Last night, Vice President Harris entered Fox News's lion’s den to interview with Bret Baier, the network’s chief political anchor. The interview was contentious and entertaining, almost certainly offering partisans on both sides ammunition for their preconceived views on the Vice President. Nevertheless, Harris accomplished what she needed to do, demonstrating that she could handle herself under hostile questioning.

The Harris campaign has been unusually reticent about making its candidate available for major media interviews, although this has begun to change over the past couple of weeks. On Sunday October 14, CBS 60 Minutes aired an interview with Harris (Trump pointedly declined to be interviewed by the same organization), and rumors are swirling that Harris will sit down with podcaster Joe Rogan in the few days remaining before the election. 

This relative reticence has led to criticism on the Right that Harris isn’t up to the challenge of a major media interview environment. Given that Harris has served as a prominent elected official in California and at the federal level and that she ran a major party political campaign during the 2020 cycle, this line of critique has always been puzzling; why set expectations for Harris low when she’s quite likely to perform adequately before even a hostile interview? Nevertheless, former President Trump has amplified this criticism by claiming that Harris is mentally deficient and incapable of giving a professional-level political interview.

This left Harris in a situation where she could refute the central line of GOP attack simply by showing up and demonstrating basic competence. Harris did this, and more.  She demonstrated a command of the policy issues and an ability to push back against hostile questioning. She challenged Baier on Trump, growing especially animated when making a point about Trump’s demonization of elements of the American electorate and challenging Baier’s mischaracterization of Trump’s remarks.

Baier focused hard on the question of immigration, opening with a question about the border and pressing Harris hard on her past political statements and on Biden administration policy.  Harris pushed back ably on this line of questioning but it undoubtedly remains a weakness for the slice of the electorate that Fox caters to. Baier also linked Harris with the Biden administration, a maneuver that Harris responded to as well as possible under the circumstances. Harris landed some blows on Fox’s own coverage of the election, pointing out that the network has resisted showing Trump’s most divisive rhetorical moments and that it has yet to fully grapple with how hostile the cabinet officials from Trump’s first term have grown towards the former President.  

Unfortunately, questions about foreign and economic policy took a backseat to the discussions of immigration and of the phenomenon of Donald Trump. Harris gave competent answers to brief questions in both areas although Baier evidently felt compelled to make a prosecutor’s case on former President Trump’s behalf. The question on Iran was especially frustrating, as Harris had little opportunity to say anything relevant before Baier attempted to cut her off and repeat Trump campaign talking points. 

The Bottomline 

Kamala Harris did more than she needed to during this interview. She performed well to a skeptical and sometimes hostile interviewer. It is unlikely that she will convince many Fox News viewers to support her campaign, but demonstrating the hollowness and inaccuracy of Trump’s rhetoric regarding her cognitive abilities has value in and of itself. It is less a question of “the interview convinced me to support Harris,” and more of “the interview convinced me that Trump isn’t telling the truth about Harris.” 

The latter may not move a huge number of votes but it could matter on the margin, and every indication suggests that the election will be decided on the margins.  

About the Author: Dr. Robert Farley

Dr. Robert Farley has taught security and diplomacy courses at the Patterson School since 2005. He received his BS from the University of Oregon in 1997, and his Ph. D. from the University of Washington in 2004. Dr. Farley is the author of Grounded: The Case for Abolishing the United States Air Force (University Press of Kentucky, 2014), the Battleship Book (Wildside, 2016), Patents for Power: Intellectual Property Law and the Diffusion of Military Technology (University of Chicago, 2020), and most recently Waging War with Gold: National Security and the Finance Domain Across the Ages (Lynne Rienner, 2023). He has contributed extensively to a number of journals and magazines, including the National Interest, the Diplomat: APAC, World Politics Review, National Security Journal, and the American Prospect. Dr. Farley is also a founder and senior editor of Lawyers, Guns, and Money.

Image Credit: Shutterstock.