JD Vance Faces Backlash as UK Veterans Speak Out
A few words can travel far—sometimes farther than expected. In March 2025, remarks by US Vice President JD Vance sparked a swift and emotional reaction that crossed the Atlantic.
During a Fox News interview, Vance discussed potential security guarantees for a post-conflict Ukraine. He argued that a US economic stake, such as access to critical minerals, would provide a stronger deterrent against future Russian aggression than “20,000 troops from some random country that hasn’t fought a war in 30 or 40 years.” The comment was widely interpreted in the UK and France as a slight against their proposed peacekeeping contributions and, more pointedly, against the hard-earned combat record of their forces.
The backlash was immediate and crossed party lines. British veterans and politicians pushed back forcefully. Former Veterans Minister and Afghanistan veteran Johnny Mercer called Vance a “clown” and suggested his perspective might differ if he had more direct combat experience. SAS veteran and author Andy McNab, along with senior military figures like Lord West and former Chief of the General Staff General Sir Patrick Sanders, expressed similar dismay. Shadow Defence Secretary James Cartlidge described the remarks as “deeply disrespectful” to shared service and sacrifice. Opposition voices and even some government figures echoed the sentiment.
Prime Minister Keir Starmer responded with measured dignity, opening Prime Minister’s Questions by paying tribute to the bravery of British troops who served in Iraq and Afghanistan alongside American forces. He emphasized that Britain would “never forget” their courage and sacrifice—hundreds of UK personnel lost their lives in those conflicts, fighting shoulder-to-shoulder with US troops.
Vance quickly clarified his position, calling interpretations that he targeted the UK or France “absurdly dishonest.” He noted that he had not named either country and affirmed that both had “fought bravely alongside the US over the last 20 years, and beyond.” His core argument, he said, concerned the battlefield experience and capabilities of various nations volunteering for peacekeeping roles.
This episode was never solely about one comment. It touched something deeper: the emotional weight of shared history, from World War II through the Cold War to two decades of counterterrorism operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. For veterans and their families, words that appear to diminish allied sacrifices land heavily.
Yet the reaction also revealed perspective. The US-UK “Special Relationship”—rooted in intelligence sharing, NATO interoperability, joint exercises, and mutual defense—remains fundamentally strong. Moments like this serve as reminders that even the closest alliances require care with language, respect for collective memory, and recognition that trust is built over decades but can feel strained in seconds.
In the end, strong partnerships endure disagreements precisely because they rest on more than any single soundbite. Respect, memory, and a clear-eyed focus on common interests continue to underpin the bond between these longtime allies.
2024 DNC Report Reveals Just How Bad Party Screwed Up Harris’s Campaign HH
The Democratic National Committee has released its analysis of the 2024 presidential campaign, in which then-Vice President Kamala Harris was decisively defeated by Donald Trump, despite spending over $1 billion in campaign funds.
Before I even review the findings, the story has actually become more about how badly the roll-out of the 2024 autopsy has been thus far:
Democratic National Committee chair Ken Martin on Thursday released the party’s autopsy report on the 2024 election after facing intense pressure to do so.
Martin had been pummeled in public for months after he promised to release the report and then reversed course in December, saying he would not do so. It’s one in a series of negative storylines that Martin has faced during his short tenure at the DNC, even as Democrats have made political gains in elections in the past year.
The situation for the Democrats is worsening because it seems the party did not honestly assess its performance: They anointed a candidate whose policies did not resonate with everyday Americans. Andrew Kolvet, a spokesperson for Turning Point USA, provided a blunt critique of the weak excuses offered for the unsuccessful campaign:
CNN just spent an entire segment proving the DNC autopsy is every bit as bad and evasive as we expected.
“There are a lot of things in that version that are incomplete, uh, and also it does not touch a couple topics that a lot of people were very interested in and thought were the reasons for this report not being out.”
“There is nothing about Joe Biden and what happened in the debate. There is nothing about Kamala Harris getting the nomination without any kind of primary process.”
Martin, who has done the party no favors as its leader, rolled out the excuses:
“I could not in good faith put the DNC’s stamp of approval on the report that was produced. After last November’s massive Democratic wins, I didn’t want to create a distraction, but by not putting the report out, I ended up creating an even bigger distraction. For that, I sincerely apologize.”
Understand, these are the losers who want to run the country. But they can’t even roll out a report without making it a disaster:
BREAKING: Democrat Rep. Jared Moskowitz is calling the 2024 DNC Autopsy report “malpractice.”
“It sounds like we need a malpractice attorney because we couldn’t even do the autopsy correctly.”
“We got SHELLACKED in the last election. I mean, we lost every single solitary swing state.”
The report hasn’t even been out that long and Democrats are already turning on one another.
So, what was the diagnosis for getting smoked in 2024? What does the report say? A bunch of stuff that appears to miss the point:
Much of the 200-page draft autopsy report doesn’t focus directly on the 2024 election — it includes a lengthy recap of modern American political history dating back to the 2008 presidential election, historic fundraising and spending data from past elections and more.
But the report also includes significant discussion of what the author believes went wrong for Democrats in 2024.
The diagnosis includes underfunded state parties and Democratic declines in voter registration. The report also stated that a “persistent inability or unwillingness to listen to all voters has provided the other major party with opportunities for advancement at the expense of Democratic growth, evolution, and ability to find common ground with seemingly disparate groups of voters from coast to coast, and the heartland Democrats tend to ignore.”
“Underfunded?” The party blew through a billion dollars. Also, here’s a much shorter version of what this autopsy should have said:
“Our anointed candidate sucked. She couldn’t connect with anyone outside of the lunatics in our party.
“Our policy ideas, when our anointed candidate even bothered to mention them, were inferior to Trump’s.”
“Running on ‘but I’m not Trump!’ isn’t a political winner.”
There, Ken. Fixed it for you.
Obama Goes After Trump Again After Key Elections Called
President Donald Trump and former President Barack Obama were at odds again in public after elections in Hungary saw the administration’s preferred candidate, now former Prime Minister Victor Orban, defeated by a left-wing candidate, Peter Magyar.
Before the election, Trump dispatched Vice President JD Vance to Hungary for a last-minute boost of U.S. support.
Advertisement
But that didn’t seem to make much difference, and Magyar won comfortably, leading Obama to gloat online.
Advertisement
“The victory of the opposition in Hungary yesterday, like the Polish election in 2023, is a victory for democracy, not just in Europe but around the world. Most of all, it’s a testament to the resilience and determination of the Hungarian people – and a reminder to all of us to keep striving for fairness, equality and the rule of law,” Obama wrote on X.
Orban governed Hungary for 16 years, and he won each time through democratic elections.
Advertisement
Meanwhile, Obama has been feuding with Trump and the MAGA movement in other ways, including supporting redistricting in Virginia and California after opposing it in Texas, Missouri, and other red states.
He also used the occasion of the death of the Rev. Jesse Jackson to attack the Trump administration and Republicans in general with a fearmongering speech that even drew the rebuke of Jesse Jackson Jr., the late civil rights icon’s son.
Earlier this month, Trump and War Secretary Pete Hegseth both took Obama to task for gifting the Iranian regime with “piles” of cash that enabled Tehran to obtain the ballistic missiles and weapons that were used to target American and allied installations throughout the Middle East.
Their remarks come as the United States and Israel enter the fourth week of Operation Epic Fury, which aims to eliminate Iran’s military capabilities following Trump’s claim that the Iranian regime is rebuilding its nuclear weapons program.
During remarks at the FII PRIORITY Summit on Friday, Trump also lashed out at Obama for his ‘nuclear deal’ with Iran that the current president ended during his first term after revealing that Tehran was cheating and continuing to develop a nuclear weapons capability in secret.
Trump mentioned the $1.7 billion payment made to Iran during the execution of the Iran nuclear deal. He described the funds as cash delivered by airplane and expressed his dissatisfaction with this action, stating that it provided Iran with the means to finance hostile activities.
“That Barack Hussein Obama, did you ever hear of him? Barack Hussein Obama, he had the Iran nuclear deal. He went to Iran, he paid them,” the POTUS said. “Remember, he sent two Boeing 757 jetliners. They took the seats out and they piled it with cash, like 1.7 billion of cash.”
“That’s when I realized the president is very powerful. The presidency is a very powerful thing when you can do that. I haven’t done that yet. I haven’t found a reason to do that yet, but that’s big,” the Republican leader expressed.
At the time, Obama justified the massive payout by claiming Iran was owed the money over a legal claim related to a failed arms deal in 1979 after the Islamic revolution ushered in the ayatollah and deposed the Shah, taking dozens of Americans prisoner and holding them for more than 440 days.
“You know, there wasn’t a bank in DC, Virginia, or Maryland that had any money after that disaster,” Trump said.
“But they sent the cash to Iran, but more importantly, they signed an agreement, the Iran nuclear deal, which, if I didn’t terminate it in my first term, I terminated it almost immediately. If I didn’t terminate it, they would have had a nuclear weapon long ago, and they would have used it on the Middle East, Israel,” the commander-in-chief further stated.
This article may contain commentary which reflects the author's opinion.
