JD Vance's Chances of Beating Donald Trump Jr. in 2028
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources.
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
Vice President JD Vance is emerging as the early front-runner in the 2028 Republican presidential primary race, widening his lead over Donald Trump Jr., a new poll shows.
According to the latest McLaughlin and Associates poll, conducted from June 10 to 15 among 1,000 voters, including 455 Republicans, Vance leads the crowded field with 36 percent support, more than doubling Trump's 14 percent.
It marks a notable shift from earlier this year, when Vance had a much smaller lead over the president's son.
Newsweek reached out to representatives for Donald Trump Jr. and JD Vance via email for comment.
Why It Matters
Neither Vance nor Trump has declared an intention to run on the 2028 Republican ticket, but both have hinted at running for president in the future. Speculation around both men as potential contenders is widespread, particularly in conservative media circles.
What To Know
In January, Vance polled at 27 percent while Trump held steady at 21 percent, according to McLaughlin. However, Vance surged in the following months, reaching a peak of 43 percent in April before settling back slightly.
But the latest numbers suggest Vance's appeal is broadening. He leads among conservatives (43 percent), white voters (38 percent), Hispanic Republicans (28 percent), and voters over 55 (39 percent). He also outperforms Trump among both men (38 percent) and women (34 percent).
However, while Trump still commands some loyalty—especially among self-identified Trump voters (39 percent) and moderates (16 percent)—his support has eroded since December, slipping from 21 percent to 14 percent. His performance is particularly weak among older voters (8 percent) and conservatives (12 percent), both essential in a GOP primary.
L: Vice President JD Vance speaks at a gala in Washington, D.C., on June 3, 2025. R: Donald Trump Jr. speaks at Trump Tower in New York City on June 16, 2025.
L: Vice President JD Vance speaks at a gala in Washington, D.C., on June 3, 2025. R: Donald Trump Jr. speaks at Trump Tower in New York City on June 16, 2025.
AP
Other contenders, including Florida Governor Ron DeSantis (6 percent), former United Nations ambassador Nikki Haley (4 percent), and businessman Vivek Ramaswamy (2 percent), are languishing in the single digits. Haley shows strength with liberal Republicans (16 percent), but that bloc makes up a small portion of the party.
In April, Vance hinted during a Fox & Friends appearance that he would consider running in 2028.
"When we get to that point, I'll talk to the president. We'll figure out what we want to do. But the way that I think about it is, if we do a good job, the politics take care of themselves," Vance said.
"There's so much to do and I don't really think that much about what happens in three and a half years," he added.
A month later, Vance told NBC News, "If I do end up running in 2028, I'm not entitled to it."
Trump has denied interest in running for office—at least publicly.
In a March 2023 interview with The Times of London, the president's son said: "I'm not interested in politics...I'll leave that to others in the family."
However, his persistent presence at conservative events such as the Conservative Political Action Conference and Turning Point USA has kept speculation alive. And in May, Trump appeared to change his tune. During the Qatar Economic Forum, he hinted that "maybe one day" he would run for president.
"Here we go. Well...oh boy," he said as members of the audience applauded, before adding: "It's an honor to be asked and an honor to see that some people are OK with it.
"So the answer is: I don't know, maybe one day. You know, that calling is there. I'll always be very active in terms of being a vocal proponent of these things. I think my father has truly changed the Republican Party."
What Happens Next
It is not clear when presidential hopefuls will begin announcing their bids for 2028.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNBC
24 minutes ago
- CNBC
Some lawmakers in both parties question the legality of Trump's Iran strikes
WASHINGTON — Several members of Congress in both parties Saturday questioned the legality of President Donald Trump's move to launch military strikes on Iran. While Republican leaders and many rank-and-file members stood by Trump's decision to bomb Iran's major nuclear enrichment facilities, at least two GOP lawmakers joined Democrats across the party spectrum in suggesting it was unconstitutional for him to bomb Iran without approval from Congress. "While President Trump's decision may prove just, it's hard to conceive a rationale that's Constitutional," Rep. Warren Davidson, R-Ohio, who usually aligns with Trump, said on X. "I look forward to his remarks tonight." Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., said in response to Trump's social media post announcing the strikes: "This is not Constitutional." Massie introduced a bipartisan resolution this week seeking to block U.S. military action against Iran "unless explicitly authorized by a declaration of war or specific authorization for use of military force against Iran" passed by Congress. In brief remarks from the White House on Saturday night, Trump defended the strikes but did not mention the basis of his legal authority to launch them without Congress' having given him that power. Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., reacted in real time during a speech in Tulsa, Oklahoma, slamming Trump's actions as "grossly unconstitutional." "The only entity that can take this country to war is the U.S. Congress. The president does not have the right," Sanders told the crowd, which broke out in "no more war!" chants. Some Democrats called it an impeachable offense for the president to bomb Iran without approval from Congress. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., said Trump's move is "absolutely and clearly grounds for impeachment." "The President's disastrous decision to bomb Iran without authorization is a grave violation of the Constitution and Congressional War Powers," she said on X. "He has impulsively risked launching a war that may ensnare us for generations." Rep. Sean Casten, D-Ill., said on social media: "This is not about the merits of Iran's nuclear program. No president has the authority to bomb another country that does not pose an imminent threat to the US without the approval of Congress. This is an unambiguous impeachable offense." Casten called on House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., to "grow a spine" and protect the war powers reserved for Congress. Johnson said Trump respects the Constitution as he sought to lay the groundwork to defend his decision to act unilaterally. "The President fully respects the Article I power of Congress, and tonight's necessary, limited, and targeted strike follows the history and tradition of similar military actions under presidents of both parties," he said in a statement. Johnson's remarks, along with support for Trump's move offered by Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., indicate that Trump may have sufficient political cover to avoid blowback from the Republican-controlled Congress. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., said Trump "failed to seek congressional authorization for the use of military force and risks American entanglement in a potentially disastrous war in the Middle East." But he stopped short of labeling the military action illegal or unconstitutional. House Minority Whip Katherine Clark, D-Mass., was more direct on the legal question. "The power to declare war resides solely with Congress. Donald Trump's unilateral decision to attack Iran is unauthorized and unconstitutional," said Clark, the No. 2 Democrat. "In doing so, the President has exposed our military and diplomatic personnel in the region to the risk of further escalation." Appearing Saturday night on MSNBC, Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., who co-authored the resolution with Massie, wondered whether the anti-war voters who support Trump would back his move. "This is the first true crack in the MAGA base," he said, noting that Trump's rise in the 2016 primaries was aided by his move to slam President George W. Bush for the Iraq war.
Boston Globe
28 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Senators Markey and Warren decry Trump's Iran strikes as unconstitutional
'Only Congress can declare war — and the Senate must vote immediately to prevent another endless war,' Warren said. Fellow Massachusetts Senator Ed Markey agreed, calling the strike 'illegal' for having lacked congressional approval. He said in a statement that Saturday's attack may set back Iran's nuclear ambitions, but added that not only can the country 'rebuild its program,' it 'will now be highly motivated to do so.' 'A diplomatic solution remains the best way to permanently and verifiably prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon,' Markey said. Chants of 'No More War' broke out at a Bernie Sanders rally in Tulsa, Okla., after the Vermont Senator read Trump's 'alarming' social media post announcing the strikes. 'The American people do not want more war, more death,' he said. Advertisement Massachusetts Peace Action, a Cambridge-based advocacy group, called for state leaders to speak out. The organization specifically called on Congressional leaders to pass the war power resolutions filed by Senator Tim Kaine and Representative Thomas Massie to prevent further US military action. 'We call on Massachusetts political leaders to speak out strongly against President Trump's lawless military adventure,' the organization wrote on Saturday night, shortly after the US attack on Iran. Brian Garvey, the organization's executive director, said an 'emergency event' was being planned outside Park Street Station at 1 p.m. Sunday, in protest of the strikes. Advertisement 'This direct attack by the United States on Iran a dramatic escalation by President Trump,' Garvey said in a phone call Saturday night. 'It's incredibly dangerous, it's unnecessary, and frankly, it's illegal.' Garvey said the founding fathers were explicit in giving Congress the power to declare war, adding that this is 'not how the government is supposed to work.' 'It is perhaps especially terrible because this is a president who ran saying he was going to seek peace,' he said. 'Back in 2016, he said the Iraq War was a big fat mistake. I fear that what he is leading us into could be even worse than that debacle and quagmire.' Garvey said he was 'fearful' for the US service members stationed in the Middle East, and 'outraged' that the strikes threatened their safety. Camilo Fonseca can be reached at
Yahoo
32 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Senate releases major changes to Trump's tax bill as negotiations heat up
WASHINGTON — The Senate Finance Committee released the long-awaited tax portion of its reconciliation bill on Monday, setting the stage for drawn-out negotiations with their House colleagues after changing several key provisions in the 549-page bill. The text release starts the clock for senators to finalize the package, get it approved by the Senate parliamentarian, and vote on the measure before the end of next week to meet Republicans' self-imposed deadline of July 4. The parliamentary process could take several days as each provision must be reviewed by the Senate adviser to ensure they adhere to the strict rules of reconciliation. Once the package passes the Senate, it will then be returned to the House for consideration. From there, Republicans will likely need to convene what is known as a conference committee between House and Senate leaders to negotiate a compromise package in order to avoid a legislative tennis match. That could be easier said than done as there are several provisions in the Senate version that have already angered House Republicans who spent weeks negotiating with GOP leaders to include their priorities. Here are some of the changes that could be the biggest sticking points for House Republicans: As expected, the Senate text aims to eliminate hundreds of billions of dollars previously approved under former President Joe Biden and criticized by some conservatives as 'Green New Deal subsidies.' However, the Senate text appears to shift the timeline for when many of those clean energy tax credits could be phased out, giving business owners who benefit from the credits more time to adjust. 'The legislation also achieves significant savings by slashing Green New Deal spending and targeting waste, fraud and abuse in spending programs while preserving and protecting them for the most vulnerable,' Senate Finance Chair Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, said in a statement. Under the House resolution, the credits are each given specific expiration dates whereas in the Senate version they are given a certain number of days after enactment. For example, the elimination of tax credits for residential clean energy could be eased under the Senate bill, softening the blow for the repeal of renewable energy sources such as solar panels, solar water heaters, geothermal heat pumps, and more. While the House bill would eliminate those credits by the end of 2025, the Senate version would expire the credit six months after the bill is signed — giving the credits a moving deadline and a slower phaseout. The Senate text also appears to change the timeline for several tax credits incentivizing the usage of clean vehicles, including credits for purchasing used clean energy vehicles; new clean vehicles; commercial vehicles; and more. Many of those provisions were set to expire by the end of the year under the House proposal, but now would also expire between 90-180 days after the bill is signed. The bill would ease the expiration of tax credits on fueling equipment for alternative vehicles such as electric cars. Similar to other language, the Senate text would implement a more flexible phaseout to eliminate the tax credit one year after the bill is signed rather than at the end of this year, which is the date currently proposed in the House version. Those eased timelines, along with others tucked in the bill, were likely included to win over Republicans in the Senate such as Sen. John Curtis, R-Utah, who pushed for relaxed phaseouts. If the tax credits were eliminated immediately, Curtis and others argued, it could cause a surge in utility prices. However, it's not clear how that will go over with fiscal conservatives in the House, who have called for the immediate elimination of clean energy credits. The Senate Finance Committee summary does tout provisions to boost nuclear energy and support 'consistent energy sources' to reduce market distortions. It also includes language that 'stops penalizing fossil fuels in favor of intermittent green energy.' The Senate tax portion made a number of significant changes to the House language on Medicaid, including one controversial proposal to help pay for Republicans' proposed tax cuts. In the newly released text, Republicans are proposing to lower the Medicaid provider tax to 3.5%, far below the current 6% tax. That could raise concerns among some lawmakers who have already voiced concerns about reduced funding for Medicaid in some states. Medicaid provider taxes are taxes placed by states on medical providers like hospitals and clinics that then boost reimbursement from the federal government. The bill would also implement stricter requirements for eligibility screening and verification as part of an effort to ensure undocumented immigrantss cannot be approved for benefits. For the most part, Senate Republicans left much of the language in the House surrounding Medicaid untouched. For example, the language maintains provisions establishing new work requirements for able-bodied adults without dependents, requiring at least 80 hours a month or some other activity, such as community service. The bill would also maintain restrictions introduced by the House to ban Medicaid funds going toward abortion procedures or gender transitions. One of the most politically potent issues tucked into the reconciliation bill is the proposed expansion of federal deductions for state and local taxes paid, also known as SALT. The Senate version includes language to extend the current deduction cap, which sits at $10,000 per household. That proposal has already set off a firestorm among blue-state Republicans in the House who have demanded a much higher limit — even going so far as to threaten voting against the full package if a higher deduction is not included. House Republican leaders offered to increase the current deduction cap to $40,000 for individuals who make $500,000 or less a year. The cap would then increase by 1% every year over the next decade and remain permanent after that period. That proposal was met with skepticism in the Senate, prompting many fiscal conservatives to push for a lower number to reduce costs. The $10,000 proposal is meant to be a starting point for negotiations, Senate aides say, but it has already been met with anger from SALT proponents in the House. 'That is the deal, and I will not accept a penny less,' Rep. Mike Lawler, R-N.Y., said of the House-negotiated deal. 'If the Senate reduces the SALT number, I will vote NO, and the bill will fail in the House.' Other New York Republicans called the deal 'insulting,' arguing it is a 'slap in the face' to the blue-state Republicans who handed the GOP a majority in the House. 'If we want to be the big tent party, we need to recognize that we have members representing blue states with high taxes that are subsidizing many red districts across the country with constituents who benefit from refundable tax credits despite paying zero in taxes,' Rep. Nicole Malliotakis, R-N.Y., said in a statement. House Republican leaders have warned for months not to make drastic changes to SALT policy, warning it could be tough to sell anything less than what was already negotiated — especially with only a three-vote margin in the House. 'I'm very concerned about what they might do on the SALT number and any number of other provisions in the bill,' House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., told the Deseret News last week. 'I've been very consistent publicly and privately. They need to hopefully modify it as little as possible, but I also understand that, you know, it's a separate chamber, and they're going to do their thing.' Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
