JD Vance Wonders If Other VPs Had This Much Excitement' — Social Media Says, ‘Ask Mike Pence'
As an attorney, you'd think JD Vance would remember one of the key rules of the job: Don't ask a question if you don't want to know the answer.
But it appears the vice president forgot that truism on Tuesday when he wondered on social media: 'I wonder if other VPs had as much excitement as I do.'
I wonder if other VPs had as much excitement as I do 😂
— JD Vance (@JDVance) June 24, 2025
It's possible that the vice president was just enjoying helping his boss, President Donald Trump, destroy health care, deport immigrants and ensure the nation's wealthiest citizens get a big, fat tax cut at the expense of Americans in need.
But many people on X, formerly Twitter, couldn't help but respond by pointing out at least one former veep who might have had more excitement on the job than the 'Hillbilly Elegy' author.
'Ask Mike Pence about his last month,' Kentucky GOP Rep. Thomas Massie trolled.
Ask Mike Pence about his last month.
— Thomas Massie (@RepThomasMassie) June 24, 2025
Others chimed in as well, reminding Vance of the gallows Trump supporters set up outside the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, amid their calls to 'Hang Mike Pence' for refusing to help Trump overturn his 2020 election loss.
Mike Pence would like a word… pic.twitter.com/wSqKRUrEsf
— Travis Matthew (@Matthewtravis08) June 24, 2025
Pence was pretty excited that time when trump supporters tried to hang him.
— Boston Smalls (@smalls2672) June 24, 2025
Oh ……it's all fun & games until the MAGA Goons are chasing you around the Capitol with a noose trying to hang ya….
— Michael Cleere (@mikecleere) June 24, 2025
🤣 yea. Slightly different than your predecessor who was VP of visiting angels.
— Donald Trump Jr. (@DonaldJTrumpJr) June 24, 2025
But Pence wasn't the only former vice president who had an exciting time on the job, people remembered.
Others cited George W. Bush's vice president, Dick Cheney, who memorably shot a Republican lawyer in a 2006 hunting accident.
Dick Cheney shot someone so there's that
— goodalexander (@goodalexander) June 24, 2025
Dick Cheney got to shoot someone.
— Sean Spicier - Former Tango Dancer (Parody) (@sean_spicier) June 24, 2025
However, one person suggested to Vance that 'excitement' isn't supposed to be part of his job description.
You do understand that the job isn't to generate excitement, right?
— RandomWhiteGuy (@TheReelRandom) June 24, 2025
JD Vance Roasted For Line That Inadvertently Seemed To Insult Trump
Trump Promised To Keep The U.S. Out Of Middle East Wars. Now Vance Has A New Justification.
Vance Claims U.S. 'Not At War With Iran, We're At War With Iran's Nuclear Program'
'So Cringe': JD Vance's Theater Joke Falls 'Incredibly' Flat On Social Media
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
29 minutes ago
Lawsuit challenges billions of dollars in Trump administration funding cuts
BOSTON -- Attorneys general from more than 20 states and Washington, D.C. filed a federal lawsuit Tuesday challenging billions of dollars in funding cuts made by the Trump administration that would fund everything from crime prevention to food security to scientific research. The lawsuit filed in Boston is asking a judge to limit the Trump administration from relying on an obscure clause in the federal regulation to cut grants that don't align with its priorities. Since January, the lawsuit argues that the administration has used that clause to cancel entire programs and thousands of grants that had been previously awarded to states and grantees. 'Defendants' decision to invoke the Clause to terminate grants based on changed agency priorities is unlawful several times over,' the plaintiffs argued. 'The rulemaking history of the Clause makes plain that the (Office of Management and Budget) intended for the Clause to permit terminations in only limited circumstances and provides no support for a broad power to terminate grants on a whim based on newly identified agency priorities.' The lawsuit argues the Trump administration has used the clause for the basis of a 'slash-and-burn campaign' to cut federal grants. 'Defendants have terminated thousands of grant awards made to Plaintiffs, pulling the rug out from under the States, and taking away critical federal funding on which States and their residents rely for essential programs,' the lawsuit added. The White House's Office of Management and Budget did not immediately respond to a request made Tuesday afternoon for comment. Rhode Island Attorney General Neronha said this lawsuit was just one of several the coalition of mostly Democratic states have filed over funding cuts. For the most part, they have largely succeeded in a string of legal victories to temporarily halt cuts. This one, though, may be the broadest challenge to those funding cuts. 'It's no secret that this President has gone to great lengths to intercept federal funding to the states, but what may be lesser known is how the Trump Administration is attempting to justify their unlawful actions,' Neronha said in a statement. 'Nearly every lawsuit this coalition of Democratic attorneys general has filed against the Administration is related to its unlawful and flagrant attempts to rob Americans of basic programs and services upon which they rely. Most often, this comes in the form of illegal federal funding cuts, which the Administration attempts to justify via a so-called 'agency priorities clause." Connecticut Attorney General William Tong said the lawsuit aimed to stop funding cuts he described as indiscriminate and illegal. 'There is no 'because I don't like you' or 'because I don't feel like it anymore' defunding clause in federal law that allows the President to bypass Congress on a whim," Tong said in a statement. 'Since his first minutes in office, Trump has unilaterally defunded our police, our schools, our healthcare, and more. He can't do that, and that's why over and over again we have blocked him in court and won back our funding.' In Massachusetts, Attorney General Andrea Campbell said the U.S. Department of Agriculture terminated a $11 million agreement with the state Department of Agricultural Resources connecting hundreds of farmers to hundreds of food distribution sites while the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency terminated a $1 million grant to the state Department of Public Health to reduce asthma triggers in low-income communities. 'We cannot stand idly by while this President continues to launch unprecedented, unlawful attacks on Massachusetts' residents, institutions, and economy,' Campbell said in a statement. The lawsuit argues that the OMB promulgated the use of the clause in question to justify the cuts. The clause in question, according to the lawsuit, refers to five words that say federal agents can terminate grants if the award "no longer effectuates the program goals or agency priorities.' 'The Trump Administration has claimed that five words in this Clause—'no longer effectuates . . . agency priorities'—provide federal agencies with virtually unfettered authority to withhold federal funding any time they no longer wish to support the programs for which Congress has appropriated funding,' the lawsuit said.
CNN
33 minutes ago
- CNN
Trump ramps up pressure on GOP holdouts as his megabill meets its ultimate fate
President Donald Trump and Republican leaders are betting that key GOP holdouts will buckle under enormous pressure to pass his sweeping agenda within days – even as a number are warning they're prepared to sink the multi-trillion-dollar measure without major changes. But tensions are escalating between the House and Senate and between moderates and conservatives who are battling over competing versions – as Trump demands the bill on his desk by July 4. With the Senate planning a critical vote to begin debate as soon as Thursday, Senate Majority Leader John Thune and Speaker Mike Johnson are both racing to quell rebellions among their centrist and right-wing factions. Behind the scenes, Johnson and his allies are in high-stakes talks with Senate GOP leaders to resolve final sticking points, while stressing to their own House members that they may ultimately need to back the Senate's version because further cross-Capitol negotiations aren't feasible, according to two sources familiar with the discussions, a move certain to cause an outcry among many in his conference. That means GOP holdouts could ultimately be left with this choice: Vote for a plan they detest or sink the bill and endure Trump's wrath. GOP leaders in both chambers are gambling their members will choose the former. 'When it comes over, we'll pass it,' House Majority Whip Tom Emmer told CNN. 'We've been talking over a year. The time for voting is now.' But multiple House Republicans are fuming that the Senate rewrote their carefully crafted version of bill – most critically to propose deeper cuts on Medicaid – and are openly calling to blow past Trump's timeline to change it back. Plus Johnson now has at least three Republican hardliners declaring they will oppose the Senate version without even deeper spending cuts: Reps. Andy Harris of Maryland, Chip Roy of Texas and Eric Burlison of Missouri. And then there's the parochial issue dogging the GOP: The push led by New York Republicans to increase the amount taxpayers can deduct from their local levies, a deal that GOP senators want to gut and force House members to swallow. Some are warning they won't cave – a threat GOP leaders must weigh since they can only afford three defections in each chamber to pass the bill. 'If they're trying to jam us with something that we can't support, then I think we need to take those extra days to make sure it's a good product,' said Rep. Nicole Malliotakis, who was one of 16 House Republicans who declared in a letter to both GOP leaders on Tuesday that they couldn't support the Senate's Medicaid provisions without major changes. She also met with Johnson about the issue on Tuesday. Malliotakis was among several GOP lawmakers who told CNN she would support a formal 'conference committee' between the House and Senate – against the wishes of Trump and GOP leaders, since it would dramatically slow down the president's agenda. Even Rep. David Joyce, a close leadership ally, said he was willing to miss Trump's July 4 deadline to fight for more of the House's original provisions. 'I think a good bill deserves to take its time,' the Ohio Republican told CNN. 'There's differences in what the Senate's talking about and what can pass here.' The GOP is largely united on the main tenets of the bill, including extending Trump's 2017 tax cuts for individuals and businesses, imposing new work requirements on social safety net programs and fulfilling the president's campaign promises like no tax on tips and overtime pay — all while providing hundreds of billions more for the Pentagon and border security agencies. But how to pay for many of those provisions has been far more contentious, including cuts to Medicaid and phasing out Biden-era energy tax credits. And official estimates that the measure could add more than $3.4 trillion to deficits over the next decade have left many on the right uneasy – in addition to the Senate's proposed $5 trillion increase to the national debt limit. Meanwhile, patience is running thin in the Senate, with many Republicans eager to move on and call their House counterparts' bluff. 'It's a little arrogant to say the Senate has got to eat exactly what the House proposed. I mean it's a bicameral process,' Sen. Bernie Moreno, a Republican from Ohio. 'I don't look like Alexander Hamilton or James Madison do I? That's just the process our founders created.' And Trump himself is heaping pressure on Congress, posting on Truth Social on Tuesday: 'Lock yourself in a room if you must, don't go home, and GET THE DEAL DONE THIS WEEK.' Senate Republicans are particularly frustrated by the so-called SALT Caucus, the group of House Republicans in New York and California that is demanding bigger deductions on state and local tax payments. Those Republicans cut a deal with Johnson to win their support by raising the amount of state and local levies that eligible taxpayers can deduct to a $40,000 limit. Now, several of those New York Republicans say they won't accept a penny less than that number, even though Senate Republicans say they should jam the House with a less expensive deal. 'I'm OK with them making crazy statements like that if they want,' said North Dakota Republican Sen. Kevin Cramer, referring to the House Republicans from New York. 'I hear 'red line' a lot around here. I hear that a lot, but at the end of day, it turns into a rather light pink.' But those House GOP lawmakers pressing for tax relief said it would be a mistake to assume that they would simply swallow whatever SALT deal the Senate passes. 'I think that would be the wrong assumption,' Rep. Mike Lawler, a New York Republican and leading proponent of the House deal, told reporters Tuesday. Any whipping operation among House Republicans, however, is complicated by the still-fluid negotiations in the Senate. GOP senators are still tweaking their bill themselves and trying to navigate changes forced on them by the Senate parliamentarian's rulings that some of their provisions are out of order with strict Senate budget rules that they must follow to pass the bill along party lines. The biggest headache for Republicans, though, remains the fate of Medicaid. At least 20 centrist Republicans in both chambers are trying to reverse the Senate's biggest cuts to Medicaid, which were not part of the House-passed bill. But another group of GOP hardliners – including Sens. Mike Lee of Utah, Rick Scott of Florida and Ron Johnson of Wisconsin – wants to slash even deeper from the program and have raised major concerns about the impact the bill would have on the deficit. And they all met with Trump on Monday night. During a closed-door meeting Monday, Sen. Josh Hawley, a Republican from Missouri who has been outspoken about his concerns the bill is cutting too much into Medicaid, said North Carolina Republican Sen. Thom Tillis gave out information to senators on how much rural hospitals in states like his could lose if some of the changes the Senate rolled out went into effect. At issue are new proposed limits on how much states can tax health care providers, a levy that helps fund the Medicaid program. Some key Republicans fear that the new proposed limits could devastate Medicaid providers, especially rural hospitals, and are demanding changes. 'Senate leadership now needs to fix this,' Hawley said. 'They're the ones who invented this new rural hospital defund scheme that the House says they can't pass. It's going to close rural hospitals. They need to get with rural hospitals, figure out what's going to work for them, and then they need to get the sign off of the House.' 'The leadership needs to work on this with rural hospitals and the House,' he said. 'This won't work to not ever talk to the House and hope that they just take the bill. That will land us in a conference committee. I don't want to do that.' Sen. Susan Collins, a Maine Republican and a key swing vote facing reelection next year, is pushing for the bill to include a relief fund to providers hardest hit by the new cuts — potentially around $100 billion although multiple sources told CNN that the number has been extremely fluid. 'I've been very concerned about the cuts in Medicaid and the impact on my state, but other states as well,' Collins told CNN on Tuesday. 'I've also been concerned about the health of rural hospitals, nursing homes, health centers and have been working on a provider relief fund. But that doesn't offset the problem with the Medicaid cuts.' Tillis, a Republican who like Collins is also up for reelection next year, said that the proposed Medicaid cuts could cost his state $38 billion over 10 years. 'That's a big impact,' he told CNN. He added: 'I'm very much in favor of moving in that direction. You just have to do it at a pace that states can absorb, or we're going to have bad outcomes, political and policy.' But if Trump and Senate GOP leaders give in to the demands of those holdouts, it would drive up the already hugely expensive price tag — prompting a revolt on the right. Rep. Andy Harris, a Maryland Republican who leads the House Freedom Caucus, contended that the Senate is moving in the wrong direction, calling for deeper cuts into Medicaid and saying it should more quickly eliminate green energy tax credits enacted under the Democrats' Inflation Reduction Act. Harris voted 'present' when the bill passed the House by a single vote last month. But Harris said he would go even further if forced to accept the Senate bill in the coming days. 'If the Senate tries to jam the House with this version, I won't vote ' present.' I'll vote 'NO,'' Harris said Tuesday.
Los Angeles Times
an hour ago
- Los Angeles Times
Newsom, Democrats reach $321 billion California budget deal
California leaders reached a tentative agreement Tuesday night on the state budget, which hinges on Gov. Gavin Newsom's demand that the Legislature pass a housing reform proposal. The eleventh-hour negotiations about the spending plan, which takes effect July 1, speak to the political challenge of overhauling longstanding environmental regulations to speed up housing construction in a state controlled by Democrats. The party has been loathe to do more than tweak the California Environmental Quality Act, or approve one-off exemptions, despite pressure from the governor and national criticism of a law that reform advocates say has hamstrung California's ability to build. The proposal is among a series of policies Newsom and Democratic lawmakers are expected to advance in the coming days as part of the $321.1 billion budget. The deal reflects the Legislature's resistance to the governor's proposed cuts to reduce a $12 billion budget deficit expected in the year ahead, citing uncertainty about the scope of the state's financial problems. 'We appreciate the strong partnership with the Legislature in reaching this budget agreement,' said Izzy Gardon, a spokesperson for Newsom. 'The governor's signature is contingent on finalizing legislation to cut red tape and unleash housing and infrastructure development across the state — to build more, faster.' The consensus comes after weeks of conversations about how to offset the deficit, caused by overspending in California, and start to address even larger financial problems anticipated in the future, including from potential federal policy changes. The tentative deal largely relies on borrowing money, tapping into state reserves, and shifting funding around to close the shortfall. By reducing and delaying many of the governor's proposed cuts, the budget continues a practice at the state Capitol of sparing state programs from immediate pain while avoiding taking on California's long term budget woes. Assembly Republican Leader James Gallagher (R-Yuba City) said the budget deal papers over the state's financial problems. 'We're in this situation because of overspending,' Gallagher said. 'We've made long term commitments to programs that Democrats have championed, and now, just like everybody warned, the money is not there to support them all, and they don't want to cut back their program that they helped expand.' The cuts lawmakers and the governor ultimately agreed to will reduce the expansion of state-sponsored healthcare to undocumented immigrants and reinstate asset limit tests for Medi-Cal enrollees. The final deal, however, achieves less savings for the state than Newsom originally proposed. The plan restores cost-of-living adjustments for childcare workers, which the governor wanted to nix, and rejects his call to cap overtime hours for in-home caregivers. Democrats in the Legislature successfully pushed to provide another $500 million in funding for Homeless Housing, Assistance and Prevention grants. The governor originally resisted giving more money to counties, which he has chastised for being unable to show results for the billions of dollars in state funding they have received to reduce homelessness. Assembly Budget Chair Jesse Gabriel (D-Encino) pushed back on the notion that the Legislature hasn't done 'real belt-tightening.' Lawmakers are trying to balance compassion and fiscal responsibility before making drastic cuts to safety net programs that Californians rely on, he said. 'That is the balance that we are trying to strike here with this budget of being responsible, of focusing on the work that we need to do regardless, but also understanding that there is a pretty high delta of uncertainty for a lot of reasons,' Gabriel said. The budget also preserves Newsom's plan to provide $750 million to expand the California Film and Television Tax Credit, a proposal supported by Hollywood film studios and unions representing workers in the industry. The tentative agreement is expected to serve as a precursor to more challenging financial discussions about additional reductions in the months ahead. California expects to lose federal funding from the Trump administration and state officials predict a potentially greater funding dilemma in 2026-27. Here are few key elements of the budget deal, detailed in summaries of the agreement and legislation: Described colloquially as a 'poison pill' inserted into the budget bill, the agreement between the Legislature and Newsom will only become law if legislators send the governor a version of a proposal initially introduced by Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco). Wiener's bill is expected to lessen the number of building projects that would require a full environmental review under CEQA and make the process of developing environmental impact reports more efficient. Paired with another proposal that could exempt more urban housing developments from CEQA, the legislation could mark a significant change in state policy that makes it easier to build. Newsom is effectively forcing the Wiener proposal through by refusing to sign a budget deal without the CEQA exemptions. The proposal was still being drafted as of Tuesday evening. The governor declared lofty goals to build more housing on the 2018 gubernatorial campaign trail, but he has failed to spur enough construction to meet housing demand and make homes more affordable. New York Times columnist Ezra Klein effectively called out the inaction in California caused by the state's marquee environmental law and a lack of political will in his recent book ,'Abundance,' which increased pressure on the governor and other Democrats to reconsider their approach and push for more substantial fixes this year. The CEQA reform bill must be passed by Monday under the budget agreement, which omits a separate Newsom call to streamline the Delta tunnels project. Medi-Cal cost overruns are causing major problems for the California budget. The challenges stem from a higher-than-expected price tag for the expansion of state-sponsored healthcare to all income-eligible undocumented immigrants and medical care for other enrollees. Newsom's budget proposal in May suggested substantial trims to the health care program for people who are undocumented. His plan included freezing new enrollment as of Jan. 1, requiring all adults to pay $100 monthly premiums, eliminating long-term care benefits and cutting full dental coverage. The changes offered minor savings in the year ahead but could save billions of dollars in future years. Lawmakers ultimately agreed to require undocumented immigrant adults ages 19 to 59 to pay $30 monthly premiums beginning July 2027. They plan to adopt Newsom's enrollment cap but give people three months to reapply if their coverage lapses instead of immediately cutting off their eligibility. Democrats agreed to cut full dental coverage for adult immigrants who are undocumented, but delayed the change until July 1, 2026. State leaders agreed to reinstate much higher limits than the governor originally proposed on the assets Medi-Cal beneficiaries may possess and still get coverage. The new limits would be $130,000 for individuals and $195,00 for couples, compared to prior limits of a few thousand dollars. They also adopted Newsom's proposal to withdraw Medi-Cal benefits for specialty weight loss drugs. The negotiations resulted in less general fund spending than the Legislature proposed in a counter to Newsom's budget revision in May, dropping from $232 billion to an estimated $228 billion for 2025-26. Officials are using more money from California's cap-and-trade program, which sets limits on companies' greenhouse gas emissions and allows them to buy pollution credits from the state, including $1 billion next year. They are also using $300 million from climate change bonds instead of the general fund to pay for environmental programs. Lawmakers and the governor agreed to delay a $3.4 billion payment on a loan to cover Medi-Cal cost overruns and increase the loan by another $1 billion next year. The plan continues an agreement to take $7.1 billion from the state's rainy day fund to help cover the deficit and taps into another $6.5 billion from other cash reserves to balance the budget. California leaders for months have warned about the so-called Trump effect on the state budget. Financial analysts at UCLA predict that the state economy is expected to slow in the months ahead due to the effects of Trump's tariff policy and immigration raids on construction, hospitality, agriculture and other key sectors. Meanwhile, the state is warning that federal funding reductions to California could require lawmakers to adopt additional budget cuts in August or September, during a special session in the fall or early next year. State officials expect future deficit estimates to range from $17 to $24 billion annually, according to an Assembly summary of the budget deal. The final budget agreement is being publicly released in bits and pieces this week through a series of trailer bills that appear online at random hours. Lawmakers are expected to pass a main budget bill on Friday and approve additional legislation by Monday, before the July 1 deadline for the budget to go into effect. Some legislation, such as the CEQA housing exemptions, will not appear in print until the end of the week. Other decisions, such as reauthorizing California's cap-and-trade program, will be considered later in the year outside of the budget process.
