Randy Fine

During the interview, Vance said “certain elements” within the Israeli government had mounted “a discreet, extremely well-funded campaign” against him as he pursued negotiations with Iran. He argued that while foreign governments routinely try to influence U.S. policy, the problem arises when American leaders allow that influence to shape their judgment.

The remarks drew criticism from Fine, who has emerged as one of Vance’s most outspoken Republican critics on Israel. On June 19, Fine posted “ABJD2028,” shorthand for “Anyone But JD Vance” as the GOP’s 2028 presidential nominee.

Fine argued Vance’s position does not reflect where Republicans broadly stand on Israel, pointing to Wednesday’s House vote rejecting Rep. Thomas Massie’s (R-KY) amendment to eliminate U.S. aid to Israel.

“I think it shows that JD Vance isn’t in line with where Republicans are on the issue,” Fine said. “Not a single Republican supported it. We can’t get unanimity for anything, but on this issue, unanimous. So where the Republican Party is on the relationship with Israel is very, very clear.”

Every House Republican voted against Massie’s amendment, while Democrats split nearly evenly on the measure, underscoring the widening partisan divide over Israel.

Fine said he did not oppose Trump’s Iran memorandum of understanding itself, arguing the proposal was worth attempting.

“I wasn’t one of the people who criticized the MOU,” he said. “If they’ll keep the Strait of Hormuz open, letting them sell their oil on the world market is actually good for everybody.”

Instead, Fine said his disagreement centered on Vance’s characterization of the Time article.

The dispute also comes as Fine is embroiled in a separate feud with longtime Trump adviser Alex Bruesewitz, who shared clips of Vance’s Rogan interview on social media. According to NOTUS, Fine has told White House officials he plans to vote against every Republican House rule until Bruesewitz is removed from Trump’s inner circle. Asked about that report, Fine declined to directly confirm it.

“Sometimes families have disputes,” he said. “I’d like to keep that inside the family, and I’m hopeful that ultimately we’ll sort things out.”

Despite his criticism of Vance, Fine repeatedly praised Trump, saying the president had consistently handled Israel policy correctly.

“I judge the president by his results,” Fine said. “Donald Trump has done things that objectively no one believed were possible, and for the rest of my life, I will be grateful that he got every living hostage out of Gaza.”

Fine also rejected the notion that Vance’s comments reflected a broader Republican shift away from Israel.

“If there was a divide, we wouldn’t have had unanimity yesterday,” he said. “You’ve got these sort of loser podcaster world people who live online. … That’s a fringe.”

Massie, meanwhile, defended Vance’s criticism, telling reporters that Israel funds online influence campaigns targeting lawmakers who oppose its policies and suggesting the vice president was now experiencing similar attacks.

“I think JD Vance might be getting a taste of what I got, which is millions of dollars in an online influence campaign, and he’s complaining about it. The difference is, I’m genuinely opposed to funding the genocide, and he’s just trying to put some daylight between himself and the bad policy of this administration so that he’ll be viable in 2028,” Massie told the Washington Examiner.

Vance is taking heat for his comments on both sides of the aisle. On Thursday, Fetterman called Vance’s comments a “betrayal” in an interview with the Washington Examiner.

OVER 100 HOUSE DEMOCRATS BUCK JEFFRIES AND VOTE TO CUT ALL AID TO ISRAEL

Asked Thursday whether Trump agreed with Vance’s assertion that Israeli officials were attempting to shape American public opinion, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said the president believes “foreign countries certainly do try to persuade American public opinion” and called it “a basic fact.”

Fine maintained that the controversy was less about foreign influence than Vance’s interpretation of the evidence, arguing that the Time report “certainly doesn’t support the claims that he made.”