Slate Magazine has ignited a firestorm with a recent opinion piece questioning the motives behind Vice President JD Vance and second lady Usha Vance’s announcement of their fourth child.
Slate writer Heather Schwedel published the piece on Friday, suggesting that the Vances, who announced this month they are expecting a baby in July via a post on X, might be using the pregnancy for political appeal to their base.
The article also noted a so-called “mini-baby boom” at the White House, with press secretary Karoline Leavitt and Katie Miller, wife of deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller, also expecting. Neither the White House, the Vances, nor Schwedel responded to requests for comment from Fox News Digital.
The controversy has sparked sharp criticism from various quarters, with many slamming the piece as inappropriate and unfair. Critics argue that Schwedel’s framing of the pregnancy as a calculated move undermines personal choice and family values.
Schwedel’s piece speculated that Usha Vance, as an Indian-American and highly educated woman, somehow clashes with JD Vance’s political image, hinting at contradictions in their public persona, Fox News noted. She even suggested that if Vance couldn’t have a different spouse for the upcoming 2028 presidential election cycle, a pregnant one was the next best option for optics.
Quoting Schwedel directly, she wrote, "Instead of trading in his wife for a paler model, Vance has found another way to prove himself a good shepherd of the MAGA faithful." This kind of rhetoric, implying a pregnancy is a mere political tool, has been met with disgust by many who see it as a cheap shot at a personal milestone.
Rachel Bovard, VP of Programs at the Conservative Partnership Institute, didn’t hold back, calling the article “misogynist trash.” Her pointed critique reflects a broader sentiment that such commentary crosses a line into personal vilification rather than policy debate.
Journalist Cathy Young, despite her own disagreements with JD Vance, questioned the ethics of Schwedel’s framing. She argued that assuming a pregnancy is a planned strategy is distasteful and speculative at best.
Other voices echoed this defense of the Vances’ personal decisions. One observer noted that the pregnancy could simply reflect optimism and love, not a calculated agenda. Why must every family choice be dragged into the political mud?
Amy Curtis, writing for Townhall, labeled Schwedel’s piece the “nastiest attack” on Usha Vance, arguing it reveals a deeper disdain for women who prioritize family over career. This perspective resonates with those frustrated by narratives that seem to punish traditional choices.
Schwedel tied the Vances’ announcement to broader themes of pronatalism, citing Vance’s past statements on the importance of larger families. She suggested their decision to have four children in 2026 stands out in an era of declining birth rates, almost as if it’s a deliberate message.
Her piece also referenced a Vanity Fair description of the Vances as “pronatalism’s poster couple,” noting their announcement on X, a platform she claims often leans toward conservative messaging. This attempt to connect personal choices to political ideology feels like a stretch to many.
Historical context adds another layer—Usha Vance will be the first second lady to give birth since Ellen Colfax in 1870 during Ulysses S. Grant’s administration. This rare milestone deserves celebration, not cynical dissection.
The uproar over Slate’s article taps into a larger frustration with media narratives that seem to mock family values or personal autonomy. When did announcing a child become fair game for political sniping? It’s a question worth asking.
Ultimately, the Vances’ joy in expecting their fourth child should stand apart from the noise of partisan analysis. Schwedel’s suggestion, as one account put it, seems to begrudge Usha Vance’s happiness and choices simply because they don’t fit a progressive mold. That’s not commentary—it’s bitterness.
This episode serves as a reminder of how quickly personal lives get weaponized in today’s discourse. While debate over policy is fair, dragging a pregnancy into the arena of political strategy feels like a low blow. Let’s hope future coverage sticks to substance over speculation.
