Vance says he considers himself an Epstein-related “conspiracy theorist” after New York Times report

Vice President JD Vance said Tuesday that he considers himself a “conspiracy theorist” in connection with remarks about deceased sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, after a New York Times report described closed-door administration meetings about how to handle and respond to Epstein-related claims.

Vance made the comment during an appearance on ABC’s “The View,” where he was asked about the New York Times report published last week and about how he has discussed the Epstein matter publicly, according to The Hill. The report described internal discussions involving people inside the Trump administration, setting up the question Vance faced on the show.

The Hill reported that Vance defended his approach to the topic during the interview and characterized himself as someone who thinks about the Epstein issue in a way that he described as conspiracy-oriented. The exchange was framed around what the New York Times described as closed-door meetings and what the outlet said those meetings were focused on.

The “The View” interview also came as Vance promoted a new book, The Hill reported, and the question about Epstein was raised during that promotional appearance. Vance’s answer, as described by The Hill, leaned on his personal view of what he said he believes is at stake in the Epstein-related narrative.

The New York Times report, as characterized by The Hill, asserted that the administration discussed the spread of Epstein-related claims behind closed doors. Vance’s response on “The View,” reported by The Hill, was aimed at addressing the criticism that his comments and public framing of the Epstein issue reflect unverified or conspiratorial thinking.

There was no indication in The Hill’s account of any new official action by the administration or any court proceeding tied directly to Vance’s comments. The practical consequence described in the report centered on the administration’s public messaging response to the controversy, rather than on a specific policy or legal step.

The matter now depends on how additional reporting and any official statements may address what the administration’s internal discussions were about, and whether Vance’s remarks are taken up further by oversight, journalists, or legal and ethical review processes. The Hill’s account did not cite a primary administrative record or transcript of the internal meetings it referenced.