Vice President JD Vance said he isn't sure if he'd receive President Donald Trump's endorsement "right out the gate" if he were to run for president in 2028.
Vance expressed that uncertainty during a Monday interview with journalist Mark Halperin on his platform 2Way. The interview aired just weeks before the midterm elections, as Republicans and the White House are focused on maintaining control of Congress.
Vance emphasized that his top priority was the midterms and said he wasn't certain that a 2028 presidential run was in his future.
However, he said, "I think if I run, the president will endorse me."
VANCE CONFRONTED ABOUT 2028 AMBITIONS AFTER TRUMP TEASES 'DREAM TEAM' RUBIO TICKET
"Right away?" Halperin asked.
"I would think so, but I don’t know, man," Vance said. "I haven’t talked to him about it."
Halperin suggested it might be "weird" if Vance were to share with Trump his 2028 ambitions and for Trump to sit on an endorsement, a characterization that Vance pushed back on.
"No, I don’t think it’d be weird," Vance said. "Again, I think I would get his endorsement, but I also think there’s something to be said for people actually running their own race, and because the president’s endorsement is so dispositive, you could absolutely see a scenario where the president says, ‘You know what? We need to let, like, this race play out and not, like, preemptively prejudge the results.'"
Earlier in the conversation, Halperin brought up previous remarks by Vance in which he said that "whoever the president endorses for the Republican nomination will ultimately win the Republican primary."
CRUZ-VANCE RIVALRY HEATS UP AS TEXAS SENATOR SUGGESTS VP IS 'FEELING INSECURE'
Vance said this is typically true of both the Democratic and Republican parties, but that Trump's endorsement is much more consequential because he first won the trust of everyday voters while Republican Party elites rejected him. Vance said Trump's endorsement signals to voters that a candidate is not beholden to the party's elite.
"That’s the person they say, ‘Okay, if Trump is with a guy, that must mean that the elites are against that guy," Vance said. "I think that Trump’s endorsement just carries more weight than any political endorsement in history because of that. Obviously, the voters are gonna decide. Donald Trump is only one vote of many, but I think his endorsement is still the most powerful."
SIGN UP TO GET THE POLITICS NEWSLETTER
Vance's uncertainty over winning Trump's blessing comes after Trump previously teased pitting Vance against Secretary of State Marco Rubio for his endorsement in the 2028 presidential race. Trump called Vance and Rubio the "dream team," at a May Rose Garden Club event but has refused to say who would be at the top of the ticket.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
Fox News Digital reached out to the White House for comment.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said the US has restored intelligence sharing with Ukraine, including advance warnings of Russian ballistic missile launches, following talks with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio.
The lack of advance warnings came amid reports that the Trump administration had threatened to suspend intelligence sharing and weapons supplies unless Kyiv halted attacks on Russian oil refineries. US intelligence usually alerts Ukraine to ballistic missile launches before air raid sirens sound, giving the country time to warn civilians and prepare its air defenses. Russian ballistic missiles can reach Kyiv within minutes, making early notice critical to protecting lives.
Zelenskyy made the announcement on 20 October during a press conference broadcast by Suspilne. He said he had spoken with Rubio earlier that morning while traveling to Oslo, discussing intelligence, Starlink satellite communications, missile interceptors, and Patriot air defense systems.
“We discussed sensitive issues, including Starlink, interceptors, which are very important, and intelligence. We were very specific; the conversation was very positive,” Zelenskyy said.
He added that he plans to speak with Rubio again within the next 48 hours.
On 18 October, Zelenskyy also said that US warnings had returned, which turned out not to be true as Russian ballistic missiles hit Kyiv that evening before air raid sirens sounded.
The warning gaps began with Russian ballistic missile attacks on Kyiv on 12 October and continued through 19 October. During the attacks on 12 and 13 October, Ukraine received no advance warning from its partners, with air raid alerts sounding only after the attacks had begun.
The problem persisted during subsequent attacks. Overnight on 18–19 October, Russia attacked Kyiv in two waves. Ukrainian Air Force spokesperson Yurii Ihnat said no warning arrived before the first wave, around 23:00. Information arrived before the second wave, around 03:00, but left little time to respond.
Advance intelligence on ballistic missile launches is particularly important because these missiles can reach their targets within minutes, leaving little time for civilians to seek shelter.
US President Donald Trump previously denied that Washington had stopped sharing intelligence with Ukraine, despite the missing warnings. Secretary of State Marco Rubio also rejected claims of a suspension, pointing to a software problem in Ukraine's early-warning system.
However, the disruptions came amid reports that the Trump administration had threatened to suspend intelligence sharing and weapons supplies unless Kyiv halted attacks on Russian oil refineries. The Financial Times reported that Washington was pressuring Ukraine to stop the strikes as part of efforts to secure an energy truce with Russia.
Ukraine temporarily paused attacks on Russian refineries but said Moscow continued striking Ukrainian energy infrastructure.
Zelenskyy's latest statement indicates that advance ballistic missile warnings are reaching Ukraine again, although the recent gaps have raised questions about the reliability of a capability critical to protecting civilians.
© Ludovic Marin/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said on 20 October that he had spoken with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio about ballistic missile interceptors, early warning of Russian launches, and “the situation with Starlink/Starshield, which needs to be restored,” he wrote on X. He thanked Rubio for “his readiness to help and his clear position” and said they would speak again soon. A day earlier, he had told US senators how each of those supplies had stalled.
This comes as the US presses Kyiv to stop its strikes on Russian oil refineries, which Trump has blamed for high fuel prices at home, and Zelenskyy counts the Starlink slowdown among the steps he says look like an effort to push Ukraine to capitulate. Ukraine’s interceptor drones depend on the service to hunt Russia’s jet-powered Shaheds, and Kyiv says they now lose the link at speeds too low to catch them. The call appears not to have settled whether that cap is gone. If it stays, Ukrainian cities could face Russia’s drone waves this winter with one fewer means to stop them, as Russia keeps striking the grid.
On 17 October, Rubio told reporters that nobody in the US ordered Starlink slowed, that the slowdown “wasn’t deliberate,” and that “my understanding is it’s been restored.” He drew a line between the two services. Ukraine’s drones, he said, ran on commercial Starlink, while Starshield, the military version, is not available to Ukraine. Kyiv has asked for it to carry out strikes deep inside Russia, and that request is under discussion, he said.
The next day, Zelenskyy told Bloomberg that Starlink in Ukraine cuts out above 161 km/h, and Kyiv says its Starshield terminals are capped as well. His post after the call still says the service needs to be restored.
The order to slow Starshield came from inside the White House, Reuters reported, citing two US officials and a Western official. They described it as the Starshield service for the Ukrainian military, the version Rubio says Ukraine does not have. A senior Ukrainian official told Reuters that Kyiv had been told it was a White House decision. A senior US official told the agency the president never made such a request, and the White House did not answer whether other officials had. Rubio called a report that the White House ordered Starlink slowed “categorically false.”
Overnight on 18–19 October, Ukraine got no partner warning before the first of two Russian ballistic waves, Air Force spokesman Yurii Ihnat said on the national telethon. That came hours after Zelenskyy said US warnings had resumed. On 19 October, Rubio pushed back against suggestions of a pause in US intelligence sharing, AFP reported.
Zelenskyy also told Bloomberg the US sends only 12 Patriot interceptors a month and has authorized only part of those “we have paid for” under PURL. Ukrainian officials told the Kyiv Independent that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has not signed the contracts. A US government official called those claims “not true.”
Ukraine is counting on buying part of Lockheed Martin’s growing output of ballistic missile interceptors, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said. He met the US company’s team in Kyiv on 19 October and also raised servicing and repairing F-16 fighter jets inside Ukraine.
Russia keeps striking Ukraine’s power grid with ballistic missiles, and interceptor supplies fall short of that threat. Kyiv is working every route to more Patriot missiles, from US deliveries to allies’ stocks, and some have stalled. Greece, for one, has not confirmed it will hand any over, citing its own defense needs. A purchase from the missiles’ maker would add one more route.
Lockheed Martin builds the PAC-3 MSE interceptors fired by Patriot air defense systems, as well as the F-16. Zelenskyy said both matter against Russian ballistic missiles and jet-powered Shahed drones. Neither area is easy right now, he added.
“We count on the opportunity to purchase some of them to protect more lives,” he wrote.
On 28 July, Zelenskyy met the company in Washington to discuss joint production. That came weeks after US President Donald Trump pledged Ukraine a license to manufacture Patriots.
Meanwhile, US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has not signed off on a “significant” batch of Patriot missiles, Ukrainian officials told the Kyiv Independent. One official said allies had already paid for them. A US government official called the claims untrue, and the Pentagon did not respond. A NATO official said allied-funded deliveries, including air defense, continue. A second NATO official said some shipments could be delayed, but likely not for political reasons.
Zelenskyy told Bloomberg on 18 October that the US delivers only 12 Patriot interceptors a month. On 20 October, interceptors topped his list in a call with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio.
No purchase was announced, so new interceptors from this route remain a prospect. Meanwhile, partners’ early warnings of Russian ballistic launches have gone missing three times recently, Zelenskyy wrote. Those warnings give air defenses extra minutes to prepare.
The telephone conversation between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and US Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Tuesday, 20 October, has exposed an increasingly uncomfortable contradiction in American policy towards Russia. While President Donald Trump is easing economic pressure on Moscow and attempting to restrain Ukrainian attacks on Russian energy infrastructure, senior members of his administration are having to address the consequences for Ukraine’s defence.
Zelenskyy raised three immediate concerns: the availability of Patriot interceptor missiles, interruptions to American early-warning intelligence concerning Russian ballistic attacks, and restrictions affecting Starlink and Starshield satellite communications. He described the discussion as constructive, expressing appreciation for Rubio’s willingness to help.
The significance lies less in the diplomatic language than in the circumstances surrounding the call. Washington is attempting to obtain concessions from Moscow while several of its own decisions have weakened confidence in the security arrangements on which Kyiv depends. Rubio’s involvement suggests that these difficulties cannot simply be left unresolved while Trump’s envoys pursue another round of negotiations.
Trump’s recent decisions concerning Russian energy exports have brought an existing disagreement over Ukraine into American domestic politics.
The administration has facilitated Russian diesel exports and waived new sanctions under the Graham Act, legislation intended to increase pressure on Russia and its principal energy customers. Rubio has said the president will use a 60-day period to assess the economic consequences of implementing the measures.
For Trump, the immediate attraction is apparent. Rising fuel prices have become a political liability ahead of the 3 November congressional midterm elections. Increasing supplies on international markets offers the administration a potential means of relieving pressure on American consumers.
The difficulty is that concessions to Vladimir Putin carry their own electoral consequences. Moscow remains deeply unpopular among substantial sections of the American political establishment, including Republicans who regard support for Ukraine as a matter of American strategic interest.
That opposition is no longer confined to public criticism. Republican senators have joined Democrats in challenging decisions affecting Ukraine’s military capabilities, creating an additional problem for an administration already facing a difficult electoral environment.
Trump can justify Russian energy concessions as an attempt to protect American consumers. Explaining why Ukraine should simultaneously experience interruptions to critical defence systems is considerably more difficult.
Rubio’s position within the administration is particularly important. As both Secretary of State and National Security Adviser, he occupies two offices central to the formulation and execution of American foreign policy.
His conversation with Zelenskyy took place during a diplomatic tour of Uzbekistan and India, demonstrating that the deterioration in relations with Kyiv required attention even while the administration was pursuing other international priorities.
It would be premature to interpret Rubio’s intervention as evidence of an independent foreign policy. There is no indication that he is acting against Trump’s instructions. The more plausible interpretation is that the administration recognises a need to contain the consequences of its recent decisions without requiring the president publicly to reverse his position.
The controversy surrounding Starshield is particularly revealing. Reuters reported that instructions to restrict the satellite service used by Ukrainian forces originated inside the White House. The officials cited did not identify who authorised the order, while the administration has denied Trump’s personal involvement.
Separately, Zelenskyy has reported failures to receive advance warnings of Russian ballistic attacks. The cause of those interruptions remains disputed.
These developments have already attracted congressional scrutiny. Republican Senator Thom Tillis and Democratic Senator Jeanne Shaheen led a bipartisan request for an investigation, warning that failures in communications and intelligence-sharing may have endangered American personnel in Ukraine.
Congress cannot directly manage the administration’s foreign policy. Nevertheless, its powers over expenditure, legislation and oversight make sustained opposition politically consequential, particularly when members of the president’s own party are involved.
The immediate requirements in Kyiv are considerably more specific than the objectives being discussed in Washington’s diplomatic negotiations.
Ukraine needs reliable satellite communications, uninterrupted intelligence concerning incoming missiles and sufficient Patriot interceptors to defend its cities and critical infrastructure. Delays in any of these areas have consequences that cannot be addressed through declarations about a future peace settlement.
The shortage of Patriot missiles is particularly serious. Zelenskyy has complained that American authorisation is delaying deliveries under arrangements financed by European governments. Washington’s commitments elsewhere, including the Middle East, add further pressure to American air-defence inventories.
Meanwhile, preparations for new negotiations in Oslo involving American envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner continue. The involvement of European leaders may broaden the diplomatic discussion, but it does not resolve the central obstacle: Putin has offered no convincing indication that he is prepared to end the invasion on terms acceptable to Ukraine.
Proposals concerning Ukrainian elections, NATO membership or alternative negotiating arrangements remain subordinate to that problem. Without a ceasefire that can be enforced, even an agreement on the political framework for peace would leave fundamental questions of security unanswered.
Trump retains substantial authority over American sanctions, military assistance and diplomatic engagement. Yet his ability to offer Moscow meaningful concessions is constrained by several factors beyond his immediate control.
Congress can challenge further attempts to weaken sanctions or restrict assistance. European governments maintain their own sanctions regimes and are not obliged to follow Washington’s approach. Ukraine retains considerable military capacity, including the ability to attack Russian energy facilities that contribute to financing the war.
Nor can the American president compel Putin to accept a settlement. If Russia calculates that continuing military operations offers greater advantages than negotiations, additional concessions from Washington may encourage Moscow to prolong the conflict rather than end it.
Rubio’s conversation with Zelenskyy therefore suggests that the administration is being forced to confront the practical consequences of its policy. An American president may seek improved relations with Moscow, but the institutional interests of the United States do not necessarily change with his personal diplomatic priorities.
For Kyiv, the question is whether those interests will translate into the continued supply of weapons, intelligence and communications support. Russia’s attacks will continue irrespective of the timetable established for American diplomatic initiatives.
Login