Former Vice President Mike Pence is offering strong praise for President Donald Trump’s military strikes on Iran—an endorsement that comes despite the long-standing and highly public rift between the two former running mates.
In an interview with Fox News Digital, Pence applauded Trump for what he described as decisive leadership in confronting Iran, while also criticizing a growing isolationist faction within the Republican Party.
“It’s one of the things I give President Trump great credit for,” Pence said this week.
Pence’s comments arrive nearly three weeks into ongoing U.S. military strikes against Iran, part of a broader escalation that has drawn sharp criticism from some populist and anti-war voices aligned with the MAGA and “America First” movements. Those critics argue the operation risks entangling the U.S. in another prolonged conflict overseas.
But Pence, a longtime advocate of a more traditional Republican foreign policy rooted in strong global engagement and deterrence, rejected those concerns. He framed Trump’s actions as a rejection of isolationism within the party.
“Around this administration, and to some extent in this administration, there have been some increasingly loud voices calling for America to pull back from our role as leader of the free world. Isolationist voices have taken hold in some quarters of the Republican Party,” Pence said.
“But fortunately, President Trump turned a deaf ear to those voices last year when he struck Iran, and this year, when he launched Operation Epic Fury,” Pence emphasized. “I think it’s greatly to his credit.”
Pence argued that Trump’s approach aligns with the broader Republican base.
“I think it’s reflective of where the overwhelming majority of Republicans are. Republicans understand that America is the arsenal of democracy, that we’re the leader of the free world, that we have obligations to lead,” he said.
The former vice president also drew on his firsthand experience serving alongside Trump during their time in the White House.
“I’ve told people many times, I’m proud of President Trump for making the decision to launch operation Epic Fury. But I’m not surprised, because the President I served with is no isolationist.”
The praise is notable given the fractured relationship between the two men. Pence and Trump have been estranged since the final days of their administration, particularly following the January 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol. Trump publicly pressured Pence to reject the certification of the 2020 election results—something Pence refused to do, citing constitutional limits. The fallout led to years of mutual criticism, with Pence at times condemning Trump’s actions and Trump frequently targeting Pence in speeches and on social media.
Despite that personal and political break, Pence has occasionally continued to support Trump’s policy decisions—especially on national security—reflecting enduring alignment on certain ideological priorities even as their political alliance has dissolved.
The current conflict underscores those stakes. U.S. and Israeli strikes have reportedly killed Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and severely weakened Iran’s military leadership and infrastructure. In response, Iran has launched retaliatory attacks across the Middle East, targeting Israel and regional neighbors.
The conflict has also had major global economic consequences. Iranian attacks on energy infrastructure and disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz have halted roughly 20% of the world’s oil supply, sending fuel prices sharply higher in the U.S. and worldwide.
Against that backdrop, Pence doubled down on his support for the administration’s aggressive posture.
“I couldn’t be more proud of President Donald Trump for making the decision to send our troops directly against an enemy that has literally claimed thousands of American lives, including nearly 1,000 service members,” he said.
He added that Trump has “unleashed the armed forces of the United States to take the fight directly to the source of global terrorism. And I think at the end of the day, the American people understand that this is a fight that we have to win, and it’s going to be important that we finish the threat that Iran has posed to the American people, to our cherished ally, Israel, to nations across the region and across the West, once and for all.”
Pence concluded by offering advice he would give Trump if asked:
“To finish the threat that the mullahs and Tehran have posed to the people of this country once and for all.”
Fix The NSC: A Warning & Roadmap For Trump’s Second Term
A Call to Action: Reforming the National Security Council
Joshua Steinman, the former senior director for cyber on President Trump’s National Security Council (NSC), has issued a stark warning to the incoming president that demands immediate attention. Steinman, who loyally served from Trump’s first day in office to his last, cautions that mistakes in NSC staffing could spell disaster for the administration’s second term, leading to either ineffectiveness or outright betrayal. His insights form a compelling argument for a complete overhaul of the NSC as the cornerstone of Trump’s efforts to govern effectively.
The NSC, as Steinman explains, is not merely a bureaucratic appendage. It is the quarterback of the White House—the entity tasked with ensuring that the president’s directives are executed seamlessly across the vast machinery of the federal government. “If the president is the owner of the football team, the NSC is the quarterback,” he asserts, underscoring the centrality of this institution in driving the administration’s policy agenda. And yet, Steinman’s concerns suggest that the team surrounding this quarterback may not be up to the task.
Reflecting on Trump’s first term, Steinman identifies a critical error: the decision to retain approximately 50% of the NSC staff from the Obama administration. This hesitation to implement a sweeping purge, according to Steinman, allowed disloyal actors to undermine Trump’s policies. Some of these holdovers allegedly continued to operate under Obama-era guidance until explicitly instructed otherwise. Steinman’s message is clear: “Removing people like this isn’t personal; it’s just prudent.”
The stakes are high. Steinman contrasts Trump’s initial approach with the swift and decisive action taken by President Biden, who executed a comprehensive purge of Trump-aligned NSC staff upon taking office. This move ensured that Biden’s team could implement his agenda without interference from ideological adversaries. Critics labeled Biden’s actions a “purge” and raised concerns about the politicization of traditionally non-partisan roles, but his administration’s determination to align its personnel with its policies proved effective in consolidating its power.
Steinman’s critique does not stop at holdovers. He raises alarms about new hires, questioning their loyalty and expertise. Among those rumored to join Trump’s team is Adam Howard, GOP Staff Director for the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI), who is set to take the critical role of senior director for intelligence programs. Steinman questions whether Howard’s background equips him to confront potential interference from the intelligence community—a task vital to ensuring Trump’s agenda is not derailed.
The urgency of Steinman’s warning lies in the fundamental truth that personnel is policy. For Trump’s administration to succeed, the NSC must be staffed with individuals who are not only loyal to his vision but also possess the subject-matter expertise to navigate the complexities of their roles. Steinman’s concerns about Anne Neuberger, the Biden-appointed NSC cybersecurity director, exemplify this need. Her alignment with policies on artificial intelligence and tech censorship could undermine Trump’s objectives, should she remain in place.
Trump’s response to these challenges is beginning to take shape. Key appointments to his NSC include:
While these appointments reflect a renewed emphasis on loyalty and alignment, Steinman’s cautionary tale lingers. The success of Trump’s second term hinges on avoiding the missteps of the first. The NSC’s ability to serve as an effective quarterback depends entirely on the quality of its staff. As Steinman aptly puts it, “The Intel Senior Director position is one of the most CRITICAL posts in U.S. Government.”
The broader implications of Steinman’s warning extend beyond Trump’s presidency. The debate over Biden’s NSC purge highlighted the tension between ensuring policy alignment and maintaining non-partisan governance. Critics, including the Heritage Foundation, argued that Biden’s actions undermined the apolitical nature of advisory roles, while supporters contended that loyalty is essential for effective governance. Trump’s administration must navigate this delicate balance, prioritizing mission alignment without descending into the partisanship that critics decry.
As Trump prepares to assume office once more, the lessons of his first term and Biden’s purge are clear: the NSC must be reimagined, restructured, and resolutely loyal to the President’s agenda. Failure to act decisively could jeopardize the very goals Trump has championed—from ending unnecessary conflicts to revitalizing the economy. Steinman’s call to action is both a warning and a roadmap: “Fix the NSC, fix the presidency.”
Sponsored by the John Milton Freedom Foundation, a nonprofit dedicated to helping independent journalists overcome formidable challenges in today’s media landscape and bring crucial stories to you.