Safe, Scripted, and Struggling: Kamala’s Interview Misfire

Kamala Harris’s recently anticipated interview on Fox News, conducted by Bret Baier, was yet another reminder of the precarious position she holds as both Vice President and Democratic presidential nominee. It was an opportunity to project competence, to demonstrate toughness in the face of conservative scrutiny, and, most importantly, to correct the troubling narrative that has persisted since she was handed the nomination and the burdens of the administration like the border crisis by President Biden. And yet the interview was an opportunity squandered.

From the outset, Harris’s strategy appeared clear: be “combative”, show toughness, resilience “girl boss 🙄” and shift the blame for the administration's failures on immigration to her predecessor, Donald Trump, while simultaneously avoiding accountability for any missteps that occurred under Biden. Unfortunately for Kamala, Bret Baier pressed her relentlessly, inquiring specifically about the Biden administration’s reversal of Trump’s executive actions, such as the “Remain in Mexico” and migrant parole policy, which had contributed to a dramatic increase in border crossings. Harris, with a well-rehearsed demeanor, dismissed the question by pointing to a failed border bill and accusing Trump of obstructionism, ignoring that that bill only came into play this year and still leaves 3 years of bungling inaction for the Biden administration.

This is a familiar tactic in the Harris playbook—sidestepping direct responsibility while invoking the specter of Trump at every turn. What should have been a moment of introspection, perhaps an admission that the administration’s border policies have fallen short and what she would improve, devolved into a series of deflections. Baier, keenly aware of this pattern, continued to press her on the subject, asking how many migrants had been released into the U.S. under her watch. Harris, in response, offered vague predictable platitudes, but failed to provide any substantive answer. It was a bad look.

Moreover, the performance was marred by Harris’s delivery. Anyone familiar with political theater could tell her responses were not merely spontaneous defenses of policy but pre-written lines, delivered hastily and often in a stilted manner like a pained high school performance of The Crucible. Frankly, she seemed like she was in a rush. In her attempt to project a “tough exterior,” Harris came off as uncomfortable, rushed, and at times, out of sync with the moment and even the questions posed. To say the performance was staged is to state the obvious, but to say it was staged poorly is to give an accurate assessment of the evening.