The One Man JD Vance Trusts Too Much

www.americanthinker.com

Here’s a cynical, unfair political prediction: After the 2026 midterms -- but before the first GOP presidential primary -- JD Vance’s Hindu wife will announce her conversion to Christianity.

Which is a dreadfully unfair prediction, because Usha Vance has given us no reason to suspect her religious choices are anything but heartfelt. To insinuate otherwise is to assume that the Vances would exploit something as fundamental as their faith.

The fact that this idea even entered my head probably reveals something sad and broken about how my mind reconstructs reality. But I still think it’ll happen. Partly because of the language Vance uses when discussing his interreligious marriage:

So, we decided to raise our kids Christian. Our two oldest kids, who go to school, they go to a Christian school… Most Sundays, Usha will come with me to church… Do I hope, eventually, that she is somehow moved by the same thing that I was moved in by church? Yeah, honestly, I do wish that, because I believe in the Christian gospel and I hope eventually my wife comes to see it in the same way… Usha is closer to the priest who baptized me than maybe I am.

And it’s partly because Vance is a politician -- and we shouldn’t underestimate a politician’s propensity for exploitation. (At least one veep candidate went as low as exploiting his kid’s corpse… repeatedly.)

But it’s also because Vance is noticeably reticent to criticize the Groyper wing of the Republican Party.

The Groypers (i.e. Tucker Carlson, Nick Fuentes, and other podcasters) are attempting to push Republicans towards a platform of Christian nationalism, isolationism, white identity, and a cacophony of kooky conspiracy theories (mostly involving the Jooooos; the “Epstein class”). Mainstream Republicans, MAGA leaders, and President Trump have all disavowed their influence.

Yet Vance hasn’t just refused to disavow them -- he’s raced to Carlson’s defense.

From the Washington Times:

Mr. Vance defended [Tucker Carlson] as calls to ostracize him grew after The Heritage debacle, declaring, “Tucker’s a friend of mine” and “I am not going to get into the business of throwing friends under the bus.”

“The idea that Tucker Carlson, who has one of the largest podcasts in the world, who has millions of listeners, who supported Trump in the 2024 election, who supported me in the 2024 election, the idea that his views are somehow completely anathema to conservatism, that he has no place in the conservative movement, is frankly absurd. And I don’t think anybody actually believes it,” Mr. Vance said in the Dec. 22 interview with UnHerd.
Advertisement

Groypers may appreciate Vance’s (reported) opposition to the Iran War, but in a movement obsessed with Christian nationalism and white identity, Vance’s “mixed” family is a dealbreaker. Fuentes has attacked him for it repeatedly.

The vice president can’t change his wife’s ethnicity, of course, but Usha converting to Christianity would let him claim the Christian nationalist mantle -- and do wonders to dissipate Groyper criticism. It’ll also make it less likely he’ll be outflanked on the campaign trail.

So, if Usha Vance is open-minded enough to attend church and raise her children as Christians, then maybe she’s open-minded enough to convert. Especially since it would help her husband’s career.

And if she is, then wouldn’t it make sense to time the announcement to maximize its PR value?

It’s a question worth pondering after the New York Times published excerpts of the new book, Regime Change: Inside the Imperial Presidency of Donald Trump, which covers the Trump administration’s bungled handling of the Epstein files.

(Yes, I know: This is the New York Times. You should be skeptical.)

But Vance hasn’t denied the story; leaks happen, and the quotes were specific enough to suggest that someone in Trump’s inner circle was spilling the beans. (I suspect one of the leakers was Dan Bongino: The quotes attributed to him were verbatim, prophetic, and complementary.)

According to excerpts, Vance offered two ideas to kill the Epstein controversy. The first relied on podcaster Joe Rogan:

Vance argued that if he were the one to appear on Rogan’s show, then only a part of the conversation would be about Epstein. The rest of the interview, he told the group, could be about the president’s recently passed legislation and what it would do for working families.

His second idea relied on another podcaster -- his “friend,” Tucker Carlson:

Vance had also floated to colleagues an extraordinary PR gambit -- that the White House enlist Tucker Carlson to interview Epstein’s longtime girlfriend and co-conspirator, Ghislaine Maxwell, in prison. It might help the president if Maxwell was willing to state that Trump had not been part of any wrongdoing with Epstein.

Idea #1 was strong: Vance has the chops to placate Rogan, debunk the crazier conspiracy theories, and reset the Epstein narrative. It’s a shame it never materialized.

But his second idea would have been disastrous.

If the White House had deputized Carlson as its inquisitor-in-chief, it would’ve interjected a conspiratorial crackpot into the Epstein circus. Carlson has already apologized for falsely accusing one foreign leader; enhancing his credibility by giving him the White House’s seal of approval would have led to chaos.

Do you trust Carlson not to exploit the Epstein controversy for clicks, attention, and his Groyper-friendly worldview?

Even worse, Carlson would gain functional veto power over Trump’s Epstein policy: If you tried to get rid of him, he’d claim he’s being “silenced” by the “Epstein class” -- because this conspiracy is… even bigger than we thought!

I can’t imagine a more destructive PR move than legitimizing Carlson as the Trump administration’s spokesman on all things Epstein!

The book paints the picture of a veep who believes in the power of third-party testimonials: Vance’s first instinct is to leverage his personal media relationships.

But that’s a safer strategy for Democrats, because there’s a natural ideological alignment between liberal reporters and liberal politicians: They’re on the same side; they share the same echo chamber.

Not so with Republicans.

Even savvy Republicans like Susie Wiles have fallen into the trap of assuming journalists are your friends. (Spoiler alert: They’re not.) Republicans can still use this strategy, but for God’s sake, they must be judicious!

And that’s what was surprising: Vance’s stunning lack of judgment. For whatever reason, he has a blind spot regarding Carlson -- a man who’s rallying voters against the president’s foreign policy, apologizing for supporting Trump in 2024, and suggesting that Donald Trump might be the Antichrist.

Where does this leave Vance?

It means voters must carefully scrutinize his media relationships, because he relies on them. They’re his surrogates -- and goodwill ambassadors.

And it also implies that the consequences of his mistrusting a journalist will be considerable. That’s the PR tradeoff: Anyone in the media whom you’ve empowered to help has the power to hurt.

Which means his relationship with Carlson isn’t a trivial thing.

Carlson is a media “friend” whom Vance clearly values and respects. Carlson’s son even worked for Vance. Vance refused to condemn or disavow him.

As for why, his motive is unclear. It could be that he’s just a super-loyal friend. (Which is also problematic; bad friends get good politicians in trouble.) Or perhaps it’s because he shares Carlson’s worldview: Vance won’t refute Carlson because he agrees with him.

Who knows for sure?

It’s hard to avoid being cynical, isn’t it? This is big-league politics, after all -- and at stake is the presidency of the United States.

Which is why I’m sticking to my prediction: Usha Vance will convert to Christianity after the midterms but before the 2028 GOP primaries.

Image: Dept. of Homeland Security