JD Vance: This Was a 'Major Mistake'

After what was a blockbuster day at the Supreme Court, and as Iran negotiations continue in Doha, who's better to check in with for a little bit of analysis and insights than Vice President J.D. Vance? Mr. Vice President, it's great to see you, the author of the new bestseller, Communion, Finding My Way Back to Faith. Mr. Vice President, thank you very much for joining us. We'll get to your book in just a moment, but I was anxious to talk to you about the Supreme Court today, first on the birth tourism, birthright citizenship case. A lot of people very concerned that this will throw open the door to hundreds of thousands of more individuals who are exploiting our system here. What is the administration prepared to do to protect the country, and what can it do after this ruling? Well, one of the things we're going to have to do is just continue to enforce the border law. This is a very disappointing ruling from the Supreme Court. Of course, we respect it, but we also think that it was a major, major mistake, as Justices Alito and Thomas pointed out. One of the things that might invite, Laura, is people to come here quite literally on a vacation, give birth, and then all of a sudden, the child and their family have the full benefits of American citizenship. It's just a preposterous ruling, and the absurdity of that outcome suggests why the Supreme Court should have went the other way. Now, I know a lot of conservatives, Laura, certainly the people that I'm talking to, that you're talking to, are extremely disappointed in this. I do actually think there's a really big silver lining here, and that's the simple fact that a lot of legal experts expected this case to go the wrong direction by 7 to 2 or even 8 to 1. The fact that this case was a 5 to 4 decision effectively means that the concept of birthright citizenship, which is an absurdity to the 14th Amendment, that concept is hanging by a thread. And so what I take from that is, yes, we've got to fix the immigration system even more. We have to be even more aware of who's coming into our country to make sure that they're not benefiting from this atrocious Supreme Court ruling. But it also means that we have to keep fighting, Laura, because we actually have an opportunity to reverse this decision, just as we've reversed so many bad decisions throughout the generations. Roger Severino, Mr. Vice President, argues that the president could change that original EO executive order and put restrictions on U.S. territories like the northern Marianas Islands. They're very close to China where there's a lot of birthright abuse going on, because the same protections perhaps don't apply to these territorial areas. What do you think about that idea? So I think it's a great idea. I saw that point from Roger Severino. We're certainly looking at that. We also have to look, Laura, at some congressional and statutory changes that we could make to make it harder for people to actually take advantage of—I hate to call it birthright citizenship. It's fundamentally a loophole that now exists in our immigration system that rewards illegal aliens just because they have a baby in the United States while they're in our country illegally. So I think that loophole is going to cause a lot of problems. There are a number of things that we're already looking at in the administration, Laura, to try to close down that loophole. But fundamentally, what we're talking about is fixing a problem the Supreme Court created. We also want to look over the long term at undoing that problem to begin with, because again, this was only a 5-4 decision, Laura. How many times did we hear people say that this was going to go 8-1 against the administration? We made some very compelling arguments. We had the better of the case. We've just got to keep fighting at this, and this drives home, Laura, why the midterms are so important, because it's the senators who ultimately vote on those Supreme Court justices. Imagine if one of the five justices who made a bad call today, if they left the Supreme Court. We want to make sure we get somebody good on there in the future. Now, you hail from the Senate, and so many of the ANGLE viewers want to understand what it is about these three or four senators, sitting senators, or Republicans. What is it about the Save America Act that they disagree with so vehemently that they will not move forward on legislation that its major provisions, about 80% of the country, favor, Mr. Vice President? And is there anything you all can do to try to bridge that gap, given how important that legislation is to protecting our elections and ultimately our citizenship? You know, Laura, first of all, that legislation is so important. The president has been laser-focused on getting the Save America Act passed, and you're right. We actually have the majority of Senate Republicans who will support it. I actually don't think the problem that they have is with the Save America Act legislation itself. The problem that they have, with all due respect, is that they're worshiping dying institutional norms when the Democrats are, in fact, bragging that as soon as they get control, they're going to throw that stuff aside and make it so much harder for Republicans to even win elections. So what some of these Republicans are saying is they don't want to give up on the norm of the filibuster, this sacred Senate institutional norm that a few senators are obsessed with, including, of course, Mitch McConnell. The problem, Laura, is that Democrats themselves are saying the minute that they get power, the filibuster is going out the door. So unilaterally submitting and surrendering as Republicans when Democrats are openly bragging that they're going to get rid of the filibuster, it's just handing your enemy a weapon that they're going to use to strike you down. It's absurd. It doesn't make any sense. But that's why we, frankly, have to get better senators in there in the future. You've been following what's going on with the Democrat party and the rise of socialism. The president calls it communism and says this is really the biggest threat to the country now, an internal threat. And you've seen what happens when the base of the party, a party, turns on its establishment, beginning with the Tea Party in 2009, ultimately resulting in President Trump's election twice. So my question to you is, are these DSA types really, in your estimation, going to dominate the entire party? I unfortunately fear that's the direction the Democrats are headed. And it is communism, Laura. This is not, you know, this is not raising taxes a little bit, however much we might disagree with that. This is abolishing the police. This is let criminals run amok in your cities. This is flood your country with low-wage third-world immigrants. And importantly, it's confiscating wealth, not because we want to make anybody's life better, but purely out of resentment, out of an attack on the people who have that wealth to begin with. It really is something we haven't seen in the United States of America in the history of our politics. And Laura, I think that it actually is a consequence of the fact that the Democrat party has become run by the universities and by the professors. This is not working-class union Democrats. This is not socially conservative people who just want a fair shake at life. This is fundamentally a view that the United States is an evil country that must be dismantled from the ground and then built back up. That's communism at its core. And you see more and more momentum in that direction from the Democrat party. Frankly, Laura, I would love it if Democrats were willing, you know, not that they are going to agree with Republicans all the time, but if they were willing to work with us on lowering housing prices, on lowering gas prices, on actually making the lives of American citizens better, you know, we could have some real bipartisan compromise. That's not what they're talking about. They're talking about abolishing the police and letting criminals rule our cities. That is a fundamental transformation of the Democrat party. It's very bad for our country. It's bad for Democrats. And it just drives home why we have to keep these people from getting close to power. Yeah. Yes or no. Do you think Schumer and Jeffries ultimately survive this surge from the radicals? Depends on how long you're talking about. I think they'll survive for a couple of years, Laura. But in five years, people are going to look back at Hakeem Jeffries and Chuck Schumer, as shocking as this may sound, and they're going to say they were the reasonable moderates of the time. And the DSA types, the far left, the communists have taken over that party. We know that Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries, their policies are pretty far out there compared to what's coming online in the modern Democratic Party. It's just going to get weirder and weirder and scarier and scarier. That's why I think, unfortunately, the only sane party left is the Republican Party. Not saying Republicans are right about every issue. And I know that you and your viewers sometimes disagree with Republican congressmen. I certainly do. But we're the only party for common sense and sanity left in the United States of America in 2026.