President Donald Trump attends a business meeting and roundtable in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates on May 16, 2025. | AP Photo/Altaf Qadri

The U.S. government is going into business whether businesses like it or not.

President Donald Trump wants to convert $11 billion in federal contracts and subsidies awarded to the struggling chipmaker Intel into an equity stake. The Pentagon is now the largest shareholder in a rare earths mining business. Trump conditioned Nippon Steel’s acquisition of U.S. Steel on his receipt of a “golden share” that grants him significant control over its operations. He has announced plans to slash prices on U.S. pharmaceuticalsand hatched deals that entitle Treasury to a slice of the revenue that Nvidia and AMD generate from Chinese chip sales.

Fromtariff carveouts to pro bono legal work from white-shoe law firms, Trump is exerting power over U.S. businesses in ways that go beyond even Sen. Bernie Sanders’ (I-Vt.) aspirations. His ability to inject his agenda into private enterprises and dealmaking has shaken the guardrails that protect businesses from sudden political shifts and defied the free-market orthodoxy that was a hallmark of Republican economic policymaking.

But Trump’s approach has also created new risks that could divert capital from some of the domestic industries he has sought to promote, from semiconductors to pharmaceuticals. Investors hate uncertainty, and the president’s spur-of-the-moment demands for the government to exert control over private investment could suppress the very market forces that he needs to deliver economic growth.

“The more you politicize business decisions, the less efficient they’re going to be,” said Gregory Mankiw, an economics professor at Harvard University and a former top adviser to President George W. Bush and Mitt Romney. The president’s ad hoc forays into the private sector are “fundamentally inconsistent with free enterprise and the rule of law.”

“It’s really a big step toward crony capitalism,” Mankiw added.

Trump’s allies say U.S. economic policymaking was in desperate need of a jolt from the top down. Low unemployment, steady growth and surging corporate profits weren’t enough to generate much confidence in President Joe Biden’s leadership. Perceptions of Trump’s prowess as a dealmaker had burnished the public’s view of his economic stewardship during his first term. The White House is now leaning into that Art of the Deal, uber-capitalist image as Trump flexes his authority over businesses.

“When you put this money in the hands of Donald Trump, you’re going to get a better deal for the American taxpayer,” Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick told CNBC earlier this week, describing how the government could flip the subsidies Intel received through Biden’s CHIPS Act into an ownership stake that would provide the government with a taste of the chipmaker’s future returns. “That’s what Donald Trump is.”

In Trump world, there’s a view that a potential Intel acquisition and other private dealmaking are one-off transactions aimed at shoring up industries deemed critical to national security. The administration has been exploring strategies to capture returns from the government’s largesse since shortly after the inauguration. That thinking informed Trump’s executive order to Lutnick and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent in Februaryto form a sovereign wealth fund.

“Washington, D.C.’s blind commitment to consensus orthodoxy that ignored the realities of the world is exactly why Americans and America were left behind,” White House spokesperson Kush Desai said in a statement. “The Administration is simultaneously pushing the free market policies – such as rapid deregulation and The One Big Beautiful Bill’s tax cuts – that do work while rectifying the America Last policies that haven’t worked to safeguard our national and economic security.”

But where the administration sees upside, free market types see peril. Trump’s willingness to wield influence over the private sector has amplified the government’s role in picking winners and losers in regulated markets. That has further scrambled the ability of corporate decision-makers to strategize against an already unpredictable U.S. policy environment.

“If the government can come in and look to support companies, the government has a right to limit your returns,” hedge fund billionaire Leon Cooperman told POLITICO. Jessica Riedl, a conservative economist at the Manhattan Institute, compared the president’s efforts to cap prescription drug prices and buy private businesses to the actions of socialist governments with centrally planned economies.

On Intel, Cato Institute Vice President Scott Lincicome said that reverse engineering government subsidies into government-owned equity would chill the willingness of CEOs to partner with the federal government on future projects.

Lutnick ruled out taking governance rights in Intel, but if the government decides to use any stake it acquires in a private business to exert direct control over its operations — a la U.S. Steel — Lincicome warned that would dissuade outside investment in industries that the administration considers a national security priority. (For the Trump administration, that includes everything from copper and semiconductors to timber.)

Even some MAGA supporters are alarmed. One prominent Trump ally, granted anonymity to speak frankly about the president’s economic agenda, said the possible acquisition of Intel was “bad policy” that could trigger an enormous backlash. Another supporter said the government should stay out of the private sector and focus on deregulation.

It’s notable that Sanders — an avowed democratic socialist whose policies are largely viewed as toxic by the investment world — praised Trump’s designs for Intel. “If microchip companies make a profit from the generous grants they receive from the federal government, the taxpayers of America have a right to a reasonable return on that investment,” the Vermont senator said in a statement to POLITICO.

That may bother the Wall Street Journal’s editorial page, or the traditional corporate conservatives who also held their nose at Trump’s protectionist trade and immigration policies. But the president’s hold over the GOP base — and vigilant focus on hammering any outward criticism of his agenda — could limit the public uproar.

Of course, while Trump might be aligned with Sanders on Intel, that’s one of the only areas where their economic agendas overlap. Many of the free-market partisans who’ve been infuriated by the president’s recent dealmaking are also vocal cheerleaders of his tax and regulatory agenda.

In the meantime, prominent business leaders and Republicans who derided previous government incursions on the private sector have already started to change their tune.

“Nothing’s for free in this world,” said John Catsimatidis, the billionaire New York radio station owner, real estate investor and longtime Trump booster. When it comes to Intel, “I agree on this one with Bernie Sanders.”

Rep. Thomas Massie holds a copy of a bill he cosponsored with Rep. Ro Khanna to force the House to vote on the complete release of the government’s files on Jeffrey Epstein. | Francis Chung/POLITICO

The Justice Department is expected on Friday to start handing the first batch of Jeffrey Epstein files over to Congress. But it may be a while before lawmakers get the information they want — if ever.

The DOJ is taking a piecemeal approach to transmitting documents to Capitol Hill, pursuant to a subpoena issued this month by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee after Democrats on the panel forced the matter.

The committee, led by Kentucky Republican Rep. James Comer, anticipates receiving an initial tranche of files related to the convicted sex offender by the end of the day Aug. 22. Making these materials public, however, will be a slow, deliberative process.

That’s because House Oversight intends to coordinate with the Justice Department on taking steps to shield the names of the women who were victims of Epstein, who died by suicide in 2019, and information around ongoing criminal cases.

“The Committee intends to make the records public after thorough review to ensure all victims’ identification and child sexual abuse material are redacted,” said an Oversight Committee spokesperson, granted anonymity to share details about the panel’s internal activities. “The Committee will also consult with the DOJ to ensure any documents released do not negatively impact ongoing criminal cases and investigations.”

If the Justice Department follows precedent, both Democrats and Republicans on House Oversight would get access to the materials. While under a typical arrangement, the majority — in this case Republicans — would control its disclosure, either party could release the materials unilaterally.

Democrats, however, intend to review the files before releasing them publicly, according to a person familiar with Oversight Democrats’ planning, speaking on condition of anonymity to share internal party strategy.

The files they receive could include FBI reports of witness interviews; materials seized from the searches of Epstein’s vast properties in New York, the Virgin Islands, Palm Beach and New Mexico; and the affidavits used to gain permission from judges to execute those searches.

There are a variety of complicating factors to consider, among them the ongoing legal challenge that Ghislaine Maxwell, a longtime Epstein associate, is pursuing against her 20-year conviction for sex trafficking crimes. House Oversight previously subpoenaed Maxwell for testimony and is negotiating the conditions of the interview with her legal team. Maxwell, who was sentenced in 2021, is demanding that she be granted immunity from further criminal proceedings in exchange for her cooperation.

The plodding process is unlikely to satisfy demands for transparency from lawmakers on both sides of the aisle, though. And House GOP leaders shouldn’t expect to return from the August recess free from the drama that consumed them in July.

“After months of stonewalling, calling Epstein files a hoax, and telling people nothing but porn exists in their possession, the administration now admits the files exist, and agrees to release some of them,” Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) said in a social media post this week. “Americans want transparency though, not smoke and mirrors.”

Massie, with Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), has been leading the charge to force a floor vote on a resolution that would compel the release of the Epstein files, and the two men say they’ll follow through on plans when Congress returns to use procedural maneuvers to call the measure up without leadership’s consent.

The Massie-Khanna resolution would call for the materials to be made public with redactions only for the purposes of protecting names of victims, hiding sexually explicit content and in instances where ongoing legal cases could be compromised. In other words, the lawmakers want to guarantee the identities of Epstein’s associates, if applicable, are revealed.

Last month, Speaker Mike Johnson said Republicans should give the DOJ time to reveal the documents in a responsible manner that would respect the privacy of Epstein’s victims. However, President Donald Trump — who had ties to Epstein, a well-known financier — was also pushing to move past the issue after his allies had stoked conspiracy theories for years about what authorities were hiding.

Yet Massie, Khanna and allies would not budge from their stance that members must be allowed to vote to bring the files to light, disrupting the Rules Committee that tees up floor consideration for most legislation. Leaders opted to send their members home a few days ahead of schedule for the summer recess rather than stay in Washington to take politically uncomfortable votes.

Democrats are also signaling they won’t be satisfied by the DOJ’s game plan and will continue to make the issue a political headache for Republicans.

“Releasing the Epstein files in batches just continues this White House cover-up. The American people will not accept anything short of the full, unredacted Epstein files,” Rep. Robert Garcia, the top Democrat on the Oversight Committee, said in a statement. “We will keep pressing until the American people get the truth — every document, every fact, in full. The administration must comply with our subpoena, by law.”

Efforts to draw a wedge in the GOP over the Epstein files were taking place as far away as Texas this week, where Gene Wu, chair of the state’s House Democratic Caucus, offered an amendment to delay Republicans’ mid-decade redistricting efforts until after the release of Epstein materials.

Meanwhile, back in Washington, lawmakers will regroup on Capitol Hill on Sept. 2 with just four weeks left to avert a government shutdown, and there’s already concern in GOP leadership over the time the House could waste continuing to fight over perceived distractions.

“I’d really like to see this resolved, if possible, before we get back,” Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-Va.), chair of the House Rules Committee, told reporters this week. “We’re going to have a lot of work to do when we get back in September. I’ve already looked at my September calendar, and it looks pretty busy.”

Foxx, whose committee work was derailed by members’ efforts to force Epstein-related votes, called the saga “a tempest in a teapot.”

In February, the Department of Justice released what it called the “first phase” of documents related to the Epstein investigation, which has been a fixation of some of the president’s supporters. It has long been public that Trump — along with other prominent figures, like Bill Clinton — are referenced in documents previously released in court cases surrounding Epstein. But Trump is not accused of any wrongdoing linked to Epstein.

The real firestorm, however, began in earnest in early July, when the department quietly released a memo saying the federal government did not find evidence of a so-called Epstein “client list.” Conspiracists had long postulated that Epstein kept such a list of people with whom he trafficked young women, and that it was being hidden to protect the rich and powerful.

No additional disclosures would be forthcoming, the unsigned memo said, which quickly — and predictably — set off a complicated political quagmire for the president and the GOP amid accusations that the administration was reneging on its promise for transparency.

Trump, in an effort to quash the outrage, asked Attorney General Pam Bondi to seek the release of grand jury materials in the most recent investigations of Epstein and Maxwell in New York, as well as an earlier federal probe of Epstein in Florida. In recent weeks, all three judges assigned to resolve the unsealing requests rebuffed the administration, with the most recent rejection coming Wednesday.

The judges said the department hadn’t justified taking the unusual step of unsealing the secret files and that, in any event, most of material in the files had already been made public through Maxwell’s trial or other means.

Still, even if the grand jury transcripts and exhibits were made public, they represent a tiny fraction of the material the Justice Department possesses in the Epstein and Maxwell investigative files that are the subject of the congressional subpoena.

When the House Oversight Committee interviewed Trump’s former attorney general, Bill Barr, as part of its probe into the Epstein matter earlier this month, Barr told congressional investigators that he did not know why the documents were being withheld, according to a person familiar with his testimony and granted anonymity to describe the private conversation.

The lack of transparency around the process, however, might have to do with the fact that some grand jury materials may need court approval, Barr suggested, and that current policy prohibits the release of unsubstantiated information.

Ultimately, the House Oversight subpoena currently represents the best chance for bringing some information to light — and for the Trump administration to get limited details released to satisfy those clamoring for action.

Longstanding DOJ policies as well as a federal law — the Privacy Act of 1974 — limit disclosures about living individuals investigated for potential crimes. However, that law and those DOJ rules do not apply to Congress, which is generally free to ignore individuals’ pleas for discretion. DOJ has sometimes used that distinction to effectively make sensitive information public by transmitting it to Congress — with GOP and Democratic lawmakers then able to cherry pick what of the sensitive information they choose to share.

A DOJ spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment.

Erica Orden, Josh Gerstein and Jordain Carney contributed to this report.

Former Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown trailed behind Republican Sen. Jon Husted by six points in a new Emerson College poll released Friday morning. | Francis Chung/POLITICO

Former Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown lagged behind Republican Sen. Jon Husted in the first public poll since the Ohio Democrat launched his comeback bid, as Democrats face an uphill battle to reclaim the upper chamber next year.

Brown trailed behind the incumbent Republican by six points in a new Emerson College poll released Friday morning. Fifty percent of registered voters said they’d vote for Husted if the election took place today, while 44 percent expressed support for Brown. Seven percent of voters said they were yet undecided.

Husted’s lead comes even as Brown holds higher name recognition among voters — only 14 percent of voters said they were unsure or hadn’t heard of the longtime Democratic senator, while 39 percent said the same of Husted.

“Husted has a 16-point lead among male voters and voters without a college degree, and a 14-point lead among voters over 40,” Spencer Kimball, executive director of Emerson College Polling, said. “Brown has a 13-point lead among voters under 40, a three-point lead among women voters, and an eight-point lead among independent voters.”

After speculation about a potential gubernatorial run, Brown launched his Senate bid earlier this week, teeing up over a yearlong battle with Husted for the seat.

Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine tapped Husted to fill JD Vance’s vacant Senate seat after Vance ascended to the vice presidency this year.

A victory for Brown would be a welcome boost for Democrats, as they mount a long-shot battle to retake the Senate in 2026. But Friday’s poll demonstrates the tough odds the longtime Democratic elected official faces in an increasingly red state.

And Brown wasn’t the only Democrat falling behind in Friday’s survey.

Republican Vivek Ramaswamy held a 10-point lead over Democrat Amy Acton in a hypothetical gubernatorial matchup: 49 to 39 percent, with 12 percent undecided. Acton gained name recognition as the state’s public health director through the Covid-19 pandemic, earning her the support of Ohio’s Democratic base — and placing her in the crosshairs of conservatives as outrage bubbled over about the state’s controversial school closures.

While Acton is currently the only declared Democratic candidate for governor, former Rep. Tim Ryan has also been mulling tossing his hat in the ring. But a potential contest between Ryan and Ramaswamy showed the Republican leading 49 percent to 41 percent, with 10 percent undecided.

According to the Emerson poll, Ramaswamy’s strength lies in his support among younger voters — the onetime presidential candidate outperformed Husted with voters under 30 by five points.

The survey also asked voters if they thought the state’s congressional maps were drawn fairly, or if they were drawn to benefit either the Republican or Democratic Party. The state is legally required to redraw the map this year because the post-2020 Census map passed with just Republican support.

Forty-one percent of respondents said they thought the state’s maps were drawn to give an advantage to Republicans, while 23 percent said they thought the lines were drawn fairly and 8 percent said they thought they were drawn to the advantage of Democrats. Twenty-nine percent said they were unsure either way.

Ohio mapmakers are set to redraw the state’s congressional lines this year and could tilt the map even more toward the GOP. There is now a nationwide redistricting arms race following a dramatic struggle over the Texas legislature’s efforts to push through a partisan gerrymander favoring the state’s Republicans earlier this summer.

Coming out of the prolonged battle in the lone star state, Democrats have vowed to fight hard over Ohio’s upcoming map redraw. But the state’s Democrats face an uphill battle, as Republicans hold a majority in the legislature and the state’s redistricting board, giving Democrats little recourse to push back against a new map.

The Emerson College survey was conducted from among 1,000 active Ohio registered voters between Aug. 18-19, 2025, with a credibility interval of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

UnHerd’s wide-ranging conversation with JD Vance, his first major interview with a European outlet since assuming office as Vice President, topped headlines in Britain, Europe, and America on Tuesday, sending the FTSE surging on news of a potential US-UK trade deal and prompting a positive response from the Starmer government. We are now pleased to present the full transcript of the conversation, which has been minimally edited for clarity.

Sohrab Ahmari: Mr. Vice President, please permit me to start with the headline of the day: I’m sure you saw President Zelenskyy’s recent remarks in which he said that you are ‘somehow justifying’ Vladimir Putin’s actions. How do you respond to that? And is it productive for the Kyiv government to approach the Trump administration in this manner?

JD Vance: It’s certainly not productive. I saw it, and I think Zelensky is wrong about that. I’ve repeatedly condemned the full-scale invasion that was launched in 2022, but like President Trump, I’ve also tried to apply strategic recognition that if you want to end the conflict, you have to try to understand where both the Russians and the Ukrainians see their strategic objectives. That doesn’t mean you morally support the Russian cause, or that you support the full-scale invasion, but you do have to try to understand what are their strategic red lines, in the same way that you have to try to understand what the Ukrainians are trying to get out of the conflict. So that you can negotiate a peace. And that’s what the President has been trying to do for a few months now, and I think it’s sort of absurd for Zelenskyy to tell the [American] government, which is currently keeping his entire government and war effort together, that we are somehow on the side of the Russians. As the President said, ‘We’re not on anybody’s side, we’re on America’s side, and we happen to believe that America’s best interests are served through peace’.

SA: Looking beyond Ukraine, there have been a number of recent incidents that have led Europeans to conclude that you really don’t like Europe. Is that a fair assessment? And if not, what’s your message to European leaders, including some on the Right, who think, ‘Boy, he really doesn’t see any positive in us — just kind of, hammers us relentlessly, publicly and even privately when he’s addressing other administration principals’?

JDV: It’s certainly not right. I love Europe, I love European people. I’ve said repeatedly that I think that you can’t separate American culture from European culture. We’re very much a product of philosophies, theologies, and, of course, migration patterns that came out of Europe that launched the United States of America. . . . I love the different cultures, I certainly think that Europe has a lot to offer the world.

I also think that European leaders have been a little asleep at the wheel. What they find so shocking is that we’re just being honest about a new strategic reality. And there are a couple of things that are happening simultaneously.

The first is, we’re very frustrated — ‘we’ meaning me, the President, certainly the entire Trump administration — that European populations keep on, frankly, crying out for more sensible economic and migration policies, and the leaders of Europe keep on going through these elections, and keep on offering the European peoples the opposite of what they seem to have voted for. That’s something I really worry about. The entire democratic project of the West falls apart when the people keep on asking for less migration, and they keep on being rewarded by their leaders with more migration. Obviously, I think there’s an economic component to that, there’s a cultural component to that. But I think most importantly, voters have the right to decide what they want. I say that as a friend, not as someone who’s pointing fingers and saying, ‘You guys are really screwing this up’ — but as a person who really respects and loves Europe. That part of actually surviving and thriving in the 21st century is to be responsive to the will of the people on the migration question. That’s something that frankly American leaders and European leaders have screwed up for close to a half a century. And I’m saying, ‘Look, just as President Trump has taken the concerns of voters seriously, we encourage our friends our friends in Europe to take their concerns seriously’.

I mentioned there are two issues. That’s one: the question of migration, how to have a common-sense migration policy in the 21st century, really sits atop of a lot of the debates we’ve had in the West, and our European friends are [facing issues] that are really no different than the issues we’re confronting in America.

The second, of course, is the security posture. Look, the reality is — it’s blunt to say it, but it’s also true — that Europe’s entire security infrastructure for my entire life has been subsidised by the United States of America. Twenty to twenty-five years ago, you could say that Europe had many vibrant militaries, at least militaries that could defend their own homelands. Today, in 2025, most European nations don’t have militaries that can provide for their reasonable defense. The British are an obvious exception, the French are an obvious exception, the Poles are an obvious exception. But in some ways, they’re the exceptions that prove the rule, that European leaders have radically underinvested in security, and that has to change. And it has to change in part because the United States needs to focus on Asia, on our security interests there.

But I also just think it’s not good for Europe to be the permanent security vassal of the United States. And what I find so shocking in some of the European leadership’s response to some of what I say is, that I’m echoing a great European statesman called Charles de Gaulle, who I think loved the United States of America, but obviously had disagreements with America. But [he] recognised what I certainly recognise, that it’s not in Europe’s interest and it’s not in America’s interest for Europe to be a permanent security vassal of the United States.

SA: But haven’t we Americans also benefited from the status quo, from the fact that European capitals bandwagon with Washington, even when they disagree with our foreign-policy decisions? To put it bluntly, might it not be bad forEurope to be too independent?

JDV: I definitely think that America and Europe will continue to thrive with the economic and security relationships of our two separate continents. I don’t think that Europe being more independent is bad for the United States — it’s good for the United States. Just going back through history, I think, frankly, the British and the French were certainly right in their disagreements with Eisenhower about the Suez Canal. Something I know a little bit more personally, I think a lot of European nations were right about our invasion of Iraq. And frankly, if the Europeans had been a little more independent, and a little more willing to stand up, then maybe we could have saved the entire world from the strategic disaster that was the American-led invasion of Iraq. A more independent Europe, yes, is going to lead to more conversations, sometimes even more debates. But I just don’t think that Americans in the Fifties, Sixties, and Seventies asked if France were real allies, even though there were real disagreements. But I think it’s OK for allies to have disagreements. And that’s what I want Europe to be. I want it to be an ally. I want it to be a strong, independent ally, obviously each individual country to be independent strong allies. I don’t want the Europeans to just do whatever the Americans tell them to do. I don’t think it’s in their interest, and I don’t think it’s in our interests, either.

“I definitely think that America and Europe will continue to thrive with the economic and security relationships of our two separate continents.”

SA: Is there a UK-US trade deal in the offing, a carve-out for the special alliance amid the tariff regime? And would you see it happening under the Starmer government?

JDV: We’re certainly working very hard with Keir Starmer’s government. The President really loves the United Kingdom. He loved the Queen. He admires and loves the King. It is a very important relationship. And he’s a businessman and has a number of important business relationships in [Britain]. But I think it’s much deeper than that. There’s a real cultural affinity. And of course, fundamentally America is an Anglo country: our legal system, our culture and values is very much an offshoot of what was going on the British Isles for hundreds of years.

We’re working very hard on a trade deal with the Starmer government. I don’t want to prejudge it, but I think there’s a good chance that, yes, we’ll come to a great agreement that’s in the best interest of both countries.

With other Europeans, we work hard to reach a more balanced trade relationship. [Already,] with the United Kingdom, we have a much more reciprocal relationship than we have with, say, Germany. While we love the Germans, they are heavily dependent on exporting to the United States but are pretty tough on a lot of American businesses that would like to export into Germany. So this concept of fairness that the President really cares about in our trade relationship, without prejudging the results, I think it will lead to a lot of positive trade relationships with Europe. And again, we very much see Europe as our ally. We just want it to be an alliance where Europeans are a little more independent, and our security and trade relationships are gonna reflect that.

SA: What’s the key metric of success for the new tariff regime? What will have had to happen in, say, three years’ time when we speak again, God willing, for you to conclude, ‘OK, we did it’ or ‘OK, we got a good part of the way there’?

JDV: We want to is lower trade deficits, really across the board. Sometimes, a trade deficit makes sense. Like, America doesn’t produce bananas. So obviously, we’re gonna be importing bananas, not exporting bananas. So with certain product categories and maybe even with some countries, a small trading deficit can be justified. But what the global trading system has led to, is large and persistent trade deficits across product categories, with the gross majority of countries really using the United States [home market] to absorb their surplus exports. That’s been bad for us. It’s been bad for American manufacturers. It’s been bad for workers. And God forbid, if the America ever fought a future war, it would be bad for America’s troops. And so we really want to see a significant rebalancing. So what I want to be able to see a few years from now, is that our trade deficit as a share of GDP is much lower.

SA: Over the past week, have you had heart-sinking moments looking at financial markets? Or looking at your own portfolio? I ask this as someone who supports these tariffs and was calling for a post-neoliberal world trade order going back years. But I’d be lying if I said there’ve been no moments when I went, ‘Whoa, what if this thing goes really upside down’? Have you had similar thoughts over the past week, and if so, how do you process them?

JDV: Any implementation of a new system is fundamentally going to make financial markets jittery. The President has been very consistent that this is a long-term play. That he really wants to rebalance trade in the interests of American workers and manufacturers. And that fundamentally, you can’t let short-term fluctuations in the market change how you think about the long term. Now, of course, you have to be responsive to what the business community is telling you, what workers are telling you, what bond markets are telling you. These are all variables that we have to be responsive to to make the policy successful. But the goal is the success of the policy. No plan is, you know, going to be implemented perfectly. No plan is not going to require adjustments. We certainly recognise that we want to rebalance global trade, other countries are going to respond to that, we’re going to have to respond to that. We want to do something in the markets, the markets are going to respond, we have to respond to that [in turn]. We’re very cognisant of the fact that we live in a complicated world where nobody else’s decisions are static. But the fundamental policy is to rebalance global trade, and I think the President has been very clear and persistent on that.

SA: You have been described as our first very-online Vice President. Do you worry that you tweet too much, though?

JDV: [Laughs] There are many blessings to this job. One unquestioned downside is that I very much live in a bubble. I’m surrounded by Secret Service agents. It’s very hard for a random person to walk up to me — in fact, it’s damned near impossible. I see social media as a useful, albeit imperfect, way to stay in touch with what’s going on in the country at large. And there are a lot of other things I do to stay in touch, to make sure that the bubble of the vice presidency doesn’t make it impossible for me to hear the concerns of the people that I serve. I probably spend way less time on Twitter than I did six months ago, that’s probably good for me. But I’ve gotta try really hard to stay connected. Because the White House, the West Wing, the vice presidency are by design a bubble. And to be a good Vice President, I have to stay outside of that bubble as much as I can.

Capitol Alert Newsom has California on alert after Trump orders bomb strikes in Iran nuclear sites

President Donald Trump, flanked by Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth speaks from the East Room of the White House on Saturday, June 21, 2025, following a targeted attack on three sites in Iran by American bombers. NBC News

Gov. Gavin Newsom said Saturday that California’s State Threat Assessment Center is “actively monitoring for any potential impacts in California” after President Donald Trump ordered strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities.

“While there are no specific or credible counter threats we are aware of at this time, we urge everyone to stay vigilant and report suspicious activity,” he tweeted.

Reaction to the U.S. action fell largely along party lines.

“The President’s decision to carry out a targeted strike on Iranian nuclear sites was the right move. It was necessary, and sent a clear message. No other country has the capability to take out this type of threat,” Republican north state Rep. Doug LaMalfa tweeted.

Trump “is showing the world the true meaning of peace through strength,” added Rep. Darrell Issa, R-San Marcos.

Rep. Young Kim, R-Irvine, saw the military action as “necessary to deter Tehran’s nuclear ambitions and save lives.”

California’s U.S. senators had not commented in the minutes after the East Room address. Earlier this week, Sen. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., said he backed Israel’s offensive against Iran, as well as “whatever intelligence support and defensive support we can provide Israel.”

But, he told CNN, he felt U.S. action required congressional approval.

Other Democrats Saturday said the same, and expressed outrage at Trump’s action.

“Trump’s strikes against Iran are not only unconstitutional, but an escalation that risks bringing the U.S. into another endless and deadly war.,” tweeted Rep. Sara Jacobs, D-San Diego., a House Foreign Affairs Committee member.

Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco, said in a statement Trump “ignored the Constitution by unilaterally engaging our military without Congressional authorization. I join my colleagues in demanding answers from the Administration on this operation which endangers American lives and risks further escalation and dangerous destabilization of the region.”

Rep. Mike Thompson, D-St. Helena, called on House Speaker Mike Johnson to convene the House for a debate on the action. “It is Congress’ Constitutional responsibility to debate and approve any use of military force,” Thompson said in a statement.

Johnson didn’t mention that in a statement issued before Thompson’s. The speaker enthusiastically backed the military action, saying, “The military operations in Iran should serve as a clear reminder to our adversaries and allies that President Trump means what he says.

Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., has been urging a congressional vote to give Trump authority to engage in the conflict.

Saturday, after Trump acted without any such vote, Kaine tweeted, “So what made Trump recklessly decide to rush and bomb today? Horrible judgment. I will push for all Senators to vote on whether they are for this third idiotic Middle East war.”

Other congressional Democrats were also upset. “There was more time for democracy to work,” said Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md.

“The risk of war has now dramatically increased,” said House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y.

As a House member from the Los Angeles area from 2001 until winning his Senate seat last year, Schiff served as Intelligence Committee chairman from 2019 to 2023.

Earlier this week, he said that he backed Israel’s actions against Iran, telling CNN he supported “whatever intelligence support and defensive support we can provide Israel.”

He also sought congressional approval for U.S. involvement in military action, saying that bombing a nuclear site “would certainly qualify as our engaging in hostilities — that requires congressional approval.”

When he was in the House, Schiff voted to authorize the use of U.S. force in Iraq in 2002, a decision he later said he regretted. The vote split the party, with 80 House Democrats backing President George W. Bush.

This story was originally published June 21, 2025 at 7:31 PM.