Transcript

VP JD Vance and Megyn Kelly - The FULL Interview

From Megyn Kelly · Episode page · Watch on YouTube

· 52 min · 11,626 words · 145 timestamped sections

This is the full, timestamped transcript of "VP JD Vance and Megyn Kelly - The FULL Interview", an episode of Megyn Kelly published February 7, 2026 (52 min, about 11,626 words). It mentions 9 people, works and ideas, including Donald Trump, Joe Biden, Iran, Supreme Court, New York Times.

What this episode is about

Vice President JD Vance discusses his experiences in Washington, including the contrasts of public perception and the absurdities of political life, such as navigating a motorcade amid mixed public reactions. He reflects on the rapid transition to his role and the significance of making a meaningful impact while enjoying the job's unique opportunities.

Key takeaways

  • In Washington, sincerity is as rare as a snowstorm in July—everyone's playing roles in the grand theater.
  • D.C.'s vibrant motorcades bring together tourists and critics, revealing the bizarre dance of political performance.
  • The reside-and-ride culture forms a 'placeless place'—local sentiment diluted by inflating egos and transient dwellers.
  • Senators wake hopeful each day, believing they're the future commander-in-chief—talk about pressure-cooker politics!
  • The press may feign disdain for the president, yet deep down, they crave the refreshingly honest chaos he brings.

Who speaks in this episode?

What is discussed, and when

  1. – 5:00: Kaitlan Collins
  2. – 10:00: Donald Trump, Joe Biden, New York Times
  3. – 15:00: Joe Biden, Supreme Court
  4. – 25:00: Donald Trump, Face Act
  5. – 35:00: Donald Trump, Marco Rubio
  6. – 40:00: Donald Trump
  7. – 45:00: Donald Trump, Vogue
  8. – 52:14: Marco Rubio

Notable quotes from "VP JD Vance and Megyn Kelly - The FULL Interview"

  • In the West Wing and somebody sent me where he was talking to Caitlyn Collins who's the CNN anchor and I have like a decent relationship with Caitlyn Collins which is unusual…
    about Kaitlan Collins · at
  • Political bias angle to it. But I just I think that the press would have a much higher like the media is one of the low least trusted institutions in the United States of…
    about New York Times · at
  • The left is fighting us so aggressively, but it's going to keep on happening. the president has been very clear.
    about Donald Trump · at
  • Administration is aware of the Declaration of Independence and has actually read it. I don't think Biden could have cited the first 10 words of the Declaration of Independence.…
    about Joe Biden · at
  • Amendment right to the free exercise of religion. That's what happened. By the way, there's a federal law on the books that says you're not allowed to interrupt churches.…
    about Face Act · at
  • Bad when we have a domestic terror attack where a couple of people die, and you're right. What happens when the same people who are shooting up a mall or driving airplanes into buildings have a nuclear weapon? That is unacceptable.
    about Iran · at
  • Somebody who's not shy about talking at all is Gavin Newsome. He's been everywhere. Vogue really loves him.
    about Vogue · at
  • Oh, that's right. No, we that's another thing that will make the new the new baby much easier is Marco has agreed to be nanny to our fourth kid.
    about Marco Rubio · at

Who and what is mentioned in this episode?

People

  • Donald Trump — Person · Referenced political leader (the president in the conversation) · 8 mentions · first at
    Central reference point: the guest repeatedly defends and explains Trump’s governing style, immigration/crime agenda, and foreign-policy posture.
  • Joe Biden — Person · Referenced political opponent / prior administration · 4 mentions · first at
    Used as the main contrast case for border policy, enforcement capacity, and broader governance; the guest attributes illegal immigration scale and enforcement gaps to Biden-era decisions.
  • Marco Rubio — Person · Referenced administration colleague (in-room participant) · 2 mentions · first at
    Mentioned as being present in a Greenland/Denmark meeting and jokingly portrayed as holding many roles; signals intra-administration collaboration and diplomacy context.
  • Kaitlan Collins — Person · Referenced journalist (press corps example) · 1 mention · first at
    Used as an anecdote illustrating Trump’s combative/teasing relationship with the press and the guest’s critique of media tone and trust.

Concepts & topics

  • Face Act — Concept · Core topic · 1 mention · first at
    Mentioned in the context of legal actions against disruptions in churches.

Places & events

  • Iran — Place · Setting · 5 mentions
    Discussed in the context of foreign policy and nuclear proliferation concerns.
  • Supreme Court — Event · Key argument · 2 mentions · first at
    Discussed in the context of legal challenges to immigration policies.
    Some of those cases, I believe, are at the Supreme Court right now. So, it just takes time to do this in the proper way, to do it in the legal way. it's take it's taken time, especially when.

Media & podcasts

  • New York Times — Media · Referenced work · 2 mentions · first at
    Mentioned as an example of media bias and reporting on crime rates.
  • Vogue — Media · Referenced work · 1 mention · first at
    Mentioned in the context of media portrayal of political figures.

Full transcript with timestamps

Mr. Vice President, thank you so much for being here. Of course. Good to see you.

Thanks for having us here. Yeah. Yeah, absolutely. This is my ceremonial office, which I use mostly for interviews. Um, but it's it's actually the most I think the most beautiful office in the complex, which is it's sad that I never use it, but I'm glad I got to show it to you.

You're a long way from the holler. I'm a long way from the holler. That's right.

How's it feeling? How are you enjoying it? It feels good. I mean, look, it's it's the coolest job in Washington because I I always joke with the president that uh I get to be involved in everything, but he's the one who actually has to make the decisions. I I get like all of the benefit, but not nearly the same level of pressure as the president. So, uh we're really enjoying it. The kids are doing well, family's doing well, and just the the job. I mean, there are very few things you ever get to do in your professional life where you feel like you have such a big impact. And uh we're trying to use it as wisely and as well as we can.

It happened so quickly for you. Yes, it did. You know, it was it felt like overnight and your life has changed so dramatically.

I have a lot of substantive questions for you, but let me just start with this is my the thing I really wanted to know. What's the most absurd thing about Washington?

Oh, that's a very tough tough thing to answer. So many to choose from. I I I mean there there the thing that's absurd just for from our personal perspective is that whenever I go anywhere, I'm surrounded by a motorcade of like 20, 30, 40 cars, right? And so, um, just you get like this amazing mixture of people like you tourists from Kansas or Ohio who are so sweet and nice as you're driving through Washington DC and then you get like the really angry kind of crazy radical who's running after your car, flipping you off. And just like the the performative politics of Washington and and a lot of the people who live in Washington is very weird to me. Um, I I I I think it's it's a town of people where it's like everything is kind of transactional, but people try to pretend that it's not. And I think that really warps things.

And then just just not from our perspective, not from perspective of the administration or from us personally, but if you think about Washington, it's a place that almost nobody is from, right? So there's like, you know, historically middle class black population. It's small and it's getting smaller. uh because most of them are sort of selling their houses now that they're inflated and and moving out to the BBS, right? So, what you have is most of the residents here are not actually from here. And I think it just has like a psychologically warping effect. So, you go to a nationals game and everybody's rooting for the Nationals, but they don't actually care if the Nationals win. Whereas, if you go to a Red's game, every person there is going to sob at the end of the game if they don't win. There's just a weird It's like a placeless place. And I think that's the most bizarre part of Washington. I can't picture you in it. I

mean, obviously I can I can see you in it, but I can't picture because there's so much insincerity. I mean, I lived here for 3 years and everyone takes themselves so seriously.

Oh, absolutely. All the egos. That must be so hard to bond with. Well, it's it's definitely true that they're that you have people who are sort of super huge ego. So, a friend of mine, he's actually like a think tank intellectual. He told me once about the United States Senate when I was thinking about running for the Senate. He said, 'The thing you have to realize about the United States Senate is that it's a hundred people who wake up every morning, look in the mirror, and think to themselves, they're going to be the president of the United States.

And that that is absolutely true, right? We have plenty of time for him later. It is it is a place of very intense egos and but but the the problem is people take themselves too seriously, right? So So nobody in Washington can really make fun of themselves. Nobody can tell a joke um at their own expense. It it just it is an odd place. It's one of the reasons why I think they have a lovehate relationship with your boss. Yes.

Because they can't stand him because they don't like his politics. Correct. But I think at some level even the press corps is so relieved to have somebody who will crack a joke every once in a while.

Yes. Who will say we have to cut this cabinet meeting short because it was boring the last time.

Which thank god for that. No, I mean I mean the the president he is he is just if Washington is an insincere place. I think you said that and said it well. He is like the polar opposite. He just says what's on his mind. He doesn't care what how anybody's going to react to it. You what you see is what you get. And people always ask, well, what does he like in private? He is in private exactly like he is when he's in front of a camera. And I think that that you're right. It kind of there are some members of the press who kind of like him for it, then some members of the press who don't. And then I think for most members of the press, it's a little bit of both, right?

Like they admire the game even if for some political reason they can't they they they just can't admit that they actually like him. But most of them actually do. They hate themselves.

Exactly. Exactly. Um I mean like there was a moment in the Oval Office. I wasn't even in there but you know I was in the West Wing and somebody sent me where he was talking to Caitlyn Collins who's the CNN anchor and I have like a decent relationship with Caitlyn Collins which is unusual given that she's from CNN. But uh the president she she's asking a question. The president says why don't you ever smile?

Yeah. And it's actually like so perceptive. Even if you're asking a tough question, even if you take your job very seriously, like why does it always have to be so antagonistic?

Well, I laugh because I saw online everybody was calling him sexist for saying that. And I literally said the same thing about Caitlyn Collins a year ago on my show. She never smiles. Every once in a while you have to smile. Roger Als used to tell us that. Every once in a while you remember smile. Show the viewers that you have a heart.

Have some fun, right? Like life, you can't always take yourself too seriously. you're going to have a heart attack. And that that's too much of the Washington press corps. And of course, they don't act like that when the other guys are in power. So, it is there is a political bias angle to it. But I I just I think that the press would have a much higher like the media is one of the low least trusted institutions in the United States of America. More people would trust them. More people would like them if they actually express the range of emotions. Like I'm not saying you have to agree with everything that me or President Trump do, but nobody is angry all the time. And when you come across as angry all the time, it's just fake.

And also fake, confused or befuddled about, for example, the lowest crime rate in 125 years. Absolutely.

The New York Times. We may never know. Yes. How it happened. Yeah. Well, okay. So just on this um one lowest crime rate in 120 years a massive drop in murders that that is human beings who are fellow citizens in in some cases our family and friends who are walking around America's cities who but for the pro-law and order policies of the Trump administration would literally not be with us like that that it's one of those things where when you measure it in human lives you realize how powerful and important this is.

There are many, many dozens of people in most of America's major cities who are walking around right now who get to go home to their kids, who get to play with with their dog because we have actually brought some common sense back to our crime policies. Ju just going back to the media. Okay, so I remember this question I got from a New York Times reporter and I was doing one of these long form interviews and she asked me, you know, she said, "Well, you know, sometimes you you give these speeches and you're like happy golucky and um you know, you play around with your kids and you're obviously very happy when you're doing that and but sometimes you're like really annoyed or really angry like what what is the real JD?" And I remember thinking to myself, what human being isn't sometimes pissed off at what's going on in the country, but also can laugh about it? What human being doesn't enjoy playing with their kids, but maybe

gets annoyed when they're dealing with some at work? The idea that you have to be like one-dimensional is, I think, one of the reasons why the media is so broken, and it's one of the reasons why they can't tell the true stories that are out there. You you asked about the crime. Okay. Why is the crime rate so low? There are a lot of reasons. One is that we've empowered local law enforcement. Another reason is because we've deported a lot of criminals in the United States that should have never been here in the first place because they were illegal aliens.

So the media cannot even express an ounce of nuance. It's never oh well maybe this we disagree with this. Let's have a conversation about that and but but like let's tell the truth about the fact that there are Americans who are alive today because of Donald Trump's crime and immigration policies. They can't do that. It's always just shouting angry all the time. You're Gustapo. You're the fascist. And it's it's just crazy. And it does the American people a real disservice. It's frankly why, you know, you probably have, I don't know, five times as many viewers, 100 times as many viewers as the average CNN show because people are fed up with the Sorry, I'm not sure if I'm supposed to say you're Yeah. No, our YouTube feed on a on a monthly basis beats all of CNN, just our show.

100%. That doesn't surprise me at all. And we know why. Yes. Uh let's talk about the illegal immigration. So this year we've had 2.2 million self- deepportations and about 675,000 actual deportations

under the Trump Vance administration. That's about let's call it 3 million. Um the self deportations we're assuming we're going to have more on the front end than the back end because the people who are willing to take the deal are going to take it now and go. So unfortunately, it could be that that number could go down and people who really want those 10 to 12, could be as many as 20 million illegals who are here, most of whom came under Joe Biden,

they want them all gone. But at this pace, it's not going to happen. So to those people who think this is going too slowly, what do you say?

Well, I say a few things. First of all, there are ways in which it will accelerate. You're right. There may be some front-end self- deportations that you can't replicate in years two and three. There also may be some people who wanted to do it in year one but couldn't get in the line, couldn't, you know, I mean, self-deporting 2 and a half million people, that's a lot just bureaucratically. So, I think those numbers will continue. They may taper off a little bit. Uh, number two, all of the immigration enforcement officers that we hired because Biden gutted immigration enforcement, most of them are in training right now. Most of them have not even hit the streets. There are a lot of ways in which we are doing a slow ramp of immigration enforcement because we inherited a a deportation operation that was so broken. And then the third thing that I'd say is the left has fought us so aggressively, but many

of our victories are starting to bear fruit. I mean, like just yesterday or the day before, you had a left-wing judge who said that we could not end temporary protected status for illegal Haitian immigrants. Now, this is a program that was put in place illegally, I believe, in the Obama administration. and now a judge is saying that we can't end it. Well, we're going to appeal that. We're going to win. But some of this stuff has taken where where judges have tried to stop us from deporting illegal aliens. Uh that's had to work its way through the appeals process.

Some of those cases, I believe, are at the Supreme Court right now. So, it it just takes time to do this in the proper way, to do it in the legal way. Uh it's take it's taken time, especially when the left is fighting us so aggressively, but it's going to keep on happening. I mean, the president has been very clear. We're not going to stop enforcing our immigration policies. We're going to keep doing it, but I think frankly we'll probably be in a better position to do it a year from now than we are today. And we're certainly in a much better position today than we were a year ago.

That's interesting because the legal landscape will have been cleared exactly of some of these hurdles thanks to the Supreme Court.

And look, I mean, Megan, sometimes Steven Miller is one of my closest friends uh in the administration. He and I go way back. Sometimes we'll exchange messages and it's like, can you believe this judge did this? it's going to delay this thing another three months or another six months. But then you realize, okay, 3 months, 6 months, but we keep on winning these cases, right? So, yes, you have radical judges who are slowing things. They're not going to be able to stop things so long as we in the administration maintain our posture on it and we're going to.

Do you find it shocking? Like the judge who issued that order saying you cannot end temporary protected status is the same judge who tried to stop uh Trump's ban on transgenders serving in the military and both times she said it's animous. The administration either hates transgender people or now in this case it it has it hates black people from Haiti.

And both time I mean she was overruled on the first case. She's likely to be overruled on this case. But are you're a lawyer. Do you find it shocking how opinionated, how how personal these judges make it?

Yes, I do. And and there was the one judge who was like, the administration should read the Declaration of Independence. That's I guarantee you that our president and the Trump administration is aware of the Declaration of Independence and has actually read it. I don't think Biden could have cited the first 10 words of the Declaration of Independence. So, um, there is this weird judicial animosity towards the administration, but we we kind of knew we were going to do this. this. I mean, I I remember during the transition, we talked through, okay, we know there are some far-left judges who are going to do nationwide injunctions, which, by the way, I think are illegitimate, but set that to the side.

And we know we're going to have to power through this stuff. We're only a year into a four-year term. So, we we are making progress. But you Megan, this animist point is really interesting because I I I think to the extent that there are still and I and I I'm fundamentally optimistic about human nature, uh there are still some good faith people on the far left who are trying to who hopefully would try to understand where we're coming from. Here's what I would say. So I got an email from a a classmate of mine a couple of weeks ago and I didn't respond to it, but I did read it and it was basically like, you know, it was it was a plea to sort of stop the chaos and to calm down the chaos. And I read it and I thought, okay, this is a good human being, even though I disagree with this politics. And of course, we don't want immigration enforcement to be chaotic. It's one of the reasons why we've encouraged state and local

officials to work with us. But fundamentally, the question is, are we allowed to do what the American people elected us to do? Biden lets in, call it 20 million illegal aliens. If the courts tell us that we're not allowed to deport the people that the American people elected us to deport, that that's fundamentally not about even immigration anymore. That's about democracy. Are the American people still sovereign if one administration can do something and the other administration can't do what the American people elected them to do in order to reverse it? And you think about even there there's another layer to it which is nobody elected Joe Biden to open the border. If you actually look at what Joe Biden said on immigration during the 2020 campaign, he sounded a lot more like a moderate, even conservative Republican. And then of course they got into power and they opened the border. So doesn't it cast

into doubt the legitimacy of our system if one president running on reasonable immigration enforcement opens the border and then another president is not allowed to close it and deport all those people who came. I think that's fundamentally what's what's at stake here is do judges control does the far left control American the American constitutional republic or do the people and I believe the people are sovereign which is why we've pursued the policies that we have

the example of Minneapolis has been troubling to both sides um the left has used it to say ICS is out of control and the Trump administration's out of control and the right is frustrated that

by by some accounts we appear to have bent the knee there in in other Gnome's out. Homeman's in. Now we're only focusing on the criminals. He says we're focused on the noncriminal illegals. I realize they're they've all committed crimes by coming here illegally. Yep.

But my point is um the the far right definitely the the right I think wants all illegals gone. And actually major the polls show that the majority of the American people still want that. They want all the illegals gone, not just the ones who have committed additional crimes upon getting here. And I think a lot of us are wondering what is the plan for getting them because it seems that the left

has effectively exercised its veto by its terrible behavior in Minneapolis. Yeah.

Such to, you know, Homeman is very focused on getting the illegals out. He's all of the reforms he's announcing are with respect to getting the illegals who have committed additional crimes and notification of them before they leave the local jails, which would be great. That would be a compromise of sanctuary city policy there. We don't yet have an agreement on that in Minneapolis, which is the biggest area. Maybe we'll get it. But the point is simply, what about all the others?

Yeah. Yeah. So, I actually I kind of like that our side is so insistent on this issue. I like the pressure. I like people saying, "We recognize you've done a lot. Now, do more." I think that's kind of how this should work is that fundamentally, you know, the president and I and the entire administration, we work for the American people. And so, I I hear these complaints, I hear these criticisms. I guess I'd say a couple things. So, first of all, again, you have an entire legal landscape, but also a deportation enforcement mechanism. All of these additional ICE officers that we we brought in as part of the one big beautiful bill that's getting online now. So, they're not going to Minneapolis.

Well, some of them will some of them just announced a draw down of 700. So Homeman announced a partial draw down, but because the local authorities are cooperating with them, and this is why it's important to segregate what are we talking about, immigration enforcement or everything else, we're not drawing down immigration enforcement. We're drawing down some of the federal officers that were helping the guys doing immigration enforcement. And this is what I think, frankly, the far left and also some of our guys on the right didn't fully appreciate. When Hman says we're drawing 700 people down, those are the people who were protecting the ICE officers as they went out and did deportations and immigration enforcement. Most of the people that we have in Minneapolis, they're not doing immigration enforcement. That's true.

Even after the 700 draw down, most of them are protecting the immigration officers from the mob that's forming around them. So, as we get more and more cooperation from Minneapolis and from from the state of Minnesota, and we are we are starting to get real cooperation from them in a way that we haven't, we don't want people there doing effectively police work so that they can protect our immigration officers. We want the immigration officers to go and do their work. And if they get into a problem, they can call local police. As that happens, you'll I think you're going to see um some of that that law enforcement shifting to the local police, which is exactly what we wanted.

And by the way, well before the Freddy shooting or the Renee Good shooting, that's what we were asking because if you look even in very blue places like Memphis, Tennessee or a number of other cities, you see the system working as it should. An immigration officer goes in, arrest an illegal alien, that person gets processed and deported. And if, god forbid, you have a mob forming, the ICE officers can call the local police and say, "Hey, these guys are threatening us. They're harassing us. They're maybe even assaulting us." The reason why Minneapolis was so chaotic is because we had to have all these extra officers doing the job the local police wouldn't do. If the local police are willing to step up a little bit, I think that's a good thing, not a bad thing. And you know, I I don't want to give this talk of surrender because I know that we haven't surrendered, but if they're in Minnesota doing the very thing that they

said they refused to do, I I don't think that's a surrender on the part of the Trump administration, especially as we continue on immigration enforcement. What about the secret option of E-Verify where we go after the employers and we find them if we find out that they're employing illegals? Yep. It seems there's been a reluctance to do that even by the Trump administration because there are a lot of employers who, let's face it, like employing cheap labor through illegal immigrants.

Yes. So, um I you know you know I supported E-Verify legislation when I was in the Senate. Uh it's been an issue. I actually campaigned on it when I ran for the Senate. It's funny. I've never talked to the president about E-Verify specifically, but it would require an act of Congress. And that that is something that look, I would like to believe that Congress would support E-Verify legislation. I frankly don't know that we have the people that would make it happen. But look, if Congress wants to do it, then they should do it. And then, of course, that would give us some additional immigration enforcement tools. We would love that. But fundamentally, that is something that Congress has to fix.

We've done a lot, by the way. We've made it harder for employers to hire illegal aliens. We've made it harder for illegal aliens and frankly some legal uh visa holders to get access to the benefits that should go uh to American citizens. So there's a lot that we we can do administratively. Certain things like fully verify you do need Congress.

You mentioned Congress. It's not looking so good for the Republicans to hold on to the House. We'll see at least in the midterms. I mean now now some people are worried about the Senate which would really be a calamitous for the right. Yep.

Um what will happen if the Democrats do win control of the House only? Will anything change? I mean, I realize you're going to have an investigation coming your way every two weeks,

but we haven't had a lot of legislation pushed through the first year just given the 60 vote threshold in the Senate.

So, realistically, what do you think would change? Well, I think a couple things. One, Democrats will try to spend more money, particularly on their targeted populations. You'd see a lot of legislation saying we're going to shut down the government unless we give more health care benefits to illegal aliens, more federal backed loans to illegal aliens. So, that would definitely be a fight that we would have and I think we would win some of those fights. But if the Democrats control the House, we probably wouldn't win all of them. The bigger thing that would happen is just impeachment impeachment impeachment.

Like if you look at, go back to 95. Okay? So, Republicans win, Bill Clinton does what's called the triangulation and you have this great bipartisan compromise on welfare reform and on tax policy and on regulatory policy. Anybody hoping that Democrats win and you see a lot of bipartisan legislation, uh, you need to stop taking the drugs because that's not going to happen. Democrats are not interested. They have said they're not interested in doing any big bipartisan legislation for the American people. What are they interested in?

Impeachment. They are interested in getting Trump and getting the people in his administration. And that's what we would have for 2 years. We would have a government. We would have a Department of Justice. We would have a White House where we'd still be able to get a lot done, but fundamentally there's a lot that wouldn't happen because we'd be so focused on sham impeachment trials where the Democrats, by the way, would know they weren't going anywhere. But that's all they have. Like if like actually ask yourself what is it that uni unifies the Democratic party in 2026 America? You know, you might say it's it's it's men and women's sports and okay, nobody really cares about that or if they do care about it, they hate it like we do.

Okay, you can't run a national party on men and women's sports. Um raising taxes on hardworking Americans, a lot of Democrats believe that. You can't run a campaign on that. The only thing that they have is they hate Donald Trump. That's what unifies their party. They hate the Trump administration. That's what unifies their party and that's what their legislative agenda would look like if we gave them power.

Um, also hating Trump and and hating abortion. I mean, loving abortion. Those two things.

Yeah. I mean, they they're really solid solid. They they they like again I I don't think this is true of most Democrats in our country, but most elected Democrats, it is a weird obsession with a culture of death, gender ideology, affirmative action, diversity, equity, and inclusion. It's like all of the things that divide Americans against each other, that make Americans hate one another, and that make Americans poor and less safe. That is the operating focus of elected Democrats, but they're smart enough to recognize they can't run on that. They can't run on any of their actual policies. So, they're not going to try to enact this stuff. They're just going to try to attack the president.

We mentioned the press a minute ago. Um, someone who claims to be a member of it is Don Lemon, who's been arrested now.

The dumbest man in television. Yeah. I mean, that and that's saying something. Uh, he's under arrest because he stormed a church in the middle of a Sunday service along with a lot of other riers and disrupted people trying to worship.

He's trying to cloak himself in the First Amendment, saying this is an attack on freedom of the press. And you say what?

Well, I say first D on um no one's objecting to you standing outside of a church and protesting. No one's objecting to you to pro No one's saying you can't protest the Trump administration's uh immigration policies or frankly our policies on anything else. What you cannot do is go into somebody's house of worship and prevent them from exercising their first amendment right to the free exercise of religion. That's what happened. By the way, there's a federal law on the books that says you're not allowed to interrupt churches. You're not allowed to prevent people from entering or leaving a church. And the Biden administration aggressively prosecuted people. Where was Don Lemon when people were getting aggressively prosecuted for sham violations of the Face Act? We have a rockolid violation of the Face Act, which is you were sticking a microphone in the face of a minister during the church service while the people you were

with were preventing people from leaving. That's a violation of the law. That's not about the First Amendment. you care about criticizing our immigration policies, then stand outside the church and protest. You don't get to violate other people's rights. And if you do, the Trump administration, we're going to try to do everything that we can to make sure you suffer legal consequences.

The um administration is trying to decide right now what to do about Iran. And that's a tough one, too, because you you actually have a split, you know, within the Republican party, as you do on so many things, because Republicans love to disagree with each other, unlike the Democrats. Yes, we do. Um,

and I love that. I love the diversity. I love the dynamism. But just how aggressive should we be with Iran? There's a very large faction of the Republican party that says, "What are we talking about Iran for? What do you mean America first? Let's focus on our own problems, affordability, all these things." And they think President Trump spent too much time focused on overseas issues anyway. And they definitely don't want to get involved in Iran. And then there's a larger faction, another faction that is also large that's more neoconi that says, "We missed an opportunity. We let those protesters down. you know, the windows closing. We should be more aggressive militarily.

They are right now. Where do you fall? Well, so first of all, I I hear the criticisms out there that the administration is too focused on foreign policy. I just have to defend the president. I don't think that's true. I think that certainly when you're the president of United States, you do have to conduct foreign policy. We're the most powerful country in the world. But what I see him every day, he's laser focused on how do we make the American people more prosperous and more secure in their own country. That's what our immigration policy is about, which we've taken a raft of crap over. Uh that's what our crime policy is about. That's you know even the foreign policy stuff much of the president's foreign policy has been focused on reshoring industry on using tariffs to force people to reinvest in the United States of America. So the global criticism I just don't think people look the president is

going to have to engage in foreign policy. But this president I think is much more focused on the home front than any president in my lifetime. And he's gotten a lot I mean look $18 trillion in new investment. The country's finally started to re-industriize 18 trillion from other countries who are investing into the United States

in the United States of America. That has been the exact opposite for our entire lives, Megan. It has been American money building factories overseas. Now it's other money coming in to build factories for American workers and the American people. That's big. By the way, we're not going to see the full benefits of that for years, maybe even a decade, but that's the sort of investment in the country that really pays long-term dividends. Now, Iran specifically, like what should we do with Iran? Okay, a couple things. First of all, it's the president's decision.

He will ultimately decide how we handle this particular Iranian situation, just like he decided on Operation Midnight Hammer. What he has been very clear on, if you go back to 2015, 2016, 2021, 2025, the president has said consistently, we can't let these people have a nuclear weapon. Now, why why does that matter to America? Number one, the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism, like you you you think it's bad when we have a domestic terror attack where a couple of people die, and you're right. What happens when the same people who are shooting up a mall or driving airplanes into buildings have a nuclear weapon? That is unacceptable.

And it's not just them because if the Iranians get a nuclear weapon, you know who gets a nuclear weapon like the next day? The Saudi Arabians. And then somebody else in the Gulf Arab state. And so you have nuclear proliferation on a global scale. The biggest threat to security in the world is a lot of people having nuclear weapons. So what the president said is Iran's not going to get a nuclear weapon. We're going to work with China and Russia and any country whether they're friend or whether we're a little more competitive to try to draw down the amount of nuclear weapons that exist in the world.

I think that's the most important thing you could do for peace and stability. And and the question is what do you do to enforce that red line? Okay, Iran can't have a nuclear weapon. That is the stated policy goal of the president of the United States. It's so funny. Sometimes you have people who are saying, "Well, the president's too belligerent." And then sometimes you have people who say, "Well, the president, he he's talking about diplomacy and he's talking about negotiating with the Iranians. We shouldn't negotiate. We should just bomb them." What the president's going to do is is he's going to keep his options open. He's going to talk to everybody.

He's going to try to accomplish what he can through non-military means. And if he feels like the military is the only option, then he's ultimately going to choose that option. I I I I can't I'm not obviously even if I knew what we were going to do, I would not tell you. Uh and your and your many millions of listeners, but I I feel like people have to remember that this is not about like look, I grew up in the Iraq generation. I literally I enlisted I enlisted in in the Marine Corps as an idealistic young kid right after 9/11.

I went to Iraq in 2000 or I enlisted in 2003. I went to Iraq in 2005. I am very cognizant that the Middle East leads to quagmireers. Trust me, so is the president of the United States and we're we're hearing that. We we know that's out there. But more importantly, we know the history and the president does not he has no interest in repeating the history of Iraq. What he does want to make sure is that there's a totally separate issue which is you don't let crazy people get nuclear weapons and then lead to a nuclear arms race all over the world. This is this I mean you're tell you you tell me whether this is about nuclear weapons right now or not. But what we're seeing in Iran is these protests on the street. Not as much anymore because they've been killing a lot of the protesters. But it's should we go in there and help the protesters get rid of this regime? Like get rid of the Ayatollah, which

let's face it, it's much different in Iran. The regime goes well beyond the Ayatollah. It's not like Venezuela where take off Maduro.

It's a lot more complex. Even if we got rid of the Ayatollah, there'd be a whole bunch of others just like him, part of the regime. And so the last thing most Americans want to hear is what we heard in Venezuela, which is now we're running Iran.

Yeah. The president is very aware of all this stuff, Megan. But I'll tell you, you know, protests, you know, counter regime. I mean, look, in a perfect world, would I love it if a bunch of freedom loving Iranians, who by the way are amazing, they're brave people. If you know anything about the Persian people, they're like an incredible group of human beings. If they took over their own country and had a government that was much more friendly to the United States of America, would that be a good thing? Absolutely, that would be a good thing. But fundamentally, what the president has always been focused on, even with this most recent round of protests. You saw, I think, his most recent truth or at least one of the more recent communications he made about Iran, it's nuclear weapons base. We are still focused on this question of ensuring they don't get a nuclear weapon. And here's the good thing.

Because of what happened last summer, I feel 100% confident that even if the Iranians were rushing towards a nuclear weapon, they couldn't get one during the Trump administration. But we're not worried about the next three years, worried about the next 30 years. We have to make sure that you don't look

what I really worry about, and I think this is, you know, obviously I disagree a lot with Bill Clinton,

but Bill Clinton fundamentally decided, you know what, we're just going to let North Korea have a nuclear weapon. We're not going to do anything to stop it. What happens if 30 years from now the number of nuclear countries it's less than 10, maybe about 10. What if it goes to 100? What if every military in the world has a nuclear weapon? What if a crazy person gets elected in some random outpost of the world that you and I couldn't even find on a map and now all of a sudden a crazy guy has access to nuclear weapons?

Nuclear proliferation that is very much a bad thing and something an America first foreign policy should focus on. That is certainly where the president is most worried about

when it comes to defending uh the homeland. The president's been looking northward to Greenland and to Canada.

But he's been very focused on Greenland. Yes. And you tell me what we got that made him say, "Okay, now I'm happy." Because he gave that speech at the UN like we need to have Greenland and we need to own it because no one would defend something on lease. Yeah. But then by the end of the UN uh summit, he came out saying, "Yeah, that we're satisfied, but we seem to only have gotten permission that we might have had already to build more military bases on a couple of their outposts."

No, we we we definitely have gotten much more than we originally had. So So first of all, again, I think it's important to define the interest here. Greenland is very important to America's national security. Our entire missile defense system, by the way, would be inoperable if the Russians or the Chinese controlled Greenland. So God forbid. I don't think it's going to happen to be clear, but god forbid some foreign country launches a missile, an ICBM at the United States of America. We couldn't defend ourselves if a foreign country controlled Greenland. And by the way, the Chinese and the Russians have both expressed an interest in controlling Greenland. Okay, so what is the defensive mechanism for Greenland?

You have a population of about 60,000 people on a massive territory, right? That that's like the size of my hometown and I didn't grow up in a big town. And then on top of that, you have Denmark, which has been one of the better NATO allies to be clear, but has still radically underinvested in security compared to the Russians and the Chinese. So the president has said very simply, we are on the hook for this island. Like it's one of those unwritten rules that everybody knows that if the Chinese or the Russians affected one of our critical missile defense systems, we would necessarily defend that. But we're not getting anything for it. This is an unfair situation. The United States has no ownership over this island and we don't get any of the benefit. So, let's actually rewrite the rules here a little bit and say if the United States is going to protect the entire world's missile defense system, primarily our

own, but other people benefit from it, we should get some benefit from the bargain. Now, it's interesting because I actually was sitting in this room um one of the rare times I've used this ceremonial office for official business. Me and Marco and a lot of the the leaders from Denmark and Greenland had a great conversation and it's funny when you see

this one where they ran for their cigarettes when they exited the building. Maybe I think they did. They were stressed.

I did not follow up. I I did not see what they did afterwards. We had a good meeting. It's so funny to me because the Europeans, they're so friendly in private and they're willing to make a lot of accommodations and then publicly they attack us and they say, "We're not going to work with the Americans. We're not going to do anything with the Americans." I'm sorry. It's all bogus. We all know, everybody knows that this situation is going to come to a resolution. I think it's going to be a resolution that's good for Europe. Most importantly, it'll be a resolution that's good for the United States of America. But the idea that they haven't made any accommodations or concessions to the United States, it's not true.

Are we at the beginning of a new world order where we move away from Europe and toward anything else, maybe even potentially Russia if we can get past what's happened here? I mean, there's a real question about that given some of the speeches you've made to the European Union, some of the speeches that President Trump has made,

what's happening culturally in Europe, what's their crackdowns of on free speech, and they they just look less and less like we do.

Yeah. And there's a real question about whether there's a massive shift happening now in terms of world alliances long term.

Well, there's definitely, I think, a new world order. I think the president has sought to it. There's a new world order in trade. There's a new world order in globalization and the way that we invest in our economy versus, you know, foreign supply chains. uh there's a new world order and and that the president is willing to shake up some old alliance structures. I mean NATO I think is much different because of the president's leadership than it was 10 years ago. Sort of coasting. It was effectively a protectorate of the United States of America. Obviously you saw what happened in Venezuela. So yeah, the president is putting his stamp on world history but fundamentally in an America first way.

Like that that is the orienting focus. And so when people say well you can't work with with Putin on anything because you disagree with the Ukraine invasion. Well, the president said very clearly, Putin should not have invaded Ukraine. We're going to try to work and bring that to an end. But there might be some areas of cooperation, too. His attitude is not, you're our friend, you're our enemy. We're going to go to war with our enemies and we're going to be, you know, we're going to give our friends everything without asking questions. His attitude is we're about alliances. And you could have a country where we have a 90% aligned interest, but we're going to disagree on 10% of issues. Meanwhile, we may disagree with Russia on a lot, but we may agree on some things. And I and I do think that is a fundamental reorientation. The other thing that's much different, Megan, about the president's foreign policy and just the

way that he does business, and it's look, there there's a lot that I've learned from him, but this is nearly at the top of the list of the things I admire about the president of the United States is he will talk to anybody. Like, you know, when he was thinking about who to make as vice president, he was talking to the gardener at Mara Lago. He told me that and I said, "Well, sir, what did the gardener at Mara Lago said? This really matters to my life. And but but you know when people say you shouldn't talk to this person, right?

You shouldn't talk to Kim Jong-un of North Korea because that's that gives him something for nothing. No, I'm going to have a conversation. We're going to actually conduct diplomacy if we have to use the military. He's obviously not afraid to do it when he feels like he needs to. But the willingness to just communicate and break down barriers is very important. This is, by the way, Megan, one thing I would say about the Iranians that is just really weird to me and I don't understand their system and I frankly think that it makes diplomacy with them extraordinarily difficult is the person who makes the decisions in Iran is the supreme leader. Okay? The president, our senses, doesn't have a lot of Jews, doesn't really matter. The foreign minister seems to talk to the supreme leader and that's mainly the person that we've communicated with.

It's a very weird country to conduct diplomacy with when you can't even talk to the person who's in charge of the country. That makes all of this much more complicated. And uh it it makes the whole situation much more absurd. Like he can pick up the phone and call Putin. He can pick up the phone and call Xi. Even countries that we have very hostile relations with, he can pick up the phone, you know, North Korea. He met the guy at the 38th parallel. It is bizarre that we do we can't just talk to the actual leadership of a country. It's really it makes diplomacy very very difficult.

What uh why are we letting 600,000 Chinese students into our universities? It was 300 and change. Laura Ingram asked President Trump about this and he said, "Oh, we need to do business with China." It seemed like some sort of a deal had been cut where we gave them a bone of allowing double their students. Nobody wants this.

Yeah. No, it's it's not. Um, look, the president's view is we don't want to create a unnecessarily antagonistic relationship with China. Like there are certain some disagreements. There are some things where our interests collide, but we can protect our intellectual property in the president's view without creating an unnecessary conflict with the Chinese by one of these Chinese students is one lost by an American.

What the president is trying to do is, I think, create the situation where we can have good relations. Now, we're not radically, and this has been misreported. I think we're not like radically increasing uh the number of visas that we give to China. That's just not true. I've seen that reported. It's not true. What we are doing is trying to preserve a very delicate diplomatic balance. Like anything, there are risks and rewards and costs and benefits. But the president is trying to balance a very important relationship for the United States.

How about election integrity here at home? There's a bill, right? Let's get the Save Act. Let's get the SAVE Act. No,

what's going to happen with that? Well, we're working very hard right now to get the Senate to approve it because if the Senate approves it, we think the House would approve it, too. Now, that would require, I think, some Republican senators who maybe they're a little too attached to the filibuster, maybe they're a little too attached to Senate procedure. This is about the integrity of American democracy. Like, do the people control who they elect or do some shady people? It's it's like who who actually controls the people who cast the ballots or the people who count the ballots? We want the sovereignty to be with the people who cast the ballots and that's why we have to get the Save Act passed. And you'll hear people say all the time, and I I love this argument.

They'll say, "Well, if you look at this this precinct, you know, only three illegal aliens voted in this election. Number one, that's three illegal aliens too many. And number two, if it's not a big problem, then why not just allow us to check ID and exercise some basic precautions to prevent illegal aliens from voting?" I never quite understand the person who says on the one hand this never happens and on the other hand your effort to prevent it from happening is a threat to American democracy which is fundamentally the Democrats argument by the way it's like an 8515 issue most Democrats want voter ID because they want to protect their own vote

but the elected leaders don't leaders don't because they know that the more control they give to the people who are counting the ballots as opposed to those who are casting the ballots the more control they will have because they they the deep

is this is this where the rubber meets the road like on the filibuster and whether we get rid of it which John Thoon doesn't want a lot of

I I hope that it is that that is what we're working very hard to make happen now there there is also some in between solutions we're working on like for example could you allow the Democrats to preserve the filibuster but actually force them to go and do a real filibuster like not where

a procedural paperwork filibuster but stand there and talk if you really want to prevent um us from checking ID before votes. If you really want to ensure that illegal aliens have the right to vote, then stand on the Senate floor Cy Booker style for 30 hours and defend that to the American people. At the very least, then we'd have a real debate. We're working on it. I can't tell you how it's going to turn out because I can't predict 51 GOP senators, but we are making some progress.

Let's talk affordability for a bit here. Um, a lot of people still suffering. President Trump says, "Look, we've made a lot of progress, but you know, the average American sitting at home doesn't feel it because the polls show that the numbers are not good for the administration on the economy, and that just reflects what people are feeling,

of course." So, what what can actually happen, let's say, between now and November, speaking of the midterms.

Yeah. So that people actually feel better about what's happening in their wallet.

Yeah. So if if I will say if you look at the numbers on affordability, they're starting to move in our direction a little bit, but it's it's there's clear movement from where there was say four or five months ago. I think that's a good thing. But but here's the way that I think about it, Megan, is is if you go just just dollars and cents. The average American household lost about $3,000 of net wages during the B administration. That's through inflation. That's through higher taxes. The average American household, now this is about a month old, but had gained about $1,200 during the Trump administration. So, there's a good news, there's a bad news. The good news there is that compared to last year, you were $1,200 richer than you were. The bad news is that compared to four or five years ago, you're about $2,800 or I guess $1,800 poorer than you were. Okay. So, we recognize there's still a lot of work to do. I I don't

think that there's anything to do, Megan, other than to do the work. Um, you know, we continue to have a lot of capital coming into the country. That means higher wages, more jobs for the American people. We continue to see grocery prices, I think, starting to come down a little bit. There are a couple of categories, you know, we we really worry about, beef in particular that we're working very hard to bring down, not for the midterms, but just because we want the American people uh to buy some ground beef and to buy some steak if they so choose. Um, you know, there are things like cars and houses where we're seeing some real progress.

Rents have now declined five months in a row. That's a big thing that's happening. So, it's one of these things where I don't think you're going to be able to trick the American people. They know they got $3,000 poor during the B administration. I think they're going to judge us by how much we've made them wealthier. And I think that come November, the verdict there is going to be positive. But we just have to keep working at it.

The um the number one question that my audience wanted me to ask you. Oh god, I know. I was actually surprised by it was they think the Republicans suck at messaging.

Okay. They want to know what the administration is going to do to get their arguments out more strongly on immigration and on the progress that they've made. I think there's a frustration actually amongst the GOP base that there have been a lot of wins,

but people don't know it and that there actually is a sound immigration policy, but they let the left run with this narrative and the media is only too happy to spread

lies about the four the 5-year-old boy who is wrongfully deported and all that, right?

Is there is there a plan there? There is. I mean, one is the president and I are just going to get on the road a lot more in the next the next eight, nine months. And you know, part of this is you've got to look CBS, NBC, ABC, there's always going to be an editorial slant to those networks, but they're also declining in power. So, I do things like this. I talk to you, I talk to your your viewers through this conversation, but most importantly, we get out on the road constantly because most people still consume their news through their local affiliate, right? If if their local CBS guy is saying, "Oh, the vice president came to town, the president came to town, this is what they're talking about." That's how you get the message out there. It's non-traditional media. I think we were very good about this in the campaign in 2024. It's something we want to get back to in 2026 is actually taking the

message to people. You know, going on a lot of podcasts and a lot of the non-traditional media, which frankly I think has more narrative power uh than the traditional media does. Uh you know, that that that that's part of what we just have to do. I think the first year were so focused on governing. Now we've got to go out there and talk a little bit more about what we've achieved. I do think there's a lot to hang our hat on, to be proud of, that the American people should be proud of. But you're right. We got to get out there and talk about it more.

Um, somebody who's not shy about talking at all is Gavin Newsome. He's been everywhere. Um, Vogue really loves him. I don't know if you saw the Vogue piece on him, but they're Oh, they like

I don't make it a habit to read Vogue or to read about Gavin Newsome. Let me I I kid you not. This is the lead line of their piece. Let's get this out of the way. He's embarrassingly handsome. His hair seasoned with silver, at ease with his own eminence as he delivers his final State of the State address. It must drive Trump nuts. Nuome life ardent, energetic, a glimmer of optimism in his eye. Kennedy-esque. Do you expect Vogue to give you this same treatment when you sit down with them?

Completely unbiased reporting. Uh that that is like something out of Pravda. Yes,

that's that's what Pravda would have written about. Stalin. That is crazy. That's what you're up against.

Yeah, but I mean, how many people read vote? Nobody. But I really, it's just it was just a segue into 2028

and um whether you think uh there there could be a square off with the Kennedy-esque Gavin Newsome and possibly yourself.

Well, we we'll see. I mean, I look, I'll give you the answer I've given to other people, Megan, which is it's so far in the future.

I don't want the answer you've given to other people. Yeah, but it's the truth. And all I can tell you is the truth is look, I I think that if we take care of business, the politics in 2028 will figure itself out. And if we don't take care of business, there is no amount of salesmanship that is going to change that. You've just got to actually do a good job at the job that we have right now. And I think the American people hopefully in 2, three, four years say, you know what, we want another term of the governance of of this agenda. We don't want to go back to the crazy woke Democrats. We want to double down on reinvesting in America, on rebuilding the American middle class.

I think that's ultimately what they're going to decide. I can't predict the future, but it's why I'm focused on the job that I have now. The other thing, Megan, is is I made this observation and I I think that it would be so warping and and and and because of that very bad for the American people if I woke up every day and thought to myself, how do I maximize my chances in 2028? Because sometimes the answer to that question, in fact, probably most of the time, is going to be a little bit different than how do I maximize the chances of giving the American people a win, right? I got to focus on this job or I'm going to hurt a lot of people who really depend on me.

What can I just ask you about the personal considerations that go into it? You're expecting a fourth baby.

Yes. You have a young, vibrant, very smart, and successful wife. Yeah. Uh who had a big career before you guys got here.

Sure. So what will factor in to whether you actually do run? Oh, I mean a huge factor. Look, I if we ever have that conversation seriously, I it's, you know, do the kids actually want to do it? Do they like this? Right. I mean, so far they're they're very happy. They've actually thrived in it. I think our 8-year-old struggles more with it than our our two younger kids because, you know, they're both you've met them, but the two younger kids are extroverts, right? Says the two younger kids are like me and the the other kid is like her.

So he doesn't like the attention. and he doesn't like the cameras. He doesn't like that people are always offering to do special things for him. Even even when the special thing is nice, he just kind of wants to blend in a little bit. So, I I I I think the question is going to be, can the family support it happily? Can we keep our our, you know, our family healthy? And if the answer is yes, then obviously that's a notch in favor of doing it. If the answer is no, I'd say that's pretty dispositive towards not doing it. But again, we'll have that conversation in a few years when we've actually done a good job here and can can have that conversation with I think a little bit more of first of all, it's there staring you in the face.

It's not 3 years in in the future, it's now. But also just where we have a little bit more sense of of what is good for the kids. I mean, my first obligation, as much as I love the American people, it's to my wife and my kids

and we got to keep them happy. And so far so good. I'm gonna wrap it up because I know you got to go, but um

how are you going to prepare for this fourth baby? Uh I don't I mean at this point we're getting so many kids that they just kind of take care of themselves. So I guess we'll train the others to change diapers and and do a bottle. I mean I don't know. It's going to be chaotic. The thing is we Ush and I had this conversation. There are certainly sacrifices that come along with this life. But there there are also a lot of good things like we live in this beautiful, very protected mansion that the American people have gifted us. So, thank you. You're a taxpayer. Thank you for that. Um, you know, we also most of our meals are prepared for us. Um, so we don't have to worry as much about cooking we did when when baby number three came along. So, there are a lot of things that in some ways make having a baby easier. You don't have to worry about TSA lines when you're the vice president. Air Force 2 makes

transportation pretty easy. Yeah. So, there are all these weird little ways where I actually think it'll be a little bit easier. It'll obviously be harder in some ways, but I just my attitude towards kids. I remember after we had Ean, our our oldest, I was like, what the hell have we gotten ourselves into? No more kids. And then we had a second, then we had a third, and now both of us are just like, what's one more?

Whatever. I'll I'll share with the audience, I don't think you'll mind, that we were with you guys p personally this one point. and uh your kids were outside and you just sort of called from afar, please don't create any ruination and despair. I loved it. It actually made me think, Mr. Vice President, what do you think Mama would think of all this?

Oh man, I don't know. I I think she would I I asked myself that question a lot. I think she'd be amazed by it. And you know, she was fundamentally just such a patriotic person. And I think she'd be in this room right now looking up at the the molding and the beautiful imagery and just saying what what a blessing it is to be here. But I think the thing that she would just most like about our life is is the kids. Mama always just loved kids. She loved grandbab. And she loved the weird little things that they would say. She loved how, you know, they were at one minute super caring and affectionate, at the other minute completely rebellious. And and I I think that's what you know, as much she'd be impressed by the pomp and the circumstance of the professional role, if Mayo were alive right now, she'd probably be living with us and she'd be much more worried about the kids than anything I was doing at the

White House. I feel like she could really, you know, how Marco Rubio's got every role in the administration. I feel like she could have done them. She could have taken any one of those off of his hands. We would have been in very good hand.

Oh, that's right. No, we I mean, that's another thing that will make the the new the new baby much easier is is Marco has agreed to be nanny to our fourth kid. So, you know, what's another job? He can do it. All right, we got to go. I forgot to ask you quickly if you if you'll allow me,

please. Um, Savannah Guthrie is in the midst of a national crisis right now. It sounds very sad. I don't

awful. It looks awful. Just wanted to give you the chance to comment on it because the White House sent out a tweet yesterday asking people to call in if they have any information, but

Well, obviously thinking about her and praying for her and and I believe it's her mother-in-law. Is that right? Or it's her mom. Okay. So, so praying for her mom and the whole situation just seems, you know, very scary. So,

what we've done at the White House is basically offered every resource that we can to try to help and, you know, what what can you do? But help where we can and pray that it all turns out right, but but certainly knows I hope she knows we're all thinking about her at the White House cuz sort of the worst one of the worst situations you can imagine personally. So, we'll just keep keep tabs of it, keep on helping out where we can and hope it goes okay.

We're praying for her. We're praying for you every day. I appreciate it. Thank you for the sacrifice that I know it takes to do this job.

Good to see you, Megan. Yeah, you too. Thanks.

Questions about this episode

Who speaks in "VP JD Vance and Megyn Kelly - The FULL Interview"?

Megyn Kelly (Guest), J.D. Vance (Guest).

What is "VP JD Vance and Megyn Kelly - The FULL Interview" about?

Vice President JD Vance discusses his experiences in Washington, including the contrasts of public perception and the absurdities of political life, such as navigating a motorcade amid mixed public reactions. He reflects on the rapid transition to his role and the significance of making a meaningful impact while enjoying the job's unique opportunities.

What is mentioned in this Megyn Kelly episode?

9 people, works and ideas are mentioned, including Donald Trump, Joe Biden, Iran, Supreme Court, New York Times, Marco Rubio. Each one on this page links to its own page with every episode that mentions it.

How long is "VP JD Vance and Megyn Kelly - The FULL Interview"?

The episode runs 52 min; the transcript is about 11,626 words in 145 timestamped sections.

More from Megyn Kelly

About this transcript: the episode's spoken words as captioned on YouTube, split into timestamped sections. Reclip.Me locates every person, work and idea in the text, keeps the time it is first named, and quotes the words around it verbatim. Last updated February 7, 2026.