Vice President Vance Takes the Podium: Iran Ultimatum, $1.8B “Lawfare” Fund, Troop Deployment Delay, and More
Vice President JD Vance delivered a wide-ranging White House press briefing on May 19, 2026, standing in for Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, and used the occasion to issue a stark two-path ultimatum on Iran — deal or resumed military operations — while defending a controversial $1.8 billion fund for alleged victims of the Biden administration’s “lawfare,” pushing back on criticism of a delayed troop deployment to Poland, previewing a coming executive order on AI safety, and personally condemning both a shooting at a San Diego Muslim community center and what he called the media’s double standard in mourning conservative figures like the late Charlie Kirk. Vance also addressed President Trump’s endorsement of Ken Paxton over Senator John Cornyn in Texas, declining fentanyl deaths, questions about Trump’s stock trades, and the administration’s ongoing anti-fraud task force — all in an unusually candid and combative session that ranged from geopolitical strategy to a personal tribute to a close friend. Assistance from Claude AI.
Participants
| Name | Title / Affiliation |
|---|---|
| JD Vance | Vice President of the United States |
| Nick | Reporter, Breitbart News |
| John | Reporter (outlet unidentified) |
| Natalie | Reporter (outlet unidentified) |
| Reagan | Reporter, The Daily Caller |
| Cara Castronuova | Reporter, Lindell TV |
| Caitlin | Reporter (outlet unidentified) |
| Garrett | Reporter (outlet unidentified) |
| Jon Raasch | Reporter, The Daily Mail |
| Rowena Ortiz | Reporter, Turning Point USA |
| Jordan Conrad | Reporter, The Gateway Pundit |
| Mr. Curtis | Reporter (outlet unidentified) |
| Additional reporters | Outlets unidentified |
Opening Remarks
Vance opened the briefing with three announcements: a personal one, a domestic policy update, and a major foreign policy statement on Iran.
Air Force Academy commencement: Vance announced he will speak at the Air Force Academy graduation ceremony in Colorado the following week. He noted that last year he spoke at the Naval Academy, calling it “one of the great honors and privileges of my life.”
Anti-fraud task force: Vance highlighted what he described as a significant government accountability effort, saying the task force had identified “billions upon billions of dollars of fraud” in the hospice, Medicaid, Medicare, and immigration systems over the past few months. He also cited “hundreds of millions of dollars of fraudulent loans” through the Small Business Administration that have been identified and stopped, with some cases being actively prosecuted. Vance framed fraud as having two victims: taxpayers who fund government programs, and the low-income and vulnerable Americans who depend on those programs but lose out when money is diverted by bad actors.
Iran — the “two pathways” ultimatum: Vance used his opening remarks to lay out the administration’s Iran policy in unusually blunt terms, describing what he called two and only two options. He said he had spoken with President Trump briefly before taking the podium.
Context for general readers: The U.S. conducted a military operation against Iran (referenced throughout as a “kinetic operation” or “the campaign”) that lasted roughly five to five-and-a-half weeks of active conflict, after which a ceasefire was reached. At the time of this briefing, the U.S. and Iran were in active diplomatic negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program. The ceasefire has been in place for several weeks.
Vance articulated the administration’s core position: Iran cannot under any circumstances obtain a nuclear weapon. He went beyond the familiar talking point to explain the reasoning in vivid terms — if Iran went nuclear, he argued, it would trigger a cascade of proliferation across the Gulf region and beyond, potentially adding 20 or more nuclear-armed states to the world, many of them sympathetic to terrorist organizations. “Iran would really be the first domino in what would set off a nuclear arms race all over the world,” he said.
On the diplomatic front, Vance revealed that his trip to Islamabad, Pakistan — which he described as roughly 22 hours of flying each way with 21 hours on the ground — was specifically designed as a good-faith gesture: showing that the vice president of the United States was personally willing to negotiate. He said the U.S. had “effectively degraded” Iran’s conventional military capability and was now pursuing aggressive diplomacy at the president’s direction.
He described Option A as a negotiated deal in which Iran permanently abandons its nuclear program, verified through a lasting process that extends beyond the Trump presidency. Option B, he made clear, remains on the table: “We’re locked and loaded. We don’t want to go down that pathway, but the president is willing and able to go down that pathway if we have to.”
Iran: Negotiations, Good Faith, and the Russian Uranium Question
Q (Nick, Breitbart): What has Vance personally seen that leads him to believe Iran is negotiating in good faith?
Vance acknowledged the difficulty candidly. He described Iran as a “fractured country” where the supreme leader, government officials below him, and the negotiating team itself sometimes appear to be pulling in different directions. “It’s not sometimes totally clear what the negotiating position of the team is,” he said. He declined to attribute that confusion definitively to bad faith versus poor internal communication. What the U.S. has done in response, he said, is try to be maximally clear about its own red lines and what it is flexible on.
Q (follow-up): Will Iran actually come to a deal?
Vance was unusually honest about the limits of his knowledge. “The honest answer is how could I possibly know?” He said his read is that the Iranians want a deal and have internalized that a nuclear weapon is the American red line — but added: “I will not say with confidence that we’re going to reach a deal until we’re actually signing a negotiated settlement here.”
Q (reporter): Is Russia taking possession of Iran’s enriched uranium a plausible end to the conflict?
Vance said flatly that this is not currently the U.S. plan, that it has never been the U.S. plan, and that he doubts the Iranians would be excited about it either. He declined to make any commitments on any specific negotiating topic, consistent with the administration’s stated preference for keeping talks private.
Q (reporter): Is Iran stringing the U.S. along, as lawmakers from both parties have suggested?
Vance: “You never know until you know.” He said he is not certain a deal exists until one is signed, but feels “confident enough to keep on doing the work.” He named Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff as fellow participants in the initial Islamabad negotiations, describing the goal of that round as establishing direct communication between two countries that hadn’t talked in a very long time, and taking early steps along the pathway to a deal.
Q (reporter): Egyptian Foreign Minister said Arab countries are working on a memorandum of understanding between the U.S. and Iran. Can you confirm?
Vance said he hadn’t seen those specific comments and would not detail the current state of negotiations. He reiterated the administration’s preference for keeping talks private, arguing that public disclosure complicates negotiations.
Q (Jon Raasch, Daily Mail): Trump initially said the war would last six weeks. It’s been 11 weeks. Why?
Vance pushed back on the framing. He said the active conflict period was approximately five to five-and-a-half weeks, and the remaining weeks have been a ceasefire during which negotiations are ongoing. He framed this as consistent with the president’s promise of a “short-term operation.” He said regardless of which direction the president ultimately takes — a deal or resumed operations — “it will not be the sort of thing that lasts forever. This is not a forever war.”
The $1.8 Billion “Anti-Weaponization” Fund
Context for general readers: The Trump administration established a Department of Justice fund described as compensation for Americans who were allegedly subjected to politically motivated prosecution — what the administration calls “lawfare” — under the Biden administration. This particularly references prosecutions of January 6, 2021 Capitol defendants and others the administration contends were treated disproportionately for political reasons. The fund has been reported as carrying a potential ceiling of $1.8 billion.
Q (John): Why should taxpayers pay to settle a lawsuit brought by the president himself? Should people who attacked the Capitol and assaulted police officers be eligible?
Vance pushed back on the framing, arguing that the media has “misrepresented” the fund. He emphasized that any American — Democrat or Republican — can apply, and noted that even Hunter Biden would be welcome to apply if he believed he had been mistreated. He stressed that no money goes to the Trump administration, to Trump personally, or to Trump’s family.
On the substance, Vance defended the principle of compensating people who were “prosecuted completely disproportionate to any crime they’ve ever committed.” He offered Tina Peters, a Colorado election official, as an example — arguing that even accepting the prosecution’s version of events, she was facing 10 years in prison for what amounted to misdemeanor trespassing.
On whether people who assaulted police officers should be eligible, Vance declined to categorically exclude anyone: “We don’t, in the United States, say that everybody who’s accused of a crime is automatically guilty in a court of public opinion.” He committed only to evaluating cases on their individual merits. “We’re not committing to give anybody money or committing to give no one money. What I’m committing to is a legal process to review these claims.”
Q (Caitlin): You previously said anyone who assaulted a police officer on January 6th should go to prison. So why not rule out giving them taxpayer money?
Vance responded that he doesn’t rule things out categorically without knowing individual circumstances, offering a hypothetical of someone falsely accused or denied a fair trial. He maintained the case-by-case standard throughout.
Q (Cara Castronuova, Lindell TV): Some January 6 defendants were sentenced to 24 years, held in what she described as unconstitutional pretrial detention. Can they still apply?
Vance answered by reinforcing the case-by-case principle, then offered a pointed critique of what he called a media double standard: noting that law schools and media outlets routinely advocate for proportionality in sentencing for “people who objectively committed heinous crimes,” but “you know who never, ever gets an ounce of sympathy when it comes to that disproportionate sentencing is people who voted for Donald Trump and participated in the January 6th protest.”
Q (Caitlin, follow-up): $1.8 billion is a lot of money when Americans can’t afford groceries and gas is high. How do you justify it?
Vance rejected the premise that the government must choose between one or the other. He pointed to the administration’s tax legislation — “no taxes on Social Security, no taxes on overtime, no taxes on tips” — and a $40 billion rural health care fund as evidence that the administration is simultaneously working on economic relief and justice reform.
Texas Senate Race: Trump Endorses Ken Paxton Over John Cornyn
Q (Nick, Breitbart): Does Trump’s endorsement of Ken Paxton over incumbent Senator John Cornyn send a message to other senators?
Vance: “I do think it sends a message.” He said Paxton “was there for the country, was there for the president” when it counted, while Cornyn — whom Vance said he has known for a long time — was not. He framed the endorsement as consistent with a ten-year pattern in Trump’s leadership: rewarding candidates who fight for working people and can’t be “bought by corporate lobbyists” or Wall Street, and sidelining those who can. “The message that people should take from this is fundamentally, you have got to serve the people who sent you.”
Fentanyl Deaths and China
Q (reporter): Fentanyl sourced from China has killed approximately 403,000 Americans over seven years, per CDC data. What is the administration doing?
Vance made an empirical claim: “If you look at the number of people who died in 2026, it’s going to be lower than the number who died in 2025, which is way lower than the number who died in 2024.” He attributed this decline to border control, arguing that fentanyl flowed from East Asia through Central and South America into the U.S. via cartels, and that securing the southern border substantially reduced that pipeline — exactly as the administration had promised in 2024.
He noted that President Trump raised the fentanyl issue directly with President Xi during last week’s meeting in China, and in prior phone calls. “Our sense is that President Xi has been willing to work with us on this.” He declined to characterize this as fully resolved, saying “we can make a lot more progress.”
AI Policy: Mythos, Pope Leo XIV, and a Coming Executive Order
Context for general readers: “Mythos” appears to be a recently released AI model that has raised government cybersecurity concerns. Pope Leo XIV — the first American pope — was elected in May 2025 and is expected to release an encyclical (a formal papal letter addressing major issues) on artificial intelligence.
Q (Natalie): Does the government need a mandatory review process for new AI models given Mythos concerns? What influence will Pope Leo XIV’s AI encyclical have?
Vance said the administration is “working in a collaborative way with the technology companies” on Mythos, with the concern being not necessarily the developers themselves, but whether bad actors could use the model to exploit cybersecurity vulnerabilities. He hinted at an upcoming executive order on AI but declined to get ahead of it: “I’m not going to get ahead of the executive order or any other actions that are going to come out.”
On the papal encyclical, Vance said he expects it to have real influence and expressed genuine interest in reading it. He drew a historical parallel: Pope Leo XIV chose his name in reference to Pope Leo XIII, who led the Church during the Industrial Revolution — a period whose social upheavals, Vance noted, contributed to the rise of fascism and communism in Europe. He suggested Pope Leo XIV may be applying similar Christian social teaching to the AI era.
On the administration’s broader AI posture: “The president wants us to be pro-innovation; he wants us to win the AI race against all other countries in the world.” Vance said AI is seen as critical for both economic competitiveness and military capability, while acknowledging the need to protect data and privacy.
Anti-Fraud Task Force: Ilhan Omar and Immigration Fraud
Q (Reagan, Daily Caller): Given your prior statements that Congresswoman Ilhan Omar may have committed immigration fraud, do you anticipate an indictment?
Vance declined to prejudge the investigation: “Everybody’s entitled to equal justice under the laws. So we’re going to investigate it, we’re going to take a look at it. If we think that there’s a crime, we’re going to prosecute that crime.” He confirmed the Department of Justice is currently examining the matter.
Q (follow-up): Should immigration or refugee policy change to prevent future fraud?
Vance argued that the Biden administration’s handling of asylum claims was itself a form of systemic fraud — that economic migrants were coached to claim asylum, were released into the country with work permits, and told to return for hearings a decade away. “What if that person was a criminal? What if that person actually had a violent history? We didn’t do any of the work necessary to ensure that the people coming into our country claiming to be asylum claimants actually had anything legitimate or anything good in their background.” He said the Trump administration has closed that loophole and is now focused on prosecuting those who exploited it.
Poland Troop Deployment: Delay or Withdrawal?
Q (reporter): The Pentagon halted the deployment of 4,000 troops to Poland, contradicting Trump’s promise not to reduce troop levels there. Why are you rewarding Putin and punishing your best ally in Europe?
Vance rejected both the premise and the characterization. He offered a clarification on the facts: “We’ve not reduced the troop levels in Poland by 4,000 troops. What we did is that we delayed a troop deployment that was going to go to Poland. That’s not a reduction. That’s just a standard delay in rotation.”
On the broader question, Vance said the administration’s European policy is about promoting European independence and sovereignty — not punishing allies. He said Europe needs to take more ownership of its own defense, noting that U.S. defense spending has historically been elevated in part because of the troops stationed in Europe, while European nations have spent comparatively little. “For my entire life, I have heard chirping from the European media about everything that’s wrong with the United States of America.”
When pressed on whether those troops will ultimately go to Poland, Vance said the final determination has not been made — they could go elsewhere in Europe. He described the episode as “a very small and very minor thing” and said European media was “overreacting.”
Political Violence: Charlie Kirk, the San Diego Shooting, and Bridging the Divide
Q (Cara Castronuova, Lindell TV): Comedian Pete Davidson made what she described as an offensive joke about the death of Charlie Kirk. What does this say about political divisions?
Vance first gently corrected an assumption embedded in the question — “I’m not a potential future candidate. I’m a vice president, and I really like my job” — before turning emotional on the subject of Kirk, whom he described as “a very, very dear friend” and “a father of two beautiful kids” who did not deserve to lose those years with his family.
Vance then pivoted to a breaking news item: a shooting that morning at a Muslim community center in San Diego, which he said left three victims dead plus the shooter. He revealed that his wife Usha Vance, who grew up near the location, may have known people connected to the center. He said: “I don’t know a single person who would say anything other than what I’m about to say, which is that that type of violence in the United States of America is reprehensible.”
Vance then drew a pointed contrast: “While every person I know, every politically conservative person I know would say exactly what I said about these innocent people who were killed, there were a lot of people who were celebrating the death of Charlie Kirk.” He proposed two unifying principles: the government should not imprison people for their politics, and political violence — from any direction — is unacceptable.
Trump’s Stock Trades and Financial Disclosures
Q (reporter): Trump’s financial disclosures show stock trades in companies he has publicly praised, including by posting stock ticker symbols on Truth Social. You previously said public officials shouldn’t trade individual stocks. How do you reconcile this?
Vance pushed back on the question’s framing with unusual directness, calling it “a speech masquerading as a question” and noting that it implied Trump was personally “sitting around” on a Robinhood account buying and selling stocks. He said Trump has independent wealth advisors who manage his portfolio. “He is not making these stock trades himself.”
On the substantive policy question — whether elected officials should be banned from trading individual stocks — Vance was unambiguous: “I am a big fan of banning members of Congress from trading stocks. So is the president of the United States.” He said the right approach is to ban the practice outright and make it illegal, “which is exactly what the president has proposed doing.”
Midterm Elections: Promises and Progress
Q (Garrett): Voters in six states are going to the polls today. You ran on no new wars, lower gas prices, and lower inflation. What do you say to voters who feel those promises are unkept?
Vance pointed to what he called “great wins”: the “largest tax cuts in American history,” elimination of taxes on overtime and tips, and rebounds in construction and manufacturing employment. He acknowledged directly that gas prices have risen because of the Middle East conflict, calling it “a temporary increase” and expressing confidence that prices will fall once the situation is resolved. “I feel quite confident after we’ve taken care of business in the Middle East, those prices are going to come down.”
Kurdish Region: Drone Attacks After Ceasefire
Q (Mr. Curtis): Drone and missile attacks on Kurdistan have not stopped since the ceasefire, including an attack the prior day. What is the administration’s position?
Vance acknowledged the problem, noting that ceasefires are “not always perfect” and pointing to similar patterns in Gaza. He said the administration has seen a “significant reduction in violence” overall since the ceasefire took hold, but reiterated the two-pathway framework: the U.S. either gets a deal that meets American national security objectives, or the military campaign resumes. He emphasized that a deal is the preferred outcome.
Religious Violence and the First Amendment
Q (Rowena Ortiz, Turning Point USA): There has been an uptick in religious violence. What is your message?
Vance described religiously motivated violence as “particularly disgusting” and grounded his answer in both constitutional and theological terms. He noted that the First Amendment’s protection of religious freedom is the very first right enshrined in the Constitution, and said it derives from the principle that all people are “created in the image of God” with the right to find their own path to faith through free will. “Anybody who would commit violence against another human being in the name of religion is, I think, doing something that is a violation of the laws of man. But I think more importantly, it is a fundamental violation of the laws of God.”
Immigration: UK Protests and the “Dignity Act”
Q (Jordan Conrad, Gateway Pundit): Thousands rallied in London at a “Unite the Kingdom” rally against mass immigration. What message does this send? And should the House block the so-called “Dignity Act,” which he described as an amnesty bill?
Vance said simply: “I don’t like giving amnesty to anybody.” He drew a sharp distinction between what he characterized as the establishment view — that prosperity comes from importing large numbers of cheap laborers — and the administration’s view: “What we believe in this White House is what we need more and more of is high wages for American workers and investing in our own people.”
He expressed solidarity with anti-immigration sentiment in the UK, saying it is “OK to want to defend your culture, it’s OK to want to live in a safe neighborhood, it’s OK to want your job to go to yourself and your neighbors.” He argued that accusations of racism against those who want border control are particularly unfair because, he said, “the very people who are most affected by low wage immigration are lower income black and Hispanic Americans right here in the United States of America.”
He also took a jab at Democratic lawmakers who have held “No Kings” signs at rallies, noting their “rapturous applause” when King Charles addressed Congress.
Personal Notes
Vance mentioned that his wife Usha Vance is expecting the couple’s fourth child in July 2026. He also joked that he agreed to fill in for Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt on the condition that she would “be vice president for a couple of weeks” when the baby arrives.
He made self-deprecating references to his eyesight, struggling to read his reporter seating chart and noting that “the thing about being 41 years old is you are blinder than you were a few years ago.”
MLA Citation
Vance, JD. “Press Briefing: JD Vance Holds a Press Briefing at The White House — May 19, 2026.” Factbase, 19 May 2026, factba.se.