Usha Vance Addresses Her First Lady Chances
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources.
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
Second Lady Usha Vance has opened up about the prospect of husband Vice President JD Vance ascending to the presidency in 2028, and the chances of becoming the next First Lady.
In a candid interview with Meghan McCain, recorded at the Vice-Presidential residence at One Observatory Circle in Washington, D.C, she said: "I'm not plotting out next steps," adding that she would be happy to be "along for the ride" if her husband became president.
Newsweek contacted the White House via online form on Friday for comment.
Why It Matters
Usha Vance has passed the historic milestone of being the first South Asian and Hindu Second Lady, but she is steering clear of stating any political ambition, whether in the short term or as potential First Lady.
As Vice President, husband JD is widely regarded as the leading contender for the Republican presidential nomination in 2028, though he has yet to formally declare his candidacy.
What To Know
Usha Vance addressed the subject on Wednesday's episode of the podcast Citizen McCain with Meghan McCain, with her host describing it as a "very exciting possibility."
"There is not a small chance you could be our first lady in a few years," said former View co-host McCain. "I wanted to know is that stressful for you, is it exciting, is that something you think about, is this something everyone is asking you everywhere you go?"
Usha offered a measured response, emphasizing that her current priority lies squarely in the present moment: "Well, people do ask about it," the attorney said, adding, "three years ago, or maybe it was four years ago at this point, I had absolutely no intention of leading any sort of life in politics, it really is that rapid.
"And then when we moved our kids to school in this area it was with no intention whatsoever of JD running for a new office and so my attitude is that this is a four-year period where I have a set of responsibilities to my family, to myself, to obviously the country, and that's really what I'm focused on."
U.S. Vice President JD Vance and his wife Usha Vance listen during the 44th annual National Peace Officers' Memorial Service at the U.S. Capitol on May 15, 2025 in Washington, DC.
U.S. Vice President JD Vance and his wife Usha Vance listen during the 44th annual National Peace Officers' Memorial Service at the U.S. Capitol on May 15, 2025 in Washington, DC."I'm not plotting out next steps or really trying for anything after this," she noted. "And in a dream world, eventually I'll be able to live in my home and kind of continue my career and all those sorts of things.
"And if that happens in four years, I understand, if that happens at some other point in the future, I understand, I'm just sort of along for the ride and enjoying it while I can."
Usha also announced during the interview that the couple are expecting their third child. She also revealed that it's been "really hard" for JD to quit driving since assuming office.
The Second Lady discussed living at the Naval Observatory in Washington, D.C, and how much she appreciates the staff there. However, the couple maintains close ties to Ohio and considers it their true home.
What People Are Saying
Meghan McCain on her podcast to Vance: "I really just am such a fan of yours, I think you're so cool, I really hope you are a first lady someday, and I don't mind saying that, you don't have to say, it I will."
McCain also praised Usha's humility and perspective on motherhood and public life.
What Happens Next
Usha talked about looking forward to bringing projects to light that she is interested in and working on things she is excited about.
She recently launched a children's reading initiative, her first public-facing project since her husband became Vice President.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
12 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Donald Trump Outlines Next Steps After Supreme Court Rulings
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. President Donald Trump during a press conference midday Friday said he will "act very quickly" to advance policies blocked by federal judges, including birthright citizenship restrictions, after the Supreme Court ruled in his favor against lower courts. When asked if this ruling clears the way for him to pursue his legislative agenda, Trump first said that it was a question for "the lawyers," but then added: "This is really a decision based on common sense. It didn't work the other way. It was a disaster." "We've overturned many of the decisions, but it would take years to do it, and we have to act quickly when it comes to illegal immigration," Trump said. "We have murderers, killers, we have drug dealers, we have - what they've allowed to come into our country should never be forgotten. It should never be forgotten what they've done to our country, and we have to be able to act very quickly, and we're going to do that." "The Constitution has been brought back," Trump told reporters when asked about fears that this decision will concentrate too much power in the White House. This is a breaking news story. Updates will follow.
CNN
15 minutes ago
- CNN
Louisiana redistricting: Supreme Court punts case until fall
The Supreme Court punted on Friday in a major legal challenge to Louisiana's long-litigated congressional map, taking the unusual step of holding the case over for a second term. The decision means the sprawling district that added a second Black and Democratic lawmaker to the state's overwhelmingly Republican delegation will remain in place, at least for the time being. The court said it will hear another set of arguments about the questions raised in the case in the term that begins this fall. Justice Clarence Thomas, a conservative, dissented from the decision to hold the appeal over until next term. Louisiana filed the appeal, arguing that it was caught in an impossible position: At first, a federal court ruled that the state had likely violated the Voting Rights Act by drawing only one majority Black district out of six. When the state sought to comply with that decision by drawing a second majority Black district, a group of self-described 'non-Black voters' sued, alleging the state violated the Constitution by relying too much on race to meet the first court's demands. 'Congress requires this court to exercise jurisdiction over constitutional challenges to congressional redistricting, and we accordingly have an obligation to resolve such challenges promptly,' Thomas wrote in his dissent. Thomas wrote that he would have held that the provision of the Voting Rights Act at issue in the case is unconstitutional. The Voting Rights Act requires that states not dilute the power of minority voters during the once-a-decade redistricting process, such as by 'packing' those voters into one district or 'cracking' neighborhoods of color up into many districts to spread out their influence. The law was enacted in response to decades of post-Civil War efforts – particularly in the South – to limit the political power of African Americans. And yet the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause demands that a state not draw a map predominantly based on race. If it does, it must demonstrate that it had a compelling reason to do so and carried out the effort in the narrowest way possible. Because of that inherent tension between the Voting Rights Act and the equal protection clause, the Supreme Court has tended to give states some 'breathing room' in drawing their maps. One of the central questions in the case, Louisiana v. Callais, was exactly how much room state lawmakers should have. The high court's conservative majority has grown increasingly skeptical of policies of any kind that, in the court's words, pick 'winners and losers' based on race. In the most notable example, a six-justice majority ended affirmative action in college admissions in 2023 – a decision the Trump administration has used to justify attempts to curb diversity, equity and inclusion programs in both the government and private sector. The Supreme Court has also in recent years chipped away at the power of the Voting Rights Act, including with a 2013 decision that ended the practice of requiring states with a history of racist policies to preclear changes to their voting rights laws with the Justice Department. But in a surprise decision a decade later, the high court went in the other direction, bolstering a key provision of the law by ordering Alabama to redraw its map to allow for an additional Black-majority district. Chief Justice John Roberts, a conservative, penned the opinion for a 5-4 majority, siding with the court's three liberals. Another conservative, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, agreed with the key parts of the decision. Part of what was at issue in the Louisiana case is whether race 'predominated' the redistricting process. The plaintiffs said Louisiana lawmakers were entirely focused on race in the redrawing. State officials have said that, while they were responding to the first court's order about a second Black district, they also were focused mainly on politics – specifically a desire to draw the boundaries in a way that would retain incumbents, including House Speaker Mike Johnson. The Louisiana district the state drew slashes diagonally for some 250 miles from Shreveport in the northwest of the state to Baton Rouge in the southeast to create a district where Black residents make up some 54% of voters – up from about 24% under the old lines. During oral arguments in March, Roberts described it as a 'snake that runs from one end of the state to the other.' Rep. Cleo Fields, a Democrat, won the seat in last year's election – adding a second Democrat to the state's delegation. The Biden administration submitted a brief to the Supreme Court that technically supported neither party but urged the justices to reverse a special three-judge district court that would throw out the current map. Days after taking office, the Trump administration submitted a letter declaring that it had 'reconsidered the government's position' and that the earlier brief 'no longer represents the position of the United States.'
Boston Globe
22 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Supreme Court doesn't rule on Louisiana's second majority Black congressional district
Justice Clarence Thomas noted in a brief dissent from Friday's order that he would have decided the case now and imposed limits on 'race-based redistricting.' The order keeps alive a fight over political power stemming from the 2020 census halfway to the next one. Two maps were blocked by lower courts, and the Supreme Court intervened twice. Last year, the justices ordered the new map to be used in the 2024 elections, while the legal case proceeded. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up The call for new arguments probably means that the district currently represented by Democratic Rep. Cleo Fields probably will remain intact for the 2026 elections because the high court has separately been reluctant to upend districts as elections draw near. Advertisement The state has changed its election process to replace its so-called jungle primary with partisan primary elections in the spring, followed by a November showdown between the party nominees. The change means candidates can start gathering signatures in September to get on the primary ballot for 2026. Advertisement The state's Republican-dominated legislature drew a new congressional map in 2022 to account for population shifts reflected in the 2020 census. But the changes effectively maintained the status quo of five Republican-leaning majority white districts and one Democratic-leaning majority Black district in a state in which Black people make up a third of the population. Civil rights advocates won a lower-court ruling that the districts likely discriminated against Black voters. The Supreme Court put the ruling on hold while it took a similar case from Alabama. The justices allowed both states to use congressional maps in the 2022 elections even though both had been ruled likely discriminatory by federal judges. The high court eventually affirmed the ruling from Alabama, which led to a new map and a second district that could elect a Black lawmaker. The justices returned the Louisiana case to federal court, with the expectation that new maps would be in place for the 2024 elections. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals gave lawmakers in Louisiana a deadline of early 2024 to draw a new map or face the possibility of a court-imposed map. The state complied and drew a new map, with two Black majority districts. But white Louisiana voters claimed in their separate lawsuit challenging the new districts that race was the predominant factor driving the new map. A three-judge court agreed. Louisiana appealed that ruling to the Supreme Court.
