Vice President JD Vance, welcome back to Meet the Press.
Thank you. Welcome to my home. It's good to have you.
Thank you. It's wonderful to be here and we really appreciate the time with you.
Of course.
We have a lot of topics to get to, but I do want to start with some breaking news. We've learned that the FBI is searching the home of former Ambassador John Bolton, his office as well.
Sure.
Can you tell me why is the FBI raiding Ambassador Bolton's home and office, and did the White House get a heads up?
Well, so we're in the very early stages of an ongoing investigation into John Bolton. I will say we're going to let that investigation proceed. What I can tell you is that, unlike the Biden DOJ and the Biden FBI, our law enforcement agencies are going to be driven by law and not by politics. And so if we think that Ambassador Bolton has committed a crime, of course, eventually prosecutions will come.
But as you know, Kristen, this is all part of gathering evidence, trying to understand something that we're worried about. And, of course, I'll let the FBI comment on the next stage of the investigation.
What's at the root of this? Is this about classified documents?
Well, again, I'll let the FBI speak to that. Classified documents are certainly part of it. But I think that there's a broad concern about -- about Ambassador Bolton. They're going to look into it. And like I said, if -- if there's no crime here, we're not going to prosecute it. If there is a crime here, of course, Ambassador Bolton will get his day in court.
That's how it should be. But again, our focus here is on did he break the law? Did he commit crimes against the American people? If so, then he deserves to be prosecuted.
As you know, Ambassador Bolton is a frequent critic --
Sure.
-- of President Trump's. He's also on Kash Patel's enemies list. The administration has already revoked his security clearance, Secret Service protection. Is Ambassador Bolton being targeted because he's a critic of President Trump?
No, not at all. And in fact, if we were trying to do that, we would just throw out prosecutions willy-nilly, like the Biden administration DOJ did, prosecutions that later got thrown out in court. If we bring a case, and, of course, we haven't done that yet. The Department of Justice has not done that yet.
We are investigating Ambassador Bolton. But if they ultimately bring a case, it will be because they determine that he has broken the law. We're going to be careful about that. We're going to be deliberate about that because we don't think that we should throw people, even if they disagree with us politically, maybe especially if they disagree with us politically, you shouldn't throw people willy-nilly in prison.
You should let the law drive these determinations, and that's what we're doing.
Well, you know, a lot of people have already looked at this and said, "This looks a lot like retribution." Is this retribution?
Well, who has said it looks a lot like retribution, Kristen? A lot of people who tried to throw Donald Trump in prison for completely fake charges that were later thrown out by multiple different courts. I suspect that if the media and the American people let this case actually unfold, if they let the investigation unfold as it's currently doing, they're going to find out that what we're doing is being very deliberate and being very driven by the national interest, and by the law here.
And that's as it should be.
Let's turn to the war in Ukraine.
Sure.
I had the opportunity to speak with the Russian foreign minister.
I heard.
Yes. He says, as of right now, there's no meeting planned between President Putin and President Zelenskyy. And he added, "There's needs to be an agenda first," saying, quote, "This agenda is not ready at all." Are the Russians stringing President Trump along?
No, not at all, Kristen. I think the Russians have made significant concessions to President Trump for the first time in three and a half years of this conflict. They've actually been willing to be flexible on some of their core demands. They've talked about what would be necessary to end the war. Of course, they haven't been completely there yet, or the war would be over.
But we're engaging in this diplomatic process in good faith. We are trying to negotiate as much as we can with both the Russians and the Ukrainians to find a middle ground to stop the killing. I think what the president has tried to do here is try to engage in very aggressive, very energetic diplomacy because this war is not in anyone's interest.
It's not in Europe or the United States's interest. We don't think it's in Russia or Ukraine's interest to keep going. So, we're going to keep on pushing for a diplomatic solution. And one final point about this, Kristen. If you look historically, whenever you have a complicated war with a lot of death and destruction, it kind of goes in fits and starts.
There are hills and valleys to the negotiation. We sometimes feel like we've made great progress with the Russians, and sometimes, as the president has said, he's been very frustrated with the Russians. And we're going to keep on doing what we have to do to bring this thing to a close. I don't think it's going to happen overnight.
I think that we're going to continue to make progress. But, ultimately, whether the killing stops, that determination is going to belong to whether the Russians and Ukrainians can actually find some middle ground here.
Well, you talk about concessions. And yet, the Russians rejected the ceasefire proposal that President Trump put forward. There's no meeting planned between President Putin and President Zelenskyy. And this week, Russia targeted an American factory in Ukraine. There were 600 people inside at the time. No one was killed.
What makes you think President Putin is serious about peace?
Well, I didn't say they conceded on everything. But what they have conceded is the recognition that Ukraine will have territorial integrity after the war. They've recognized that they're not going to be able to install a puppet regime in Kyiv. That was, of course, a major demand at the beginning. And importantly, they've acknowledged that there is going to be some security guarantee to the territorial integrity of Ukraine.
Again, have they made every concession? Of course, they haven't. Should they have started the war? Of course, they haven't. But we're making progress, Kristen. And what I -- I admire about the president in this moment is he's not asking three and a half years ago. He's not, you know, trying to focus on every nitpicky detail of how this thing started three and a half years ago.
He's trying to focus on the nitpicky details of now, of what do the parties disagree on? What do they agree on? And how do you build a foundation from one side of that ledger to the other so that you can stop the killing?
But with President Trump, were you enraged when you learned that Russia targeted an American company based in Ukraine?
I don't like it --
Was that not a slap --
Kristen --
-- in the face to the peace process?
I -- I don't -- I don't like it, Kristen. But this is a war. And this is why we want to stop the killing. The Russians have done a lot of things that we don't like. A lot of civilians have died. We've condemned that stuff from the get-go. And frankly, President Trump has done more to apply pressure and to apply economic leverage to the Russians, certainly than Joe Biden did for three and a half years when he did nothing but talk but do nothing to bring the killing to a stop.
So, you asked me what I'm enraged by. What I'm enraged by is the continuation of the war. What I'm enraged by is a presidency in Joe Biden who for three years did nothing to end the killing. What I'm actually excited about right now is that we have a president who's engaging in energetic diplomacy to try to stop the killing.
That's as it should be. I think the American people should be proud of it. And whatever the outcome of this, whether the war ends in three months or six months or hopefully not beyond, but maybe, we should be proud that we have a president who's trying to stop the killing. He's done it, by the way, six wars, that the president has brought to a close all over the world.
This would be the seventh. It's the most complicated, but we're trying despite that.
I had the opportunity to interview Secretary Rubio last week. And he said, he actually doesn't think that new sanctions would force Putin into a ceasefire. Are sanctions now off the table, Mr. Vice President?
No, sanctions aren't off the table. But we're going to make these determinations on a case-by-case basis. What do we think is actually going to exert the right kind of leverage to bring the Russians to the table? Now, you said sanctions were not going to lead to a ceasefire. I think that's obviously correct.
If you look at the way the Russians have conducted themselves, they don't want a ceasefire. They don't want a ceasefire for complicated reasons. We, of course, have pushed for a ceasefire. But again, we don't control what Russia does. If we did, the war would've been over seven months ago. What we do believe though, is that we continue to have a lot of cards.
The president of the United States has a lot of cards left to play to apply pressure to try to bring this conflict to a close, and that's what we're going to do.
You take me to my next question. Where exactly is the pressure on Russia to do anything if you're not right now imposing new sanctions? How do you get them to a place of getting to the table with Zelenskyy and stopping to drop bombs?
Look, Kristen, I think that question betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of where we are. The president has applied aggressive economic leverage. For example, the secondary tariffs on India, to try to make it harder for the Russians to get rich from their oil economy. He's tried to make it clear that Russia can be reinvited into the world economy if they stop the killing, but they're going to continue to be isolated if they don't stop the killing.
The president has applied more economic pressure to the Russians to stop this war than Biden did in three years.
You know, it's --
So, the idea that we're not doing anything, we're already doing things right now, and this is how negotiation works. You do something, you talk to the parties, you try to see if there's a meeting of minds. Again, we believe we've already seen some significant concessions from both sides just in the last few weeks.
We're going to eventually be successful, or we'll hit a brick wall. And if we hit a brick wall, then we're going to continue this process of negotiation, of applying leverage. This is the energetic diplomacy that's going to bring this war to a close.
I hear what you're saying about India. China's actually the largest buyer of Russian oil. Why --
[Crosstalk]
They're close.
-- no sanctions on China --
They're about equal.
Why no sanctions on China?
Well, obviously, we have a 54 percent tariff on the PRC right now. So, we've already applied pretty hefty sanctions on the Chinese. And we've had a number of conversations at all levels of government to try to encourage the Chinese to be better partners in bringing this war to a close. So, again, I think the question betrays a misunderstanding of what's going on. We are applying aggressive economic pressure to bring this war to a close.
Maybe we'll apply, apply additional pressure. Maybe if we feel like we're making progress we'll dial that pressure back. That give and take is part of the negotiation that we think is working. It hasn't reached its final outcome yet, but we're going to keep on working on this process for as long as we can.
Just to boil down what the Russian concessions might look like, is the only thing that President Trump is asking Russia to give up is not to invade all of Ukraine?
No, that's not it at all. It's providing the Ukrainians the kind of security guarantees that ensures that country is not going to be invaded again. This is really -- you know, this is why I think we've made a lot of progress, Kristen. Even though we're not yet there, why we've made a lot of progress is fundamentally the disagreement here is over security guarantees versus where you draw the battle lines in Ukraine.
So, whether we solve those issues, we've actually identified the two critical issues, one to Ukrainians, one to the Russians. And I think that is where the fruit, if we ultimately solve this thing, that's where the fruit of an agreement will come.
I want to get security guarantees.
Sure.
But very quickly, if Russia is allowed to keep any of the territory that it illegally seized, what message does that send to China? Does it give China a green light to invade Taiwan? Does it give Russia a green light to invade other European countries, which is what your European allies are concerned about?
Well, first of all, the Ukrainians are going to ultimately make the determination about where you draw the territorial lines in their own country. But, Kristen, this is how wars ultimately get settled. If you go back to World War II, if you go back to World War I, if you go back to every major conflict in human history, they all end with some kind of negotiation.
We're actually not active parties in the negotiation. We're effectively mediating. We're trying to mediate Ukrainians and the Russians to come to some agreement. If Ukrainians are willing to say something on territory that brings the conflict to the close, we're not going to stop them. We're also not going to force them because it's not our country.
We're trying to play a constructive role. The president is trying to play a constructive role to bring peace to the region. But he's not going to force these parties to walk through the door. All he can do is open the door and ask them to negotiate in good faith.
You talk about security guarantees.
Sure.
Foreign Minister Lavrov discussed the importance of Russia being a part of security guarantees. Ukraine says that's a non-starter. Is that a non-starter for the United States as well?
I think --
How can Russia secure Ukraine when it's dropping bombs on Ukraine --
There's a little bit of a talking past each other here. First of all, we're not talking about security guarantees until after the war has come to a close. And, of course, the Russians are going to be a part of the conversation about bringing that war to a close. So, of course, they're going to have some stake in this.
They're going to talk about this. That doesn't mean that they're going to have troops in Ukrainian territory. But how can you reasonably provide security guarantees without talking to the Russians about what would be necessary to bring the war to a close? So, I think there's a little bit of people talking past each other.
This is going to be a security guarantee provided by a host of nations. I think the Europeans are obviously going to play a big role. We think there are other countries all over the world that might play a big role. The Russians are going to be involved because they're the critical party that's necessary to stop the killing.
Again, this is how negotiations happen. It's this give and take. It's a conversation between both sides.
Very quickly, before I move to domestic issues.
Sure.
For Americans who are watching, can you guarantee no U.S. boots on the ground as a part of these security guarantees?
The president's been very clear. There are not going to be boots on the ground in Ukraine, but we are going to continue to play an active role in trying to ensure that the Ukrainians have the security guarantees and the confidence they need to stop the war on their end. And the Russians feel like they can bring the war to a conclusion on their end.
It's complicated, Kristen, but we're going to keep on trying to play these parties. You know, we're going to keep on trying to convince these parties to talk to each other and continue to play the game of diplomacy because that's the only way to get this thing wrapped up.
All right. Let's talk about some domestic issues now.
Sure.
This week, you were in Georgia. You were there to talk about and promote the One Big Beautiful Bill.
Yeah.
And it also comes in the same week that Texas Republicans approve five new Republican seats.
Sure.
So, they expanded the map for Republicans in their state. If President Trump's agenda is so popular, why do Republicans need to add additional seats to the map?
Well, first of all, Kristen, you have to ask yourself, "Why have Democrats gerrymandered their states aggressively over the past ten to 20 years?" If you look, for example, at the popular vote in a lot of these states, and Massachusetts, where 32 percent of the residents of Massachusetts voted for Republicans, zero Republican federal representatives.
So, we're not trying to sort of -- all we're doing, frankly, is trying to make the situation a little bit more fair on a national scale. The Democrats have gerrymandered their states really aggressively. We think there are opportunities to push back against that. And that's really all we're doing.
So, final question for you --
Please.
-- Mr. Vice President. "The Wall Street Journal" is reporting that Elon Musk is halting his plans to create a new political party, in part because he wants to support you for president in 2028. I know you've been asked about this. You said you have not discussed this with him.
That's right.
But do you see yourself as the apparent future of the MAGA movement?
No. I see myself as a vice president who's trying to do a good job for the American people, Kristen. And if I do a good job, and if the president continues to be successful, as I know that he will be, the politics will take care of itself. We can cross that bridge when we come to it. But we just had an election seven months ago.
I think I'm probably like most Americans, and I'm already sick of talking about politics after a big general election. The next election that matters is not the election of 2028. It's 2026. So, before we talk about anything three and a half years down the road, let's take a break from politics, focus on governing the country.
And when we return to politics, it's going to be to focus on those midterm elections.
Have you had any conversations with President Trump about him passing the torch onto you?
As you know, the president talks about everything. And if it's in the news, the president and I have certainly discussed it. But I think the president is just focused on doing a good job for the American people. He wants me to be focused on doing a good job for the American people. That's what I'll keep on doing.
And again, if we take care of business, if America is safer, if it's more prosperous, if young people could afford to buy a home, if we actually bring peace to all these regions of the world, which we've made great progress in doing, the politics will take care of itself.
Well, I want to respect your time, so thank you very much, Mr. Vice President.
Thank you, Kristen. Good to see you.
Really appreciate it.
Likewise.
Great to see you as well. Thank you.