Vance's Loyalty to Trump Is Costing Him His Future: The Guardian

In an opinion piece for The Guardian, foreign affairs commentator Simon Tisdall argues that JD Vance's sycophantic loyalty to Donald Trump is actively destroying his political future, and that the vice president's only path to the presidency in 2028 runs through breaking with the man he serves.

Tisdall anchors his argument in a particularly bruising stretch for Vance, during which three high-profile setbacks, namely Iran's nuclear negotiations, Hungary's elections, and a widening clash with Pope Leo, exposed the vice president as weak, overextended, and politically expendable.

In each case, Tisdall argues, Vance was deployed as a shield for Trump's failures rather than empowered as a genuine actor.

In Islamabad, Vance led negotiations with Iranian counterparts with no real authority to close a deal, reportedly forced to check every move by phone with Trump.

In Hungary, he was dispatched to campaign for Viktor Orbán after Trump reportedly refused to back a likely loser, only for Orbán to lose anyway, handing Vance a symbolic defeat and tying him to the broader collapse of the European ethno-nationalist right.

And on the Pope Leo controversy, rather than defending the Catholic Church against Trump's attacks, Vance questioned the pontiff's truthfulness and told him to stay out of questions of war and peace.

The opportunist's dilemma

Tisdall characterizes Vance as a "crude opportunist" whose beliefs have shifted repeatedly to suit his ambitions. Vance went from fierce Trump critic to MAGA loyalist, from anti-interventionist to defender of military strikes across multiple countries, from cultural outsider to polished religious conservative.

This pattern of reinvention, Tisdall suggests, is both Vance's greatest political asset and his most glaring vulnerability.

Unlike other cabinet members, Vance cannot be fired, as he is an elected official. But that structural protection has done little to insulate him from political damage. His approval ratings are at historic lows, with one poll identifying him as the most unpopular vice president in modern history, and his lead over Secretary of State Marco Rubio in informal Republican primary polling is narrowing.

The Caesar question

The piece frames Vance's central dilemma in historical terms. Does he remain loyal, as Claudius did to Caligula, and hope to survive? Or does he break ranks, as Brutus did with Caesar, before Trump's declining standing drags him under entirely?

Claudius, the Roman emperor who succeeded the erratic and violent Caligula, survived by keeping his head down and playing the loyal subordinate until his moment came. Brutus, by contrast, chose to act, joining the conspiracy that assassinated Julius Caesar before Caesar's trajectory could destroy everything around him.

He notes that Trump's loyalty to subordinates is notional at best, citing his abandonment of Mike Pence after January 6 as the clearest illustration.

With Democratic gains expected in November's midterm elections potentially reshaping the political landscape, Tisdall argues the window for Vance to reposition himself is narrowing. The vice president, he writes, has an "ever-lengthening list of reasons" to distance himself from Trump, but has so far lacked the political courage to act on any of them.

Tisdall closes on a measured note, suggesting that Vance, still only 41, retains the time and capacity to reinvent himself once more, this time as a figure of genuine statesmanship rather than calculated opportunism. But given the pattern of recent weeks, he concludes, it would take something close to a miracle.