A seemingly routine interview left viewers scratching their heads when President Trump’s comments appeared to target Vice President JD Vance—though the true meaning behind his words remained unclear.
Many wondered if Trump had inadvertently insulted his own second-in-command.
The confusion arose during a December 2 interview about the 2024 presidential campaign debates. Known for his unfiltered, off-the-cuff style, Trump often directs sharp remarks at political rivals, but this time the lines seemed to blur.
When asked about Minnesota Governor Tim Walz—Kamala Harris’s running mate—and whether he should step down amid a fraud scandal, Trump called Walz “grossly incompetent.” Moments later, he added:
“I was saying, who is more incompetent? That man or my man?”
Because JD Vance was present during the exchange, many listeners interpreted Trump’s phrasing as including his vice president in the criticism. He went on to make similarly ambiguous comments, comparing both candidates’ competence before shifting to remarks about female candidates and Democratic leadership, further confusing the message.
The clip quickly went viral, sparking a wave of online reactions. One viewer wrote, “Why is he cooking JD Vance?” while another quipped, “JD catching strays is wild.”
Fact-checkers later clarified the situation. Snopes reported that the White House confirmed Trump was referring to his debate opponent—former President Joe Biden—when he said “my man.” His subsequent mention of having run “against a man and a woman” aligns with this interpretation, likely alluding either to Harris replacing Biden as the Democratic nominee or to his 2016 race against Hillary Clinton.
As is often the case with Trump, the confusion was less about intent than his signature, meandering delivery, which leaves room for multiple interpretations.
âś… Conclusion
Trump’s off-the-cuff remarks continue to fuel online debate, demonstrating how easily statements can be misread when delivered in his unpredictable style. While JD Vance was never the target, the incident underscores the challenge of parsing the president’s unconventional communication—and the viral power of even minor verbal slips.