World Peace

On a scale of 1 out 5, what kind of job has JD Vance done as vice president?

GoogleAI Mode: “Assessing J.D. Vance’s performance as Vice President on a scale of 1 to 5 is a matter of opinion, with views largely split along political lines. He only took office on January 20, 2025, and there is no objective, non-partisan rating system for a vice president’s job performance, especially in the early stages of their term. 

Supporters would likely rate his performance highly (a 4 or 5), viewing him as an effective, “fearless MAGA fighter” who is successfully implementing the Trump administration’s agenda, effectively communicating their message, and transforming the typical, low-profile role of the vice president into one of influence.

Critics would likely rate his performance poorly (a 1 or 2), pointing to his polarizing rhetoric, lack of political experience (having served just two years in the Senate), and actions that they view as an assault on democratic norms and the rule of law. 

Key points of contention regarding his performance include:

Pugilistic Style: Vance has adopted an unusually high-profile, combative approach to the vice presidency, acting as a “heat-seeking rhetorical missile” for the administration. This is seen by supporters as strong leadership and by critics as divisive and an abuse of the office’s stature.

Policy Stances: His strong stance on “America First” policies, including skepticism of foreign aid and an isolationist foreign policy, resonates with the Republican base but concerns moderate Republicans and Democrats.

Loyalty and Persona: His unwavering loyalty to President Trump after being a former critic is viewed by some as the primary job requirement for his role, while others see it as a lack of personal conviction.

Alignment with the President: Unlike previous vice presidents, who often carved out their own policy portfolios, Vance appears to be working in lockstep with Trump, which the Trump White House official has reportedly graded with an “A”.”

Explain: actions that they view as an assault on democratic norms and the rule of law.

GoogleAI Mode: “Critics argue that J.D. Vance’s actions and statements represent an assault on democratic norms and the rule of law through: 

Undermining Judicial Authority: Vance has explicitly stated that courts “aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power,” a statement that challenges the constitutional principle of judicial review established in Marbury v. Madison. This is seen as an attempt to weaken the judiciary as a check on executive power and could lead to a constitutional crisis if the administration were to defy court orders.

Advocating for Defiance of Court Rulings: In a 2021 interview, Vance suggested that if courts block the Trump administration’s actions (such as mass firing of civil servants), the president should stand before the country like Andrew Jackson and say, “The chief justice has made his ruling. Now let him enforce it”. This is widely interpreted as a call to ignore court orders, a direct challenge to the rule of law.

Challenging the Peaceful Transfer of Power: Vance has stated that he would not have certified the 2020 election results if he had been vice president at the time and suggested that pro-Trump electors should have been sent to Congress instead, which aligns with efforts to subvert the democratic process.

Attacking Independent Institutions and Civil Servants: Vance has called for the mass firing of federal civil servants (“every single midlevel bureaucrat”) and replacing them with political loyalists, a move critics argue erodes the independence of the federal government and ensures loyalty to a political party over the Constitution.

Targeting Critics and Non-Profits: He has suggested a broad crackdown on what he calls “liberal groups” and has made statements that have been interpreted as encouraging the targeting of individuals and organizations that express dissenting views or engage in protest, which critics view as a threat to free speech and a vibrant civil society.

Disparaging Due Process: Vance has used “scare quotes” around the term “due process” and argued that what process is due can be a function of resources or public interest, not strictly the Constitution, a statement critics have called an attack on fundamental constitutional rights. 

These actions and statements have led critics to argue that Vance demonstrates a contempt for the balance of powers and the core principles that underpin American democracy.”

On a scale of 1 out 5, how much respect do Trump & Vance have for the Constitution?

GoogleAI Mode: “Assessing Donald Trump’s and J.D. Vance’s respect for the U.S. Constitution on a scale of 1 to 5 is a matter of political opinion and legal interpretation, not an objective fact. Their actions and statements have led to vastly different conclusions among legal scholars, political commentators, and the public.

Perspective 1: Low Respect (A rating of 1 or 2)

Many legal experts, critics, and political opponents argue that both Trump and Vance display a low level of respect for the Constitution and the rule of law. Their arguments are based on: 

Challenging Judicial Authority: Vance’s statements that “judges aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power” and his suggestion that the president should ignore court orders (“The chief justice has made his ruling. Now let him enforce it”) are viewed as an assault on judicial review and the separation of powers.

Efforts to Overturn an Election: Trump’s attempts to pressure state officials to change vote counts and Vice President Pence to reject certified electoral votes are seen as a direct attack on the peaceful transfer of power and the democratic process.

Disregard for Norms and Checks and Balances: Actions such as the mass firing of independent inspectors general, ignoring congressional subpoenas, and politicizing the Justice Department are cited as an intent to concentrate power in the executive branch and undermine the system of checks and balances.

Authoritarian Rhetoric: Critics point to their rhetoric, which includes threats to jail political opponents and a willingness to break constitutional norms, as evidence of an agenda that leans toward authoritarianism. 

Perspective 2: High Respect (A rating of 4 or 5)

Conversely, supporters and some commentators argue that Trump and Vance have a high respect for the Constitution, particularly their interpretation of the “unitary executive” theory. Their arguments are based on: 

Adherence to Originalist Principles: Supporters contend they are following a legitimate, originalist interpretation of the Constitution that emphasizes strong executive power within its designated sphere.

Protecting Executive Power: They argue that their actions are necessary to reclaim “legitimate power” from unelected bureaucrats and an “administrative state,” thereby restoring the proper balance intended by the framers.

Belief in the Constitution: Vance has stated, “I think that Donald Trump believes in the American Constitution. I know he does”. 

Conclusion

Due to these diametrically opposed viewpoints, an objective rating is not possible. The assessment depends entirely on one’s own interpretation of constitutional law and evaluation of their public statements and actions.”

Are Trump & Vance unique as a duo compared to other presidents and vice presidents?

GoogleAI Mode: “Yes, the relationship between Donald Trump and J.D. Vance is considered unique compared to many past presidential and vice-presidential duos due to the extreme reversal of Vance’s public stance on Trump and their shared vision for a combative, high-profile vice presidency. 

Key aspects that make their partnership distinct include:

Ideological Alignment and Torchbearer Role: Unlike some past VPs who had ideological differences or were chosen to balance the ticket (like Mike Pence), Vance is seen as the ideological heir and “torchbearer” for the “Make America Great Again” (MAGA) movement. He aggressively advocates for Trump’s specific worldview, from trade skepticism to an isolationist foreign policy, to a degree rarely seen in previous administrations.

From Critic to Staunch Ally: The shift from Vance privately calling Trump “America’s Hitler” and an “idiot” in 2016 to becoming one of his fiercest defenders and running mate is a highly unusual political trajectory. This stark reversal has led to unique questions about opportunism and the nature of political loyalty.

“Buddy Level” and Trust: Aides have described a “buddy level” friendship and strong personal chemistry between the two, with frequent phone calls where Vance is not “needy and high maintenance”. Trump reportedly trusts Vance to freelance and represent the administration’s message effectively on television, in ways he rarely entrusted other allies.

Active Role in Foreign Policy: Vance has been given a high-profile, active role in foreign affairs, including flying on diplomatic envoys to Europe to work on international conflicts. This is a more forward-facing role than many past vice presidents, who were often sidelined in foreign policy or given more traditional, less public assignments.

Focus on Disruption: Both Trump and Vance share a desire to fight against existing institutions and challenge global systems. Their combined approach is seen by some analysts as the “most extreme presidential ticket in modern American history” in its open hostility to established norms.

Succession Mandate: Because Trump is term-limited, there is an inherent understanding that Vance is the standard-bearer for the movement going forward, which gives him a unique mandate and a different type of power dynamic compared to VPs whose bosses might seek a second term.”

On a scale of 1 out 5, what are the public approval ratings?

GoogleAI Mode: “As of November 2025, public opinion polls for President Trump and Vice President Vance generally place them with approval ratings around 38% to 41%, which translates to a rating of approximately 1.9 to 2.0 on a 1 to 5 scale. A 1 represents the lowest possible approval and a 5 represents the highest.

Donald Trump Approval Rating

Approval/Favorable: Recent polls from November 2025 show President Trump’s approval rating at approximately 38% to 41%.

Disapproval/Unfavorable: Disapproval ratings hover around 57% to 61%.

Trend: His approval ratings have generally remained low throughout his time in office, a pattern consistent with his first term. The November 2025 ratings represent the lowest of his second term so far. 

J.D. Vance Approval Rating

Approval/Favorable: Vice President Vance’s favorable ratings are slightly lower than Trump’s, around 35% to 40%.

Disapproval/Unfavorable: Unfavorable views of Vance are generally around 50% to 55%.

Trend: His favorability ratings have had some minor fluctuations since taking office but remain in net negative territory. 

These ratings are highly polarized, with strong support from Republicans and very low approval from Democrats and many Independents.”

On a scale of 1 out 5, based on their actions and words, are Trump & Vance likely to turn the United States authoritarian?

GoogleAI Mode: “Based on their words and actions, many political scientists and experts believe that Donald Trump and J.D. Vance are likely to move the United States toward an authoritarian system, with the U.S. currently in a state described by some as a “competitive authoritarianism” or an “authoritarian regime”. Assessments of the U.S. democratic performance have fallen to their lowest points in recent years. 

Arguments that they are likely to move the U.S. towards authoritarianism

Analysts cite numerous actions and statements as evidence of an authoritarian “playbook”: 

Undermining Democratic Institutions and Norms: Experts point to efforts to politicize independent institutions like the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the civil service, and a general disregard for constitutional norms and the rule of law.

Expansion of Executive Power: Actions include the invocation of wartime and emergency powers during peacetime, threatening to ignore judicial orders, and attempts to use the military for domestic purposes against protestors.

Targeting Opponents and the Media: Both Trump and Vance have used exclusionary and hostile rhetoric toward political opponents, the media, and specific communities. There are concerns about using the government to retaliate against critics through audits, investigations, or the revocation of security clearances.

Challenging Election Integrity: Trump’s continued questioning of election results and related rhetoric is seen by some as an effort to undermine the public’s faith in the electoral process itself.

Vance’s Statements: J.D. Vance has articulated views about “seizing the administrative state” and suggested a president could ignore court rulings they disagree with, reinforcing these concerns. 

Arguments and factors that might limit this outcome

Conversely, other analysts and experts point to significant structural constraints within the U.S. system that could mitigate a full transition to a classic dictatorship:

Institutional Checks: The U.S. Constitution, an independent judiciary, federalism, and a professionalized military are seen as potential barriers to absolute power grabs.

Rule of Law: While challenged, the constitutional order and legal system remain intact, and Trump has not, as of recent reports, defied Supreme Court orders.

Potential for Opposition: Any attempts at authoritarianism would likely face strong and ongoing opposition from political opponents, civil society organizations like the ACLU, and a public which is also split on the issue.

Differing Interpretations: Some political scientists argue that Trump is using legitimate presidential powers to address long-standing issues and that concerns are amplified by political bias. 

Ultimately, the potential outcome is a subject of intense, ongoing debate among experts, with many warning signs but also potential checks and balances within the U.S. system.”

What actions has J.D. Vance taken that raise concerns about authoritarianism?

GoogleAI Mode: “Concerns that J.D. Vance may move the U.S. towards authoritarianism stem primarily from his statements and public remarks advocating for the expansion of presidential power, a reduction in the independence of the federal judiciary and civil service, and a questioning of election integrity. 

Rhetoric on Judicial and Executive Power

Defying Court Orders: Vance has repeatedly suggested that a president can and should ignore court orders that he believes overstep judicial authority into the executive branch’s “legitimate power”. He has specifically referenced an apocryphal quote attributed to Andrew Jackson (“The chief justice has made his ruling. Now let him enforce it”) to suggest defying the Supreme Court if it blocks the president’s agenda.

Challenging Judicial Authority: He has stated on social media and in interviews that “Judges aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power,” an assertion that critics, including legal experts, say threatens the constitutional system of checks and balances. 

Views on the Federal Government

Dismantling the Administrative State: Vance has advocated for the mass firing of “every single midlevel bureaucrat, every civil servant in the administrative state,” and replacing them with individuals loyal to the administration’s agenda. This mirrors a key proposal in the Project 2025 policy blueprint, which aims to reshape the federal workforce around presidential loyalty.

Ties to Project 2025: While not directly involved in writing the document, Vance has praised the Heritage Foundation, the group behind the controversial Project 2025, as a significant “engine of ideas” for the Trump movement and wrote the foreword to a book by the project’s leader. 

Stances on Elections and Political Norms

Questioning Election Results: Vance has stated his belief that the 2020 presidential election was stolen and indicated that, as Vice President, he would have supported efforts to overturn the results on January 6th.

Hostile Rhetoric: He has used strong, exclusionary language about political opponents and the media, which some critics view as typical of an authoritarian “playbook”. 

These statements and expressed views are interpreted by many political scientists and legal experts as a push for a significant expansion of presidential power and a disregard for the constitutional separation of powers, thus raising concerns about a potential shift toward authoritarianism.”

It is true that Andrew Jackson maybe made a statement, now used by JD Vance, related to a court case & an actual chief justice, not a president?

GoogleAI Mode: “Yes, the famous and likely apocryphal quote attributed to Andrew Jackson was in reference to the Chief Justice, John Marshall, following the Supreme Court’s decision in Worcester v. Georgia. J.D. Vance has used this quote when discussing the possibility of a president ignoring judicial rulings. 

The Andrew Jackson quote and context

The quote is popularly cited as, “John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it”.

It refers to Jackson’s refusal to enforce the Supreme Court’s ruling in the 1832 case Worcester v. Georgia, which had found that Georgia had no authority to impose its laws on the Cherokee Nation.

Historians say the quote likely first appeared decades after the event, and Jackson almost certainly never said it, but it accurately reflects his defiance of the Court’s authority. 

How J.D. Vance used the reference

Vance’s comments: Vance has referenced the incident, suggesting a modern president should adopt a similar stance if the courts try to block their policies. In a 2021 podcast, he advised that if a Trump administration’s dismantling of the administrative state was challenged in court, they should “stand before the country, like Andrew Jackson did” and invoke the “let him enforce it” line.

Purpose: By referencing this historical—and largely discredited—example of presidential defiance, Vance has signaled his support for a significant expansion of executive power and a disregard for the judicial checks on that power.”