Usha Vance and child to go on taxpayer funded trip to Greenland

[Anonymous]

If there were any doubt that Usha is complicit in all the damage Trump is trying to inflict worldwide.

No one invited her to Greenland and to take her kid there to parade and grift around as US taxpayers pay millions to fund her flight and secret service agents.

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2025/03/23/us/trump-news#usha-vance-trump-us-greenland

Usha Vance, the second lady, is scheduled to join the White House national security adviser, the energy secretary and other U.S. officials to visit Greenland this week, amid President Trump’s continued push to take over the island, officials said on Sunday.

In a statement, the Trump administration said Ms. Vance will visit Greenland with one of her children on Thursday, to visit historical sites and attend a national dog sled race.

“Ms. Vance and the delegation are excited to witness this monumental race and celebrate Greenlandic culture and unity,” the statement said.

Separately, Michael Waltz, the national security adviser, is expected to tour a U.S. military base, two U.S. officials said. Chris Wright, the energy secretary, is expected to join him, according to another person with knowledge of the visit, as the Trump administration increases its focus on Arctic security and the Western Hemisphere.

[Anonymous]

They will boo her, and I will cheer.

Yes, too many people on the other thread trying to excuse her. Now, out of all the places in the world she can take her kid.

She’s evil. Period. The end.

[Anonymous]

No wasteful spending there.

[Anonymous]

Republicans don’t care about wasting taxpayers monies

[Anonymous]

She is representing the United States at an event. Guessing others (Waltz etc) will be on same plane.

Did you object when Jill went back and forth to Europe to attend Hunter's trial?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:She is representing the United States at an event. Guessing others (Waltz etc) will be on same plane.

Did you object when Jill went back and forth to Europe to attend Hunter's trial?

A takeover event?

[Anonymous]

With only one of her... three kids? As an accessory for mom cred? as a human shield? If it's official gov't business, why is she toting a kid along, and why are we paying for it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:With only one of her... three kids? As an accessory for mom cred? as a human shield? If it's official gov't business, why is she toting a kid along, and why are we paying for it?

.

We paid for the Obama girls and the Biden granddaughters to travel all over the world.

[Anonymous]

From a purely political perspective, I would have advised this very thing to soften the image of this trip. If it's only men, it looks like the beginnings of a take-over. If there's the second lady + kid, there's a veneer of a social, friendly event.

I am not wading into Usha's personal political opinions (she's a friend of friends, and I'm sure has many inner conflicts). But I don't think she had much of a choice there. It was: "Let's have Usha there, with a kid!" and then "Brilliant plan! Usha, you have to do this, it will cut down on accusations of forced conquest".

[Anonymous]

Poor Greenland, as if they don’t have enough problems and now they have to deal with that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:With only one of her... three kids? As an accessory for mom cred? as a human shield? If it's official gov't business, why is she toting a kid along, and why are we paying for it?

.

We paid for the Obama girls and the Biden granddaughters to travel all over the world.

And no point were they claiming for the desperate need to cut expenses and layoff people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:From a purely political perspective, I would have advised this very thing to soften the image of this trip. If it's only men, it looks like the beginnings of a take-over. If there's the second lady + kid, there's a veneer of a social, friendly event.

I am not wading into Usha's personal political opinions (she's a friend of friends, and I'm sure has many inner conflicts). But I don't think she had much of a choice there. It was: "Let's have Usha there, with a kid!" and then "Brilliant plan! Usha, you have to do this, it will cut down on accusations of forced conquest".

She is not conflicted. She is part of the Tiger Mom cult of personal advancement.

I will say, I would not be jealous of someone in Greenland in April. It’s spring in DC, it’s polar vortex there.

[Anonymous]

I'm surprised Usha Vance is including a child in this sh@tshow. For some reason, I thought she would be more protective of her children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From a purely political perspective, I would have advised this very thing to soften the image of this trip. If it's only men, it looks like the beginnings of a take-over. If there's the second lady + kid, there's a veneer of a social, friendly event.

I am not wading into Usha's personal political opinions (she's a friend of friends, and I'm sure has many inner conflicts). But I don't think she had much of a choice there. It was: "Let's have Usha there, with a kid!" and then "Brilliant plan! Usha, you have to do this, it will cut down on accusations of forced conquest".

She is not conflicted. She is part of the Tiger Mom cult of personal advancement.

I will say, I would not be jealous of someone in Greenland in April. It’s spring in DC, it’s polar vortex there.

Gee. I guess she should have waited til summer to see a dogsled race.

[Anonymous]

Honestly, I don’t have a problem with this. I actually think it’s a good thing for Presidents and Vice Presidents to do a few warmer fuzzier events involving their family members — as long as those family members are ok with it. The plane was going there anyway, so I’m fine with her and their kid taking seats. I’m saying that in general though, with no idea if this particular trip stands out with red flags in ways that other trips might not.

FWIW, she’s not someone that I have any positive feelings for, but as the VP spouse I think she should be treated like any of the others. It’s an associate that comes with perks.