Why I Believe JD Vance Should Become the 48th President of the United States—Immediately
I. The Babysitter Analogy: How We Judge Moral Risk
Imagine this scenario.
If three out of every four people you know—your relatives, your neighbors, your coworkers, your friends—told you they believed that a male babysitter you employed knew who had raped dozens of underage teenage girls and failed to report those crimes to the authorities, would you continue to trust that babysitter with your own underage daughter?
Most people would answer no, without hesitation. Not because the babysitter had been convicted of a crime, but because the moral risk would be intolerable. Because when children are involved, inaction itself becomes disqualifying.
That moral intuition is not radical. It is foundational. And it applies with even greater force to the President of the United States.
According to a Reuters–Ipsos poll, approximately 75% of Americans now believe that President Donald Trump knew at least “something” about Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual abuse of underage girls. That belief—right or wrong—now defines the public’s assessment of Trump’s moral judgment.
What matters just as much is what is not in evidence.
There is no public record, and no claim by President Trump himself, that he ever reported Jeffrey Epstein to law enforcement for the sexual abuse of minors. No statement. No sworn testimony. No contemporaneous account. No documented warning to authorities.
That absence is the heart of the problem.
________________________________________
II. Moral Responsibility Is Not Optional—Especially at the Top
In most U.S. states, teachers, doctors, social workers, and caregivers are mandatory reporters of suspected child abuse. Society imposes that duty because we recognize a hard truth: children cannot protect themselves, and silence enables predators.
A president is not exempt from moral law simply because he is powerful. If anything, the obligation runs in the opposite direction. Greater power creates greater responsibility, not less.
If a private citizen has a moral duty to report suspected child abuse, then a billionaire businessman—one with access to law enforcement, prosecutors, political leaders, and the media—has an extraordinary duty to act. And a president, entrusted with enforcing the laws of the United States, bears that duty at the highest possible level.
This is not about hindsight. It is not about legal technicalities. It is about a basic question of character:
What does a person do when he believes—or even suspects—that children are being raped?
The morally acceptable answers are limited. Silence is not one of them.
________________________________________
III. What the Lack of Reporting Signals
To be clear: there is no public evidence that Donald Trump committed sexual crimes with Jeffrey Epstein. That is not the claim being made here.
The issue is something both simpler but still damning.
If President Trump knew something—as 75% of Americans now believe—and failed to report it, then that failure itself reflects a catastrophic lapse in moral judgment.
It suggests one of three possibilities:
1. He did not care enough to act.
2. He prioritized social, financial, or reputational interests over children’s safety.
3. He believed silence was safer than accountability.
None of these possibilities is compatible with the ethical standards required of a president.
And the damage is not abstract. Every year of silence means more victims. Every failure to alert authorities extends a predator’s reach. In crimes against children, delay is harm.
________________________________________
IV. Public Evidence That Sharpens the Moral Question
The moral stakes outlined above are not theoretical. They are sharpened by publicly reported facts, sworn statements, and Trump’s own evolving explanations regarding his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein.
A. Long, Well-Documented Social Relationship
Multiple outlets have documented a 15-year social relationship between Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein, including frequent appearances together at parties, social events, and gatherings involving young women. This relationship included Epstein’s presence at Mar-a-Lago and Trump’s acknowledged familiarity with Epstein’s lifestyle.
Trump himself once remarked publicly that Epstein liked women “on the younger side.” While Trump has since minimized or denied the significance of that remark, its existence underscores that Epstein’s behavior was not invisible to those around him.
B. Trump’s Claimed Break With Epstein—and the Unanswered Question
President Trump has repeatedly stated that he barred Epstein from Mar-a-Lago, with the White House later saying this was done “for being a creep.” Trump has also said that he broke off relations after learning Epstein was taking women from the club.
But this explanation raises a profound and unavoidable question:
Why was Epstein considered a “creep”?
Trump has never explained what he knew, what he suspected, or what specific behavior triggered the ban. When asked directly why a convicted sex offender was taking women from his club, Trump said he did not know why—but also said he “didn’t like it” and “threw him out.”
That response is morally insufficient.
If a club owner learns that a member is recruiting or taking young women from the premises under suspicious circumstances, the responsible response is not merely expulsion—it is notification of authorities.
Throwing someone out protects the brand. Reporting them protects children.
C. Claims by Victims’ Families and Newly Released Evidence
The family of Virginia Giuffre—one of Epstein’s most prominent accusers—has publicly stated their belief that Donald Trump knew about Epstein’s conduct. While belief is not proof, such statements from victims’ families carry moral weight and reinforce public concern.
More recently, House Democrats released an email reported by The Washington Post that claimed Trump spent hours with an Epstein victim. Trump has denied wrongdoing, and he has not been accused of criminal conduct in connection with Epstein. That distinction matters—and should be respected.
But denial of wrongdoing is not the same as evidence of responsible action.
D. The Birthday Note Controversy—and What It Reveals
The Wall Street Journal reported that Trump gave Epstein a birthday note in 2003 that included a sketch of a naked woman and a cryptic reference to a “secret” the two men shared. Trump has denied writing the note and has filed a libel lawsuit challenging the report. The New York Times has not independently verified the story.
That dispute should be resolved by evidence and courts.
But even setting it aside entirely, it does not answer the central question of this essay:
At any point, did Donald Trump report suspected child sexual abuse to authorities?
There is still no evidence that he did.
As Republican Senator Howard Baker asked during the Watergate hearings, "What did the president know and when did he know it?"
________________________________________
V. The Core Question That Will Not Go Away
Trump has never been charged of wrongdoing in the Epstein case. He has said he had “no idea” Epstein was abusing young women. He has said he threw Epstein out of his club. He has said Epstein was a “creep.”
Yet he has never explained:
• What he believed Epstein was doing
• When he suspected it
• Why suspicion did not trigger a report to law enforcement
And until that gap is filled, the moral judgment remains unavoidable.
If you know—or suspect—that children are being abused, you do not just walk away.
You report it.
That is the standard we demand of teachers, parents, and ordinary citizens.
It is the bare minimum we should demand of a president.
________________________________________
VI. Fitness for Office Is About Trust, Not Just Legality
Presidents are not only legal actors; they are moral stewards. The Constitution does not require criminal conviction to remove a president from office. It requires judgment—by Congress—about whether the president can still be trusted with power.
A president who plausibly failed to report the serial sexual abuse of minors cannot credibly claim the moral authority to:
• Enforce laws protecting children
• Appoint judges to interpret those laws
• Command federal law enforcement
• Represent the nation’s values to the world
This is why impeachment exists. Not to punish crimes alone, but to protect the public from unfitness.
________________________________________
VII. Why This Leads—Reluctantly—to JD Vance
Let me be absolutely clear:
The thought of JD Vance as President of the United States absolutely disgusts me.
I disagree with him profoundly on policy, values, and worldview. I do not want him to shape the country’s future. I would oppose his agenda at nearly every turn.
But there is no reason to believe that JD Vance—whatever his flaws—would knowingly fail to report someone he suspected of sexually abusing a child.
That distinction matters.
This is not about ideology. It is about a minimal moral threshold. The presidency cannot be held by someone under a cloud of credible public belief that he knew about mass child abuse and chose silence.
If that standard collapses, then nothing remains.
________________________________________
VIII. Conclusion: Silence About Child Abuse Is Disqualifying
This argument does not require certainty. It requires judgment.
When three-quarters of the country believes the president knew something about the sexual abuse of children—and when there is no evidence he ever acted to stop it—the burden shifts. The presidency demands not just innocence, but affirmative moral clarity.
Children do not get second chances. Victims do not get their time back. And a nation cannot afford a leader whose silence speaks louder than his denials.
For that reason alone—however repellent the alternative may be—I believe Congress should act, remove Donald Trump from office, and allow the Vice President to assume the duties of president through January 20, 2029, subject to the will of the voters thereafter.
Because when it comes to protecting children, doing nothing is doing something—and it is unforgivable.
(c) 2025. Becky Romero.
The author grants permission for her op-ed to be republished (only in full) in print or on the internet, with attribution and a link to BeckyRomero.com
Imagine this scenario.
If three out of every four people you know—your relatives, your neighbors, your coworkers, your friends—told you they believed that a male babysitter you employed knew who had raped dozens of underage teenage girls and failed to report those crimes to the authorities, would you continue to trust that babysitter with your own underage daughter?
Most people would answer no, without hesitation. Not because the babysitter had been convicted of a crime, but because the moral risk would be intolerable. Because when children are involved, inaction itself becomes disqualifying.
That moral intuition is not radical. It is foundational. And it applies with even greater force to the President of the United States.
According to a Reuters–Ipsos poll, approximately 75% of Americans now believe that President Donald Trump knew at least “something” about Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual abuse of underage girls. That belief—right or wrong—now defines the public’s assessment of Trump’s moral judgment.
What matters just as much is what is not in evidence.
There is no public record, and no claim by President Trump himself, that he ever reported Jeffrey Epstein to law enforcement for the sexual abuse of minors. No statement. No sworn testimony. No contemporaneous account. No documented warning to authorities.
That absence is the heart of the problem.
________________________________________
II. Moral Responsibility Is Not Optional—Especially at the Top
In most U.S. states, teachers, doctors, social workers, and caregivers are mandatory reporters of suspected child abuse. Society imposes that duty because we recognize a hard truth: children cannot protect themselves, and silence enables predators.
A president is not exempt from moral law simply because he is powerful. If anything, the obligation runs in the opposite direction. Greater power creates greater responsibility, not less.
If a private citizen has a moral duty to report suspected child abuse, then a billionaire businessman—one with access to law enforcement, prosecutors, political leaders, and the media—has an extraordinary duty to act. And a president, entrusted with enforcing the laws of the United States, bears that duty at the highest possible level.
This is not about hindsight. It is not about legal technicalities. It is about a basic question of character:
What does a person do when he believes—or even suspects—that children are being raped?
The morally acceptable answers are limited. Silence is not one of them.
________________________________________
III. What the Lack of Reporting Signals
To be clear: there is no public evidence that Donald Trump committed sexual crimes with Jeffrey Epstein. That is not the claim being made here.
The issue is something both simpler but still damning.
If President Trump knew something—as 75% of Americans now believe—and failed to report it, then that failure itself reflects a catastrophic lapse in moral judgment.
It suggests one of three possibilities:
1. He did not care enough to act.
2. He prioritized social, financial, or reputational interests over children’s safety.
3. He believed silence was safer than accountability.
None of these possibilities is compatible with the ethical standards required of a president.
And the damage is not abstract. Every year of silence means more victims. Every failure to alert authorities extends a predator’s reach. In crimes against children, delay is harm.
________________________________________
IV. Public Evidence That Sharpens the Moral Question
The moral stakes outlined above are not theoretical. They are sharpened by publicly reported facts, sworn statements, and Trump’s own evolving explanations regarding his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein.
A. Long, Well-Documented Social Relationship
Multiple outlets have documented a 15-year social relationship between Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein, including frequent appearances together at parties, social events, and gatherings involving young women. This relationship included Epstein’s presence at Mar-a-Lago and Trump’s acknowledged familiarity with Epstein’s lifestyle.
Trump himself once remarked publicly that Epstein liked women “on the younger side.” While Trump has since minimized or denied the significance of that remark, its existence underscores that Epstein’s behavior was not invisible to those around him.
B. Trump’s Claimed Break With Epstein—and the Unanswered Question
President Trump has repeatedly stated that he barred Epstein from Mar-a-Lago, with the White House later saying this was done “for being a creep.” Trump has also said that he broke off relations after learning Epstein was taking women from the club.
But this explanation raises a profound and unavoidable question:
Why was Epstein considered a “creep”?
Trump has never explained what he knew, what he suspected, or what specific behavior triggered the ban. When asked directly why a convicted sex offender was taking women from his club, Trump said he did not know why—but also said he “didn’t like it” and “threw him out.”
That response is morally insufficient.
If a club owner learns that a member is recruiting or taking young women from the premises under suspicious circumstances, the responsible response is not merely expulsion—it is notification of authorities.
Throwing someone out protects the brand. Reporting them protects children.
C. Claims by Victims’ Families and Newly Released Evidence
The family of Virginia Giuffre—one of Epstein’s most prominent accusers—has publicly stated their belief that Donald Trump knew about Epstein’s conduct. While belief is not proof, such statements from victims’ families carry moral weight and reinforce public concern.
More recently, House Democrats released an email reported by The Washington Post that claimed Trump spent hours with an Epstein victim. Trump has denied wrongdoing, and he has not been accused of criminal conduct in connection with Epstein. That distinction matters—and should be respected.
But denial of wrongdoing is not the same as evidence of responsible action.
D. The Birthday Note Controversy—and What It Reveals
The Wall Street Journal reported that Trump gave Epstein a birthday note in 2003 that included a sketch of a naked woman and a cryptic reference to a “secret” the two men shared. Trump has denied writing the note and has filed a libel lawsuit challenging the report. The New York Times has not independently verified the story.
That dispute should be resolved by evidence and courts.
But even setting it aside entirely, it does not answer the central question of this essay:
At any point, did Donald Trump report suspected child sexual abuse to authorities?
There is still no evidence that he did.
As Republican Senator Howard Baker asked during the Watergate hearings, "What did the president know and when did he know it?"
________________________________________
V. The Core Question That Will Not Go Away
Trump has never been charged of wrongdoing in the Epstein case. He has said he had “no idea” Epstein was abusing young women. He has said he threw Epstein out of his club. He has said Epstein was a “creep.”
Yet he has never explained:
• What he believed Epstein was doing
• When he suspected it
• Why suspicion did not trigger a report to law enforcement
And until that gap is filled, the moral judgment remains unavoidable.
If you know—or suspect—that children are being abused, you do not just walk away.
You report it.
That is the standard we demand of teachers, parents, and ordinary citizens.
It is the bare minimum we should demand of a president.
________________________________________
VI. Fitness for Office Is About Trust, Not Just Legality
Presidents are not only legal actors; they are moral stewards. The Constitution does not require criminal conviction to remove a president from office. It requires judgment—by Congress—about whether the president can still be trusted with power.
A president who plausibly failed to report the serial sexual abuse of minors cannot credibly claim the moral authority to:
• Enforce laws protecting children
• Appoint judges to interpret those laws
• Command federal law enforcement
• Represent the nation’s values to the world
This is why impeachment exists. Not to punish crimes alone, but to protect the public from unfitness.
________________________________________
VII. Why This Leads—Reluctantly—to JD Vance
Let me be absolutely clear:
The thought of JD Vance as President of the United States absolutely disgusts me.
I disagree with him profoundly on policy, values, and worldview. I do not want him to shape the country’s future. I would oppose his agenda at nearly every turn.
But there is no reason to believe that JD Vance—whatever his flaws—would knowingly fail to report someone he suspected of sexually abusing a child.
That distinction matters.
This is not about ideology. It is about a minimal moral threshold. The presidency cannot be held by someone under a cloud of credible public belief that he knew about mass child abuse and chose silence.
If that standard collapses, then nothing remains.
________________________________________
VIII. Conclusion: Silence About Child Abuse Is Disqualifying
This argument does not require certainty. It requires judgment.
When three-quarters of the country believes the president knew something about the sexual abuse of children—and when there is no evidence he ever acted to stop it—the burden shifts. The presidency demands not just innocence, but affirmative moral clarity.
Children do not get second chances. Victims do not get their time back. And a nation cannot afford a leader whose silence speaks louder than his denials.
For that reason alone—however repellent the alternative may be—I believe Congress should act, remove Donald Trump from office, and allow the Vice President to assume the duties of president through January 20, 2029, subject to the will of the voters thereafter.
Because when it comes to protecting children, doing nothing is doing something—and it is unforgivable.
(c) 2025. Becky Romero.
The author grants permission for her op-ed to be republished (only in full) in print or on the internet, with attribution and a link to BeckyRomero.com
36-40, F
