Senator J.D. Vance on Face the Nation

Well, thank you for having us out here to Ohio. President Trump has said you are outstanding but, when you look at what decides elections, the vice presidential pick rarely matters. How are you going to prove him wrong?

Well, I think President Trump’s right about that, actually. I think most people are voting for Donald Trump or for Kamala Harris. Donald Trump delivered rising wages in a secure border, Kamala Harris has delivered an open border and falling wages relative to inflation and groceries and housing and so forth. So, I think that he’s actually right that, most people, when they cast their ballots, they’re basing it based on who the presidential nominee is not the vice presidential nominee. It’s just straightforward political reality, I think Donald Trump’s right.

So, you are there to deliver some of the punches?

Well, I’m there to help define our opposition a little bit. I think that, unfortunately, Kamala Harris has run a campaign where, every time she’s in front of voters, a teleprompter is in between. She doesn’t really talk to the media at all. She has an answer that, I think, it’s single tough question from a reporter. So, yeah, one of my jobs is to get out there and just make sure the American people know that this is a person who supported open borders, who suspended deportations, who stopped the Remain in Mexico policy that kept a lot of Americans safe. And of course, my job is to help govern once we actually get elected. But I think, again, most people are voting for Donald Trump or for Kamala Harris, that’s just the way it is.

So, let’s talk about the vision for the country that you’re offering. You supported the Supreme Court ruling recently on mifepristone, the so-called abortion pill, that ruled opponents lacked the legal right to sue over the FDA approval.

Sure. That’s right.

This drug is used in 60% of all abortions in the United States. In a Trump-Vance administration, would you use the FDA to block access to this drug?

Well, no. What the president has said very clearly is that abortion policy should be made by the states. You, of course, want to make sure that any medicine is safe, that it’s prescribed in the right way and so forth but the president wants individual states to make these decisions. Because, look, Margaret, California’s going to have a different abortion policy from Ohio which is going to have a different abortion policy from Alabama.

Right. But that was actually different because, after Dobbs, the Supreme Court took up this case.

Yeah. But like you said-

They viewed it as different.

Sure. But like you said, on a matter of legal standing. But I think that what we really want is, when states and voters in those states make decisions, we of course want the states and the federal government to respect those decisions and that’s what President Trump has said. It’s consistently we need to get out of the culture war side of the abortion issue, we need to let the states decide their specific abortion policy. And look, what President Trump and I want to do on family policy is make it easier for families to start in the first place. We want to bring down housing costs so that, if you have a baby, there’s actually a place to raise that baby. We want to increase and expand the child tax credit, we want to make it easier for moms and dads to not be shocked by these surprise medical bills when they go to an out-of-network provider.

(02:53)
We’re working on all this stuff and I think that’s ultimately how we turn down the temperature a little bit is to make easier to choose life in the first place. Because when you talk to women, you talk to moms and dads, a lot of times they feel, if you have a pregnancy, especially an unexpected pregnancy, there just aren’t options. We want to provide more options so that people are raising families in a thriving and happy way in this country.

So, at his presser this past week, Donald Trump seemed to indicate he was open to restrictions on mifepristone. He was asked by a reporter about this and he said there are many things on a humane basis that you can do but also give a vote. So, he did seem to be indicating he’s open to restrictions on this particular drug.

Look, I think what he said-

Are you saying that’s wrong?

Well, I think what he said, Margaret, is, first of all, even some of the reporters who were in the room in that press conference said it wasn’t clear what the reporter was asking, maybe he couldn’t hear that person super clearly. So I don’t want to put words in President Trump’s mouth. What he has said very clearly in the debate is that he agrees with the Supreme Court decision but, more importantly, he wants these decisions to be made by the states. I think that is the President Trump vision for the Republican Party.

Because you personally signed on as the senator to a letter to the DOJ demanding it shut down all mail order abortion operations under the Comstock Act. So, would you seek to enforce that law differently?

Well, what we said in that letter, Margaret, is that we want doctors to prescribe this stuff to ensure that it’s safe. And we do this with antibiotics, we do this with a lot of antidepressants-

Well, the FDA says it is.

… and we just want the FDA to make sure that doctors are prescribing this in a safe way. That’s all that we ever said and I believe that that is how President Trump feels about this. Is, again, you want the states to make these determinations, you also want to make sure the FDA A is ensuring that these medications are safe for anybody who’s taking them.

It’s been on the market for decades and the FDA does say it is safe but would … Where a doctor-

Well, antibiotic … Margaret, antibiotics are safe but we want to make sure they’re prescribed by doctors and that doctors are properly monitoring this stuff so that people don’t get hurt.

Of course, but-

And, Margaret, we’ve talked now for, I think, for six questions about abortion.

I’m still trying to get a clear answer.

And I gave you one.

So, for an FDA commissioner that you would be part of choosing, where that commissioner stands on this drug, would that determine whether or not they are chosen to be put in this key role?

I think President Trump has clearly said there are no litmus tests on this particular issue, he just wants to make sure that drugs are safe and effective before they’re out there in the market and, of course, that doctors are properly controlling this stuff so that people don’t get hurt. And again, Margaret, we talk about abortion, I think President Trump’s views on abortion are extremely clear. What’s interesting, of course, is that President Trump is trying to find some common ground on this issue and you have Democrats who have supported abortion right up to the moment and sometimes even beyond the moment of birth which is just sick stuff. And I think it’s such a contrast-

That’s not accurate.

It is accurate. In fact, the Born-Alive Act, multiple members of the current Democratic administration, including our vice president, supported that legislation, they have supported taxpayer-funded abortions up to the moment of birth. I just think it’s bizarre and you contrast it to Donald Trump who’s trying to find some common ground on this issue. What he’s trying to do-

Well, actually, he’s saying send it back to the states so he doesn’t have to stake out a position on that. But-

No, send it to the states so that the states … Margaret, that’s an important part of our federal process is that states sometimes are going to make these decisions for themselves and I think that’s how you find some common ground.

But on that, you were saying both that it should be doctors who determine the safety of a drug but also that states should determine the availability of that drug. Do I have that right?

Well, no. That states are going to determine their abortion policy and, of course, doctors are going to determine the safety of drugs.

And if 60% are through medication abortion, it brings us back to the pill. That’s why I was asking you that.

Well, but, again, states are going to make these decisions. I’m actually confused a little bit by the question, Margaret. Because if Alabama, let’s say, is going to have a different abortion policy from California, that’s not inconsistent within saying doctors are going to have to prescribe this stuff whatever the individual policy of the state is. I’m not sure what the confusion is there.

I don’t know. President Trump said there are some humane things that could be done in addition to the [inaudible 00:07:01].

Again, in a loud room where he couldn’t hear the question super well. But I think his view on this has been very clear and I’ve just articulated it.

We want to clarify what Senator Vance said about the Born-Alive Survivors Protection Act and his claim that Vice President Harris supported the legislation. A CBS news fact-check finds Harris voted against advancing the bill twice when she was a senator and has previously called it extreme and a setback to reproductive rights in America. We found no evidence that anyone who currently serves in the Biden administration voted for it either. Here’s more of our interview.

(07:34)
So, let me talk … You talked about family policy so I have some specific questions for you on that.

Please.

You’ve been talking about the concern about the low birth rate in the United States of America which is well documented. You said people without children should pay higher tax rates than those who have children and the US should look at lowering income tax rates on women’s who have multiple children and you pointed to Hungary as a model for that. How do you plan to implement that policy?

Well, it’s called the child tax credit and we should expand the child tax credit. If you think about what the child tax credit does-

So, you and the Biden administration agree on the child care tax credit?

Well, we think it should be bigger. I think President Trump and I believe in the expanded child tax credit but we also, importantly, want to actually get this thing done. The child tax credit has languished thanks to the Biden administration because Harris has failed to show fundamental leadership, Chuck Schumer’s have been unable to get it through the United States Senate and we want to have a more pro-family policy. Now, you asked about my-

There was just a vote on this, you know that and you weren’t there.

But, Margaret-

It was a messaging bill, I’ll give you that.

It was a show vote.

I’m with you on that but-

And if I had been there, it would’ve failed and I was-

So, tell me specifically what you want to do to expand the child care tax credit because it’s two grand per kid right now.

Well, I think one of the things that you can do is make it bigger per child. I think we’d love to see it at a higher dollar value. And again, President Trump and I have proposed that.

Do you have a number in mind?

Look, I’d love to see a child tax credit that’s $5,000 per child but you, of course, have to work with Congress to see how possible and viable that is. We’ve also proposed legislation, Margaret, to end this practice of parents getting these surprise medical bills where they go to the hospital, they have a baby, they chose an out-of-network provider and they come home with unexpected bills. I’ve actually sponsored legislation to end that practice. So, we have a whole host of pro-family policies that are out there. And again, on the Harris administration, I got to push back against something a little bit, Margaret. Because when these comments where I said parents should pay lower taxes via the child tax credit came out, the Harris administration immediately jumped and said we disagree with this. The Harris campaign said we disagree with this.

(09:31)
So, do they want the elimination of the child tax credit or were they just being careless and responding to remarks that I made three years ago? I don’t know. They should clarify it maybe in an interview with you but ,of course, Kamala Harris refuses to do interviews with anybody.

Well, we hope to have her on and ask her about that.

Me too.

So, the childcare tax rate, you said 5,000 per child is what you’d like to get to. Where would that kick in? Because the current one, if income is 400,000 or below, it’s $2,000 per child. So, where would the 5,000 per child kick in there?

I’d like to have a broad-based family policy and a broad-based child tax credit, Margaret. Again, we’ve talked about doing this for a long time, President Trump has been on the record for a long time supporting a bigger child tax credit and I think you want it to apply to all American families. I don’t think that you want this massive cut-off for lower income families which you have right now, you don’t want a different policy for higher income families, you just want to have a pro-family child tax credit.

So, you have personally opposed universal childcare. How do you solve the childcare crisis in America?

Well, what I’ve opposed is one model of childcare. We, of course, want to give everybody access to childcare. But look, in my family, I grew up in a poor family where the childcare was my grandparents and a lot of these childcare proposals do nothing for grandparents. If you look at some of these proposals, they do nothing for stay-at-home moms or stay-at-home dads. I want us to have a childcare policy that’s good for all families, not just a particular model of family and that’s what I’ve said.

So, what do you mean by that? There would be a credit per kid if it’s a stay-at-home mom, credit per kid if it’s grandma?

Exactly.

They’d get a check to take care of your-

That’s exactly what I propose. Now, that’s exactly what we’ve proposed both publicly and I’ve talked about doing privately, I’m just saying that I don’t want us to favor one family model over another. If you’ve got grandparents who are at home taking care of the kids, I think they deserve to be treated the same way as other family models by their government.

Gay families, they’d be included? All families?

All families would be included.

Okay.

Of course, all families would be included.

So, I was looking at the platform, the Trump-Vance platform that was rolled out at the RNC. You talk about school choice, you talk about 529 savings accounts. What about really young kids? Should three and four-year-old kids have access to preschool?

Well, look, I think that, certainly, some families are going to choose that but, again, families are going to choose grandparents and so forth. I think our view-

Well, that’s child care, that’s different than preschool.

Well, our view … Well, very often, preschool is child care. It’s at least a form of child care. I know that, when I went to preschool, my parents used-

Your kids went to preschool.

Yeah. And we use it as child care, right? You’re hoping the kids get a good education but you’re also doing it because you want to provide child care for your kids, I don’t think there’s anything incongruous or inconsistent about that. And I think, look, we believe that we want to make it easier for American families, Margaret, to make their own choices on this stuff. When we talk about school choice, of course, school choice would apply to all families, that would apply to all parents and we would just want parents to have choices. And I think-

Including for preschool? Because in many public school systems, there is no preschool. That’s why I’m asking.

I think that we want parents to have choices, Margaret. Like I just said, we want them to be able to make the choices that make the most sense for their family. For some it’s going to be preschool, for some it’s going to be daycare, for some it’s going to be having the kids stay at home a little bit longer. We just want the government to treat everybody equally regardless of whatever education or family model you have.

So, you have a very young family.

I do.

You have a very accomplished wife, Usha, who … She went to-

I’m very proud of her.

Yes. Yale, Cambridge, she clerked at the Supreme Court, we heard her on stage at the RNC. You gave a recent interview to Megyn Kelly and you spoke about white supremacists attacking your family because she’s not a white person. How concerned are you that this kind of hate would follow you to the White House?

Well, look, it’s going to follow us wherever we go because that’s the nature of public life in America and it’s disgraceful. Look, I love my wife, I’m very proud of her, I’m extremely lucky to have met her and to have gotten the chance to build a life with her. And my attitude on this is, if people want to attack me, attack my policy views, they’re welcome to. I signed up for it, my wife didn’t sign up for it. And by the way, she’s way out of their league, the people who are attacking her. So, I wish they would just keep their mouths shut or at least focus on me. But look, it’s the nature of public life in this country. My wife’s pretty tough and she knows what we signed up for.

I imagine it’s hard to keep your temper when you hear things like that.

Yeah, I get pissed off sometimes, certainly.

Yeah.

When people attack your family and certainly attack your family for something that no person can control. And I do think that there’s been this thing in America where we’ve said that we should judge people based on their skin color, based on their immutable characteristics, based on things that they can’t control. I frankly think that, unfortunately, a lot of people on the left have leaned into this by trying to categorize people by skin color and then give special benefits or special amounts of discrimination. The Harris administration, for example, handed out farm benefits to people based on skin color, I think that’s disgraceful. I don’t think we should say you get farm benefits if you’re a Black farmer, you don’t get farm benefits if you’re a white farmer. All farmers, we want to thrive and that’s certainly the President Trump and J.D. Vance view of the situation.

(14:47)
But I do think, unfortunately, when our leaders divide us by race, you’re going to have hate on the left side of the political spectrum, you’re going to have hate on the right side of the political spectrum. We should just judge people based on individual characteristics and based on merit and that’s certainly what President Trump and I want to do.

But that wasn’t born in the last four years. One of the-

Oh, no, not at all but I think that President Biden and Harris have certainly accelerated it. I don’t think you’ve seen anything like what we’ve seen from Kamala Harris when it comes to handing out government benefits based on people’s immutable characteristics. The actual legal enshrinement of discrimination in this country, we haven’t seen anything like in the last 30 or 40 years. Certainly, back in the ’60 and ’50s, we all look at that as a period that we wanted to get away from and, in some ways, the Harris administration has re-implemented it, I think it’s pretty disgraceful.

Well, in your own movement, that’s what I want to ask about. Because one of the supremacists who was saying things like this about your family, Nick Fuentes, an avowed anti-Semite went after your wife. He had previously dined at Mar-a-Lago with Donald Trump. Does this have any room in your movement, in the MAGA movement?

Of course, it doesn’t have any room in the MAGA movement and, of course-

Would you disavow him and this?

And, of course, Donald Trump has criticized this person. Look, I think the guy’s a total loser, certainly, I disavow him. But if you ask me what I care more about, is it a person attacking me personally or is it government policy that discriminates based on race? That’s what I really worry about is bad government policy that harms people based on their immutable characteristics. Look, a lot of losers are going to attack me and attack my family, I think the proper response to them is to ignore them. Don’t feed the trolls and they largely go away. What I worry much more about is bad government policy, Margaret, because I think it’s a bad, bad thing.

I want to ask you about some of the things you’ve said on the business front.

Yeah.

You said you’re among the most pro-labor Republicans in the Senate, you’re not a big fan of right to work laws that make it harder for unions to organize. Our latest CBS poll shows your ticket is down 13 points, 56 to 43 among voters with a union member in their household. Why do you think there is this differential? Why behind?

Well, first of all, Margaret, I’m skeptical of any polling at this level because I think that you have to persuade voters. The poll that actually matters is on election day. And I think we’re doing great with union voters especially people like the Teamsters, the United Auto Workers because we’re the people who are trying to protect their jobs. Kamala Harris has pursued a series of green energy policies that would ship more and more manufacturing jobs to China, more and more energy jobs to China, that’s going to destroy a lot of union jobs. And what President Trump and I have to do is make the case to these workers, union and non-union alike, that we’re the candidacy, we’re the presidency that’s actually going to protect their jobs and protect their right to earn a good wage in the country they love.

(17:40)
I think that when people know about the policy difference between Kamala Harris’ pro-shipping American manufacturing jobs to China with ridiculous energy policies and Donald Trump who wants to drill and actually open up American energy markets so that we can manufacture more, they’re going to vote for President Trump, I have no doubt about that.

You’re one of the few Republican supporters of antitrust reform which has actually been a cause that Biden administration, the Biden-Harris administration has taken up here trying to block mergers and ramp up antitrust. You said of FTC Commissioner Lina Khan, she’s done a pretty good job.

Yeah.

What do you mean by that? If you’re in office, you’re going to go after trying to break up Google, trying to break up Microsoft. What does that mean?

Well, look, I don’t agree with Lina Khan on every issue, to be clear, but I think that she’s been very smart about trying to go after some of these big tech companies that monopolize what we’re allowed to say at our own country. I don’t want a billionaire-

Like which companies?

I don’t want Google or a billionaire that controls Google that’s in bed with China to be able to censor American information and that’s exactly what they’ve done. I think these companies are too big, too powerful-

Elon Musk though comes to mind immediately and he’s a huge supporter of your movement.

But he does not censor-

And he does so much business with China.

One, he does not censor and, two, he does not have a monopoly over free speech in a way that Google has a much, much bigger company, a much more powerful control. And by the way, the presidency that started the antitrust lawsuit against Google was Donald J. Trump’s presidency, right? So, in a lot of ways, President Trump and I look at this in the same way, we want good wages for American workers, we want Americans to be able to speak their own mind in their own country and sometimes that means you’ve got to take on those monopolies. President Trump already did it and I think he’ll do it again if we give him another chance.

It just stands out as interesting to me because you courted so much money, effectively, for the campaign from Silicon Valley and from so many of these tech guys.

Not from Google and Facebook, Margaret. I think there’s a big difference between big tech and little tech. A lot of these companies are upstarts, they’re trying to build a cool product, they’re trying to take on the Googles and Facebooks of the world. Google and Facebook are not giving me a whole lot of money because they don’t like me because I believe that Americans ought to be able to speak their own mind in their own country and I think these companies are too big. We ought to take the Teddy Roosevelt approach to some of them, break them up, don’t let them control what people are allowed to say.

(19:54)
So, yes, the big tech companies don’t like me. The little tech companies, people, I think, who are trying to do something important to take on those big tech incumbents, yeah, a lot of them do support me. And of course, proud to have their support because we agree on a lot of big issues.

So, you’re promising them what, less regulation of certain things? Is that what you’re-

Promising who?

Small tech. You didn’t give any names so I don’t know which one.

Well, look, I think Twitter, for example, if you look at its user base and you look at how much control Google has over the digital advertising infrastructure, we ought to be going after some of those incumbents. And certainly, I don’t think that Elon Musk has any monopoly, he’s not using his company to try to destroy competitors and that to me is when something crosses the line where you’ve got to be a little bit more focused on antitrust issues.

We’re going to mark this year the three-year anniversary of the end of the US War in Afghanistan.

Yeah.

President Trump negotiated that withdrawal.

Sure.

The execution, you’ve been very critical of as very chaotic under President Biden. But let’s look at what you could do if you’re in office.

Sure.

There are about 80,000 or so Afghans who were left behind, many of whom worked for the United States. Does America owe them? Should you bring them here?

Well, I think that we should bring people here who helped us and have been properly vetted and that’s very, very important because a lot of the people the Biden administration has brought in have not been properly vetted.

Are you talking about Afghan vets?

And I think the most important … Certainly, the Biden administration has led in Afghan nationals who say that they supported Americans but actually did not. We also do remember, Margaret, there was a lot when we were in Afghanistan, a lot of so-called blue on green or green on blue violence were people who were allegedly supposed to help us killed American troops. So, I want them in our country? Of course, I don’t. In fact, I wish they weren’t on this earth anymore. So, we have to be careful about who we led into this country but I think the-

I’m talking about people who worked alongside United States service people on the ground in Afghanistan.

And if they’re properly vetted, I think that we should help them. Some of them don’t want to come here, by the way, Margaret. Some of them would like us to give them safety in another country. You don’t have to bring every single person who helped the United States into the United States, you can send them to other places as well. But certainly, I don’t think we should abandon anybody who’s been properly vetted and actually helped us.

I ask you that because President Trump said a few days ago he’ll suspend refugee admissions to the United States.

Exactly. Because we’re not properly-

But you’re saying not in this case?

No, absolutely I’m saying in this case, Margaret, because we’re not properly vetting the people that are being led in through these refugee programs. What President Trump said is very important. You cannot show up at an American consulate and say I helped the Americans, go let me into America because I’m a refugee.

That’s not how the process works, you know that.

It very often is how the process works, Margaret.

It is not.

The Biden administration has been scandalous and not properly vetting these people, Donald Trump is exactly right. And again, just because they helped us, allegedly, doesn’t mean you have to let them come to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Maybe some of them should go to other countries, maybe we should help some of them in their own country and President Trump’s exactly right about this. In fact, we know, we know beyond a shadow of doubt that some of the people who have been led into this country are on the terrorist watch list. That is disgraceful and Trump is right that we should stop it.

I think now you’re conflating a few different things. You are now talking about people who have come in through the southern border versus people who were vetted and worked with US intelligence.

Oh, no. We’ve certainly led in people through refugee resettlement who should not be in this country. Absolutely we have. We have not properly vetted everybody who’s come in.

Do you have something that you’ve been briefed on?

Certainly, if you look at even-

A specific example that you’re aware of?

Well, I have been briefed privately but there’s also been public reports of people who have come in through the refugee resettlement process who were actually on some kind of terrorism watch list or who, importantly, were not actually helping Americans even though they claimed. We got to be careful, Margaret. We have a country to protect and we have … I have three young children, I don’t want people walking around the streets of this country who said they served the United States but, because the Biden administration doesn’t believe in immigration enforcement, they didn’t properly vet them.

But you would properly vet them and allow them in if you’re in the White House?

No, I didn’t say that. I said let everybody in?

Okay.

No, I think you want to help them-

I didn’t say everyone. I said specifically Afghans.

I said you want to help them. Maybe they want to resettle in their own country, maybe they want to resettle in another country. What I’ve said is I do think that we should help the people who were good to us, that doesn’t mean every single one of them has to come to the United States of America.

Okay.

Right?

I’m being wrapped but I really want to ask you about China-

Please.

… if you’re game.

Yeah, yeah.

Okay. So, do you view China as a competitor or an adversary?

I think they’re both and I think that what we want to do here is build the kind of international order where we can check China. We don’t want to go to war with China but certainly they’re an adversary. They know, for example, the Chinese know that they’re manufacturing tons of fentanyl they are letting come into our country. Kamala Harris has done nothing about this. She should apply diplomatic and economic leverage over the Chinese to stop manufacturing this fentanyl which then comes into the Mexican drug cartels which they ship into our country.

The United States has designated some of these groups-

This is a scandal.

… and pressed the Chinese government.

Oh, we could do so much more. Fentanyl is not easy to manufacture, Margaret. And if Harris was applying proper leverage to the Chinese and to the Mexican drug cartels, we would not have so many people dying of overdose.

Like what? How do you do that? What’s your vision of how you do that?

I think you walk into Beijing, you talk to Xi Jinping and you say your entire economy is going to collapse unless you get access to American markets. You need to take this fentanyl seriously or we are going to impose serious tariffs and economic penalties for not following our laws and not helping us stem the flow of this deadly poison.

And you wouldn’t be worried about blowback on the US economy?

I think that we have a powerful economy, Margaret, with the best workers in the entire world. If we need to fight a trade war with the Chinese, we will fight it and we will win it. But we cannot do what Kamala Harris has done which is be so terrified of using the economic power that we have that she’s not even willing to stop the flow of this deadly poison coming into our country.

President Trump said Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi were lovely individuals when speaking in Montana last night. Do you agree with that characterization?

I think that President Trump gets along with world leaders and there’s nothing wrong with him complimenting them as people if it makes him more effective diplomatically. And there’s an irony here-

That’s different than walking in and laying down the lot on Xi Jinping.

There’s an … Oh, no, it’s not actually because you’re better able to lay down the law like President Trump did if you actually have a good relationship with people and they trust you to follow your word. We have to remember that Democrats, including Kamala Harris, attacked Donald Trump for having a good relationship with Vladimir Putin. Well, when Donald Trump was President, Vladimir Putin didn’t invade another country. When Kamala Harris was vice president, he did. So, maybe they should take a lesson from Trump’s playbook about diplomatic legitimacy because I think Donald Trump got a lot done because world leaders respected him.

J.D. Vance, always good to talk to you.

Thanks, Margaret.

Thank you for making time for us.

Good to see you.