Vice President JD Vance ignited a firestorm with a blunt social media outburst defending Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., earning both praise and a gentle reprimand from a prominent Christian leader.
According to Fox News, on Thursday, September 4, 2025, a contentious Senate Finance Committee hearing at the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, D.C., set the stage for this clash, as Vance’s sharp words on X drew attention from allies and critics alike.
The hearing saw Sen. Ron Wyden challenge Kennedy over health policies and past statements, accusing him of spreading unfounded theories. Kennedy pushed back, highlighting his efforts to take on powerful pharmaceutical interests. It’s a classic David-versus-Goliath narrative, though some might argue it’s more theater than substance.
Vance didn’t hold back on X, blasting senators for backing what he called untested and harmful hormonal treatments for children. “You’re full of s--- and everyone knows it,” Vance declared, accusing them of prioritizing corporate profits over kids’ well-being. That’s a gut punch, but did the delivery overshadow the message?
Kennedy didn’t shy away from the support, reposting Vance’s comment with a grateful nod. “Thank you @JDVance,” he wrote, signaling agreement with the vice president’s critique. It’s a rare moment of unity in a polarized landscape, though the backdrop of controversy looms large.
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt also jumped in, framing the Democratic pushback against Kennedy as proof he’s rattling the right cages. She argued it shows he’s a genuine threat to entrenched interests. A fair point, perhaps, but the optics of profanity in public discourse remain a sticking point.
Enter Rev. Franklin Graham, president and CEO of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, who offered a nuanced take on Vance’s stand. He supported the vice president’s defense of Kennedy, applauding the push against a system he sees as deeply flawed.
“We have had many vice presidents who have used salty language, but the point Vice President Vance was making is correct,” Graham stated. That’s a diplomatic way to say, “I get it, but let’s keep it clean.” His balance of principle and propriety is a reminder of the tightrope public figures walk.
Graham didn’t stop there, adding, “Could he have used a better choice of words? In my opinion, yes; but I appreciate the vice president standing up for Secretary Kennedy.” It’s a polite jab—support the fight, not the foul mouth.
Graham’s history of urging political leaders to mind their tongues adds context to his critique. He’s previously called out President Donald Trump on this front, citing biblical principles about the power of words. His reference to a letter quoting Matthew 12:36 shows he’s consistent in his stance.
“Your storytelling is great, but it could be so much better if you didn’t use foul language,” Graham once advised Trump. It’s advice that clearly resonates, as Graham noted, Trump often recalls the admonition during speeches. A subtle nudge that words from the pulpit—or the podium—carry weight.
Graham reflected further, saying, “The president, his pulpit — his microphone — is huge.” That’s a not-so-subtle reminder to Vance that influence demands responsibility. Power amplifies every syllable, for better or worse.
Meanwhile, the controversy isn’t just about language—Kennedy’s tenure at HHS has drawn significant heat. Over 1,000 current and former department employees demanded his resignation just a day before he endorsed Vance’s remarks. That’s a loud chorus of dissent, signaling deeper unrest over his leadership. Representatives for Vance have yet to respond to requests for comment on the matter. The silence leaves room for speculation, but it’s clear this incident has struck a nerve across the political spectrum. Will cooler heads—or cleaner words—prevail?
As this unfolds, the clash between principle and presentation remains front and center. Vance’s defense of Kennedy taps into a broader frustration with health policies many conservatives see as misguided at best, destructive at worst. Yet, Graham’s measured critique reminds us that how you fight can matter as much as why.
