By late 2025, it appeared that Republicans would maintain the MAGA coalition largely intact through the upcoming 2028 presidential election. There doesn’t seem to be a successor capable of mimicking Mr. Trump’s unique personality and political approach. Nevertheless, the coalition he built appears to be robust, consisting of working-class voters, an increasing number of Latinos, former Democrats, and disillusioned liberals, such as Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Tulsi Gabbard.
JD Vance also seemed poised to navigate the political landscape smoothly. Marco Rubio stands out as the only contender with substantial national backing. Recently, he mentioned that he would support Vance in 2028 if the vice president decides to run. It seemed more like a plan for succession rather than a competitive nomination.
While many supporters might resonate with Vance’s instincts, the right is hardly of one mind. His win in an open contest isn’t a given.
When I wrote the book, “J.D. Vance and the future of the Republican Party,” which was the first thorough look at Vance’s political beliefs and his role in the post-Trump Republican landscape, the outcome appeared nearly certain. Vance is expected to make an announcement around the 2026 midterm elections, with Rubio likely backing him. A few other candidates might emerge, but none will probably achieve significant traction.
This possibility still exists, but it feels increasingly inevitable.
Two significant issues have altered the dynamics: the right’s divide over U.S.-Israel relations and the ongoing war in Iran.
While the first issue isn’t directly linked to Vance, it has splintered the political landscape he aims to unify. For years, far-right commentators and podcasters have scrutinized Israel and Jewish communities. Then, after a controversial interview of Nick Fuentes by Tucker Carlson thrust the matter into mainstream discourse, discussions about the U.S.-Israel alliance began to swirl, especially following the assassination of Charlie Kirk, a prominent figure in the right’s coalition-building efforts.
This debate didn’t just revolve around U.S. foreign policy. Instead, it seeped into deeper reflections on loyalty among conservatives, increasingly categorizing views on Israel and Jewish Americans as tests of allegiance. The conservative movement, long a mix of various factions—libertarians, social conservatives, anti-communist liberals, and nationalists—has found itself fragmenting more sharply over the past several months.
Vance will need to unite these conflicting groups. Having entered politics through conservative intellectual circles, think tanks, and the media, he boasts friendships across different factions. Yet, balancing these relationships without appearing beholden to them could prove to be one of his greatest challenges.
The Iranian conflict has added layers to this dilemma. Trump’s coalition historically encompassed various stances on foreign policy, from interventionists from the George W. Bush era to those advocating for a more restrained approach and even those favoring isolationism. This coalition has remained intact, provided the administration refrained from engaging in conflicts lacking direct implications for U.S. interests.
However, the situation with Iran has brought these disparities into stark relief. Will Republicans opt to continue military involvement in the Middle East, or will they prioritize reserving forces for more direct threats? Diverging views on this issue have the potential to fragment the party, raising significant challenges for candidates in 2028.
Although Vance doesn’t identify as an isolationist, his tendencies lean toward restraint, and he’s been more vocally critical of U.S. involvement in Israel than many of his Republican peers. This perspective might resonate with certain voters while unsettling pro-Israel conservatives and establishment donors.
Can Vance navigate relationships with controversial figures like Carlson, reassess U.S. engagement in the Middle East, and still keep the Republican coalition intact? The competitive primary in 2028 will likely shed light on these pressing questions. Despite some overlap in beliefs among his base, opinions on the right remain diverse. His victory isn’t guaranteed.
Rubio is still a formidable challenger. Although he has stated that he would not oppose Vance if the vice president enters the race, advocates are actively encouraging the secretary of state as a candidate. Rubio’s connections with establishment Republicans and more interventionist stance on foreign policy will illuminate the fault lines Vance must reconcile.
Potentially, there’s one decisive factor at play: Trump’s endorsement.
After the Iran war, Vance is unlikely to glide through a truly open primary, particularly if Rubio chooses to enter the race. Yet, it’s also possible that the Republicans might not even encounter an open primary. Trump, as the figure who has revitalized the party, seems set on retaining his role as the decisive influencer, likely wanting to select his successor himself.
If Trump were to endorse Vance, it could effectively squash any competition before it begins. While other candidates might still emerge, they would struggle to overshadow both Trump and Vance. If Trump takes Vance under his wing, the latter might ascend to the 2028 nomination as a favored successor rather than through conventional competition.
Trump has voiced his thoughts on the succession battle on multiple occasions. Should he issue a clear endorsement, the real question may no longer hinge on Vance’s chances but rather on whether the party will even entertain a primary.
If nominated by Trump, Vance could very well embody the future of the Republican Party. Ultimately, it’s Trump who will determine if a genuine primary election will occur or if the process will lead to an anointment.
