JD Vance steps in to settle feud over Trump nominee

As this administration has moved forward with its nominees, some of them have created a dust-up in the Senate over their qualifications.

The latest to create a public feud among Republicans is Eldridge Colby, whom Trump nominated as his undersecretary for policy at the Pentagon.

Feud breaks out

Colby served in Trump's first administration but has made some comments since that have rattled some Republicans.

More specifically, he has stated that Iran's nuclear weapons should not be where the United States draws a line in the sand regarding negotiations with Iran. Among those questioning him on this matter is Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR), who has supported virtually all of Trump's agenda, yet now he is being called out.

Conservative media pundits have taken to attacking Senator Cotton online, trying to pressure him to cave on the nomination, posting, “The effort to undermine President Trump continues in the US Senate @SenTomCotton is working behind the scenes to stop Trump’s pick, Elbridge Colby, from getting confirmed at DOD. Colby is one of the most important pieces to stop the Bush/Cheney cabal at DOD.”

This prompted some hit pieces against Colby, which then led to JD Vance stepping in to try to calm things down, stating, “This is a very bad take from a normally thoughtful person. Bridge has consistently been correct about the big foreign policy debates of the last 20 years.”

Pass, or else

Something I have never supported by Trump and will never support is this tactic of intimidation by the administration or allies to try to get Senators to cave over nominees. The job of the Senate during this process is to vet these nominees to ensure they are on the same page as Trump regarding his agenda as well as to ensure they are qualified for the job.

Let's be honest here... Trump has several nominees, some of whom have already passed, that have questionable qualifications for the post, and I can tell you flat-out had I been a Senator, I would have needed serious convincing to pass nominees Tulsi Gabbard, Linda McMahon, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Pete Hegseth, Kash Patel, and Colby, among others. I would have had some long meetings with them and I would have told them my issues and told them to be prepared to answer those concerts during their hearings, which would ultimately decide how I voted.

The White House has more or less decided to tell any Senator voting against Trump on a single nominee that they will be run out of office if they dare to resist Trump's nominees during the confirmation process. For instance, the White House, regarding Trump's nominees, recently stated, “It’s pass-fail. You either support everyone or you don’t. The Senate needs to advise and consent, not advise and adjust.”

You are gone

We all saw the damage that can be done to the country when nominees are not properly vetted, such as former DHS Secretary Mayorkas and former Attorney General Merrick Garland. We can complain all we want about them, but 20 Republicans supported Garland, and six voted in favor of Mayorkas.

Democrats were united and had control of the Senate, and very few, if any, of them asked meaningful questions during these confirmation hearings. Had they actually done their jobs, perhaps things would have been slightly different for the country. To that point, the Trump administration then openly threatened Senators, stating, “There is a very well-funded consortium of outside groups and political actors that are sophisticated, smart and tough. We’ve already seen that they’ve provided air support and narrative support to some nominees.

“They’ll still be very well-funded when the nominations are over, and they’ll exact consequences, I’m sure, to those who do not support the president’s nominees and get them to the finish line.”

Trump has every right to pick who he wants in his cabinet and these posts, but if a Senator does not agree or has not been able to be convinced, he or she has every right to vote no, as well as be heard out by the administration without having their office threatened. Let's remember something... the voters of their respective states elected these individuals to represent them, not to rubber stamp everything from the administration. And if these individuals feel that a nominee does not properly represent their constituents, it is their duty to vote no.

Senators Murkowski (R-AL) and Collins (R-ME) have been among the key resisters against Trump, but both of them were elected by the citizens of Alaska and Maine respectively. As a Texan, I literally have no say in how they vote because they don't represent me. I can be mad at their vote, and I may not like it, but how I think is irrelevant. By stifling these people, Trump is stifling the people they represent, and that is not how our system works, whether we, Trump, or talking heads in the media approve.