presidential Interview to Margaret Brennan and CBS News?

Guy Benson
Guy Benson  |  January 28, 2025 10:25 AM

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:


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:


"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:


"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:

Recommended

Possibly The Dumbest Example Of Waste DOGE Has Discovered (So Far) Derek Hunter
Maine Governor Janet Mills: Leader Of The New Confederate States of America Tom Tradup


"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.