Vice President JD Vance has sharply criticized journalist Josh Kraushaar and his recent article in Jewish Insider, which discussed Vance’s views on U.S. foreign intervention.

In a post on X on Thursday, Vance slammed the piece as a “hit piece” and labeled it “an anti-JD rag.”

His criticisms were particularly focused on the inclusion of anonymous Republican sources who criticized his stance against bombing Houthi rebels in Yemen, a topic that was discussed in a group chat that unintentionally included The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg.

Vance pointed out several factual inaccuracies in the article, notably one where Kraushaar claimed that the Houthis killed three Americans last January.

Gold. Upgraded. Buy real gold from $1. Store it in America. Sell it with one click.

Vance corrected the error, stating, “Actually, the group responsible for that attack was 'Islamic Resistance in Iraq,' which is an entirely different militia group."

He continued, “You might say this is evidence of Kraushaar being the biggest hack in Washington, and you may be correct. Another very plausible explanation is that he's the dumbest journalist in Washington. Either way, shocking an error like this could get through his vaunted editorial process!”

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

Donald Trump Jr. also weighed in, defending Vance and accusing those quoted in the article of being part of the same group of Republicans who have “constantly trashed my father behind his back for years.”

Trump Jr. emphasized the disloyalty of these individuals, stating that they were part of the same “swamp” that has consistently undermined his father.

How much do you want to bet that the 7 RINO Senators anonymously crying about @JDVance to the leftist media are some of the same ones who have constantly trashed my father behind his back for years? https://t.co/d1QX1DOx7p

— Donald Trump Jr. (@DonaldJTrumpJr) March 27, 2025

This Could Be the Most Important Video Gun Owners Watch All Year

The Jewish Insider article highlights comments from several Republican lawmakers who were critical of Vance’s stance on the U.S. involvement in Yemen.

Vance had expressed that the U.S. should avoid military strikes against the Houthis, arguing that they were more of a threat to European nations than to the U.S. In the group chat, Vance suggested that airstrikes were primarily aimed at “bailing Europe out again,” a remark that prompted backlash from some GOP senators.

One senator, who was critical of Vance’s views, described his position as “very disappointing,” specifically expressing shock that Vance did not support striking back when the Houthis allegedly targeted U.S. naval vessels.

Another lawmaker argued that Vance had a “narrow view” of when the United States should engage in foreign conflicts.

Vance’s anti-interventionist views have been consistent throughout his career, particularly during his time as a senator, where he strongly opposed U.S. military aid to Ukraine and any further foreign military entanglements.

However, his views seem to align more closely with the majority of Republican voters. A recent Gallup poll showed that 56 percent of Republicans believe the U.S. is doing too much to aid Ukraine.

Meanwhile, 53 percent of Independents also believe the level of support for Ukraine is “too much” or “just right,” while 79 percent of Democrats believe it is “not enough.”

This divide reflects a growing debate within the Republican Party between interventionists and anti-interventionists.

Vance is firmly in the anti-interventionist camp, which Senator Thom Tillis (R-NC) acknowledged, stating, “JD is consistent on this. He does not like to see the deployment or the projection of American power outside of a direct threat to the United States.”

While many GOP senators disagreed with Vance’s position, some viewed the internal debate as a necessary part of healthy political discourse.

Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) emphasized the importance of confidential conversations in allowing policymakers to express differing opinions.

“When things aren’t confidential, then people don’t feel free to express themselves,” Cornyn remarked.

Despite the article including some viewpoints that aligned with Vance, the overall tone seemed to reflect the frustration many Republicans have with the growing anti-interventionist sentiment.

While Vance's position may have been unpopular with some Republican lawmakers, it resonates with a large portion of the party’s base, which increasingly opposes the U.S. acting as the world’s policeman.

The article revealed a division within the GOP, with many still favoring interventionist policies that seem out of step with the broader public opinion.

Ultimately, Vance’s critique of the article, along with his defense of his anti-interventionist stance, underscores the ongoing internal debate within the Republican Party over the U.S.'s role in global conflicts and military engagements.

Gold is the oldest answer. SoundMoney makes owning it as easy as the apps you already use.

The opinions expressed by contributors and/or content partners are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of LifeZette. Contact us for guidelines on submitting your own commentary.