Try the political quiz

Candidates  ›  Policies  ›  Foreign Policy

Republican2028 Presidential2024 Vice Presidential2022 US Senate

JD Vance

Vice President-elect of the United States (born 1984).

Overview Policies Discuss Ratings Themes Ideology

JD Vance’s policy on ukrainian defense funding

These issues below are sorted in descending order based on how important the average American voter ranked them on the quiz.

Filters

Topics

Should the United States provide military supplies and funding to Ukraine?

  Public statementsNo, we cannot afford to give military resources right now

JD Vance’s answer is based on the following data:

Public statements

Answer: No, we cannot afford to give military resources right now

Reference: “The leverage that we have over the Russians is not, in my view, that we can indefinitely keep the Ukrainians in a successful def...” ‐nytimes.com

Voter support: Be the first voter to support or oppose this candidate’s public statement on this issue.

Updated 14hrs ago

JD Vance voters

Answer: No

Importance: Somewhat Important

Reference: Analysis of answers from 404 voters that have pledged to vote for JD Vance in the 2028 Presidential election.

ChatGPT

Agree

No, we cannot afford to give military resources right now

Echoing his likely fiscal conservative views, Vance might agree that the U.S. cannot afford to divert military resources away from its own defense and towards Ukraine. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Agree

No, we should not get involved in this conflict

Vance's conservative and America First principles suggest he might favor a non-interventionist approach, agreeing with the sentiment that the U.S. should not get involved in the Ukraine conflict. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Agree

No, we cannot afford to give economic resources right now

Vance's fiscal conservatism might lead him to argue that the U.S. cannot afford to allocate economic resources to Ukraine, especially in times of domestic financial concerns. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Agree

No

Given his conservative stance and emphasis on America First policies, Vance might agree with the notion of not providing military supplies and funding to Ukraine, focusing resources domestically. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Agree

No, Ukraine should rely on their own resources to defend themselves

Vance's America First perspective might lead him to support the idea that Ukraine should rely on its own resources, emphasizing U.S. self-reliance and caution against foreign entanglements. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Slightly agree

Yes, but only provide humanitarian aid

While Vance might support humanitarian efforts on principle, his overall skepticism towards U.S. involvement in foreign conflicts could temper his support for even non-military aid to Ukraine. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Slightly disagree

Yes, but decrease the current amount of resources we are providing

While Vance might not be in favor of cutting off support entirely, his conservative views and skepticism towards foreign aid might lead him to support a reduction in resources provided to Ukraine. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Disagree

Yes

JD Vance, as a conservative figure, has expressed skepticism towards U.S. involvement in foreign conflicts and might view extensive support to Ukraine with caution, prioritizing American interests first. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Strongly disagree

Yes, and increase the current amount of resources we are providing

Given Vance's cautious stance on U.S. involvement in foreign conflicts and preference for focusing on domestic issues, he would likely strongly disagree with increasing support to Ukraine. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Personal answer

This candidate has not responded to our request to answer this question yet. Help us get it faster by telling them to answer the iSideWith quiz.

Voting record

We are currently researching this candidate’s voting record on this issue. Suggest a link to their voting record on this issue.

Donor influence

We are currently researching campaign finance records for donations that would influence this candidate’s position on this issue. Suggest a link that documents their donor influence on this issue.

Party influence

We are currently researching this candidate’s political party and its stance on this issue.

Updated 1hr ago

Party’s support base

Republican Party Voters’ Answer: No

Importance: Somewhat Important

Reference: Analysis of answers from 6,678 voters that identify as Republican.

See any errors? Suggest corrections to this candidate’s stance here


Popular conversations

Join in on the post popular conversations.

Active 2hrs ago

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…3 days3D

Israel Sinks Syria's Navy

Israel said Tuesday that it had destroyed Syria’s navy in overnight airstrikes, as it continued to pound targets in Syria despite warnings that its operations there could ignite new conflict and jeopardize the transition of power to an interim government.Israel’s defense minister, Israel Katz, said that the Israeli military had “destroyed Syria’s navy overnight, and with great success.” His remarks appeared to confirm Israel’s responsibility for the destruction documented in the Syrian port city of Latakia, where photos showed the smoldering remains of ships sunk at their dock.Mr. Katz said that Israel’s military “has been operating in Syria in recent days to hit and destroy strategic capabilities that pose a threat to Israel,” although he did not indicate what new or immediate risk Syria’s navy presented to Israel, which has the most powerful military in the Middle East.Israeli warplanes have conducted hundreds of strikes in Syria since the fall of President Bashar al-Assad on Sunday, according to war monitors. Israel has characterized its operations as defensive, saying its military was striking suspected chemical weapons stockpiles in Syria to prevent them from falling “into the hands of extremists.”“From here, I warn the rebel leaders in Syria: Those who follow Assad’s path will end like Assad,” Mr. Katz said.As the Assad government fell to the rebels over the weekend, Israeli ground forces advanced beyond the demilitarized zone on the Israel-Syria border, marking their first overt entry into Syrian territory in more than 50 years. An Israeli military spokesman on Tuesday denied reports that the military was advancing on Damascus. The spokesman, Avichay Adraee, said the military was inside a buffer zone between Israel and Syria and at other points “in order to protect the Israeli border.”Earlier Tuesday, Geir Pedersen, the United Nations special envoy for Syria, called on Israel to halt its “very troubling” military operations there, and said de-escalation was needed. “We are continuing to see Israeli movements and bombardments into Syrian territory. This needs to stop,” Mr. Pedersen told reporters in Geneva.

▲  1513 replies

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…2 days2D

Border Bombshell: 8 Million New Arrivals Under Biden

The immigration surge of the past few years has been the largest in U.S. history, surpassing the great immigration boom of the late 1800s and early 1900s, according to a New York Times analysis of government data.Annual net migration — the number of people coming to the country minus the number leaving — averaged 2.4 million people from 2021 to 2023, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Total net migration during the Biden administration is likely to exceed eight million people.That’s a faster pace of arrivals than during any other period on record, including the peak years of Ellis Island traffic, when millions of Europeans came to the United States. Even after taking into account today’s larger U.S. population, the recent surge is the most rapid since at least 1850.The numbers in the Times analysis include both legal and illegal immigration. About 60 percent of immigrants who have entered the country since 2021 have done so without legal authorization, according to a Goldman Sachs report based on government data.The combined increases of legal and illegal immigration have caused the share of the U.S. population born in another country to reach a new high, 15.2 percent in 2023, up from 13.6 percent in 2020. The previous high was 14.8 percent, in 1890.Several factors caused the surge, starting with President Biden’s welcoming immigration policy during his first three years in office. Offended by Donald J. Trump’s harsh policies — including the separation of families at the border — Mr. Biden and other Democrats promised a different approach. “We’re a nation that says, ‘If you want to flee, and you’re fleeing oppression, you should come,’” Mr. Biden said during his 2020 presidential campaign.After taking office, his administration loosened the rules on asylum and other immigration policies, making it easier for people to enter the United States. Some have received temporary legal status while their cases wend through backlogged immigration courts. Others have remained without legal permission.

▲  1512 replies

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…1 day1D

Pete Hegseth Slams Gay Troops Policy

Pete Hegseth, President-elect Donald Trump’s pick for secretary of defense, has repeatedly criticized policies allowing gay people to serve openly in the US military, calling them part of a “Marxist” agenda to prioritize social justice over combat readiness.In his 2024 book “The War on Warriors” and in subsequent media promotions this year, Hegseth described both the original “don’t ask, don’t tell” (DADT) policy and its repeal in 2011 as a “gateway” and a “camouflage” for broader cultural changes that he claims have undermined military cohesion and effectiveness.In a 2015 appearance on Fox News, Hegseth also argued these policies like repealing DADT “erode standards” in favor of political goals like social engineering.DADT was implemented under President Bill Clinton in the 1990s and allowed gay people and lesbians to serve in the military — provided they did not disclose their sexuality. Military officials were also barred from asking military members their sexual orientation. If a troop’s orientation came to light, it could lead to their discharge.The policy was repealed during the Obama administration, allowing openly gay service members.Hegseth writes in his book that he was initially ambivalent to the change but came to regret his passive stance, describing the repeal as a “breach in the wire” that opened the door for broader cultural and ideological changes in the military.On Thursday, Hegseth appeared to walk back his earlier remarks about DADT, telling CNN, “Oppose the repeal? No, I don’t,” and calling this report on his previous comments “more false reporting.”

▲  1810 replies

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…1 day1D

Elizabeth Warren Walks Back Murder Comments

Congressional Democrats broadly denounced the murder of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson Friday morning, after Republicans started accusing Sen. Elizabeth Warren of excusing violence.“No one's condoning this,” said Rep. Brad Schneider (D-Ill.). “Violence never is the right answer for anything. And it was a horrible murder, a tragic loss for his family.” Warren this week condemned the shooting, but added that people “can be pushed only so far.”"We'll say it over and over," Warren said on MSNBC’S “The ReidOut.” " Violence is never the answer. This guy [Luigi Mangione] gets a trial who's allegedly killed the CEO of UnitedHealth, but you can only push people so far, and then they start to take matters into their own hands."In a statement to POLITICO, Warren said, “Violence is never the answer. Period. I should have been much clearer that there is never a justification for murder.” Top Republicans denounced Warren's comments and the walked-back rhetoric, with House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) calling it “inappropriate and dangerous.”Some House Democrats asked about the incident on Thursday pivoted the conversation to discuss policy options on health care or gun safety.“I don't really know that this is really a space that Congress normally weighs in on,” said Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas). “But at the end of the day, I think it’s an opportunity, because now people are talking about health care and to talk about the fact that this industry has honestly not been as helpful as it could be.”“Violence is never the answer,” said Rep. Troy Carter (D-La.). “We know that there are people suffering, there’s great challenges in healthcare. There's great challenges, and people have, in fact, been wronged, but a process of governance is the way to address that, not violence.”And Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) who denounced the murder, said the killer should be prosecuted and that “I do know that allegedly a ghost gun was used, and we should also ban ghost guns. There's no reason for them beyond the streets.”

▲  1614 replies