White House officials have sharply criticized former press secretary Jen Psaki for her recent podcast comments suggesting Second Lady Usha Vance needs to be "saved" from her husband, Vice President JD Vance.
As reported by Breitbart News, Psaki made the remarks on the left-leaning podcast "I've Had It," questioning Usha Vance's well-being and implying she might be under duress in her marriage to the vice president.
During the podcast, Psaki stated, "I think the little Manchurian candidate, JD Vance, wants to be president, more than anything else," before adding, "Like, are you okay? Please blink four times. We'll... come over here, we'll save you." Such rhetoric, while perhaps intended as a jest, lands as a cheap shot, undermining the dignity of a woman who has chosen her path alongside a public figure.
White House director of communications Steven Cheung didn't hold back in his response, calling Psaki out for what he sees as a personal attack. He wrote that she "must be transferring her own personal issues onto others," dismissing her comments as baseless and untruthful.
Cheung went further, labeling Psaki "a dumbass who has no comprehension of the truth" and telling her to "circle back on that, moron," a pointed jab at her well-known catchphrase from her time in the Biden administration. It's a reminder that words have weight, especially when they come from someone who once spoke for the nation.
This isn't just about a slip of the tongue; it's about a pattern of progressive voices casting aspersions on personal choices they don't understand. Usha Vance, a private citizen thrust into the spotlight, deserves respect, not snide insinuations about her marriage.
Conservative commentators quickly joined the fray, with Human Events senior editor Jack Posobiec condemning Psaki's words as "absolutely disgusting." He noted that Usha Vance was accompanying her husband in Israel, reportedly working on significant diplomatic efforts, which makes the timing of such remarks even more tone-deaf.
Podcast host Tim Pool also weighed in on X, calling Psaki's behavior indicative of a "cult" mentality among certain political circles. He pointed out a trend of escalating hyperbole, where public figures are vilified in increasingly absurd ways to fit a narrative.
These reactions highlight a broader frustration with rhetoric that seeks to belittle rather than debate. When criticism veers into personal mockery, it erodes any chance of meaningful discourse on policy or leadership.
Psaki's comments aren't just a one-off; they reflect a tendency among some on the left to frame conservative women as victims needing rescue from their own decisions. It's a patronizing stance that assumes a woman like Usha Vance can't possibly be a willing partner in her husband's political journey.
This kind of narrative doesn't empower anyone; it diminishes the agency of individuals who don't fit a progressive mold. If the goal is to critique JD Vance's politics, there are plenty of substantive issues to tackle without dragging his spouse into the mud.
What's striking here is the double standard at play. Would similar remarks about a liberal political spouse be tolerated, or would they be swiftly decried as sexist and inappropriate?
The White House's sharp rebuke serves as a necessary check on careless words from those who once held positions of influence. Psaki, having been the face of an administration, should know better than to toss out flippant jabs that demean rather than inform.
Public discourse is already fraught with division, and comments like these only deepen the rift. It's time for figures on all sides to prioritize substance over snark, especially when personal lives are unfairly targeted.
This incident is a reminder that respect must underpin even the fiercest disagreements. Usha Vance, like any individual, deserves to be seen as more than a pawn in someone else's ideological game.
