On November 25, 2025, JD Vance — currently Vice President of the United States — publicly criticized a feature by The New York Times (NYT), calling its coverage “shameful.” The controversy centers on a NYT story titled “Two Men. One Identity. They Both Paid the Price.” The piece profiled two men — one an undocumented migrant accused of identity theft, and the other an American whose identity he allegedly stole. Vance argues the newspaper’s framing wrongly casts the two as morally equivalent.

In this investigative‑style article, we examine what the NYT published, why Vance and others are condemning it, and what broader tensions it reveals about media framing, immigration, and public trust.

What the NYT Article Says — And Why It Matters

The NYT’s story explored the case of Dan Kluver, a Minnesota man who discovered that for over a decade, a Guatemalan migrant, Romeo Perez‑Bravo, had been using his name and Social Security number to obtain employment across multiple states.

The article delved into how Kluver’s life was upended: taxes, credit history, legal records — all thrown into chaos as he attempted to disentangle years of fraudulent employment and legal filings.

Simultaneously, the story laid out Perez‑Bravo’s trajectory: repeated deportations, arrests for DUIs, and links to a fatal accident — a criminal record that conservatives highlighted as severe.

The NYT headline “They Both Paid the Price” and the article’s tone drew significant attention because it appeared to frame both men as victims of the same process, rather than distinguishing perpetrator and victim. Critics argued the piece blurred moral lines between a crime victim and a criminal.

The article matters because identity theft — particularly by undocumented migrants — intersects with broader debates over immigration, law enforcement, and media responsibility. How such stories are framed can influence public opinion on these sensitive issues.

Why JD Vance (and Others) Are Outraged

JD Vance took to social media (X) to condemn the article’s “framing,” tweeting simply:

What shameful framing from the NYT.”

His criticism — echoed by other conservative voices — focuses on a few core arguments:

Moral equivalence: Vance and others argue that by portraying both men as victims (“two men… one identity”), the NYT effectively treats a law‑abiding U.S. citizen and a criminal immigrant as morally equivalent. This, they contend, diminishes the harm done to Kluver.

Minimizing criminality: The depiction softens or obscures the serious criminal history of the migrant — including multiple DUIs, prior deportations, and alleged involvement in a fatal accident. Critics view the article as sympathizing with a dangerous perpetrator rather than centering justice for the victim.

Narrative bias: Conservative commentators say the piece reflects a broader tendency in some media to downplay or neutralize crimes committed by undocumented immigrants, under the guise of “empathetic journalism.” Vance and allies warn this style of reporting undermines accountability.

Senator Mike Lee (R–UT), who also criticized the story, stated that “in no way are these moral equivalents.” He urged that the NYT “should be ashamed of this story.”

Broader Reactions — Media, Public, and Partisan Divide

The backlash isn’t limited to Vance and Lee. Conservative media — including hosts on major cable news — have also weighed in, describing the article as “shameful” and a case of misleading or irresponsible journalism.

Supporters of the NYT, however, may argue that the story aimed to highlight the broader human cost of identity theft: how one person’s criminal actions can wreak havoc on an innocent stranger’s life for years. By focusing on bureaucratic and systemic failures — in credit, tax, and employment systems — the article attempts to show the real consequences for the victim.

Still, the framing of “both men as victims” struck many as deeply problematic. For critics, it read less like journalistic empathy — and more like moral relativism.

What This Debate Reveals About Journalism & Immigration Narratives

The controversy around this NYT article and Vance’s response highlights deeper tensions in contemporary media and politics:

Framing matters — The way stories are packaged (headlines, tone, emphasis) can shape public perception, sometimes more than the underlying facts. Labeling two very different people under a single “victim” umbrella has powerful rhetorical consequences.

Identity and morality — In polarizing debates like immigration, framing can blur or sharpen distinctions between “victim,” “perpetrator,” and “system.” Media that opts for nuanced or balanced narratives risk being accused of bias or moral ambivalence.

Media trust and polarization — The uproar reflects growing distrust in media institutions among political factions. When media outlets are perceived as defending one side, reactions can be swift and fierce.

Pressure on reporters — Journalists covering identity theft or immigration face a difficult balancing act — wanting to explore systemic issues, while also doing justice to victims and not normalizing crime. The Vance‑NYT clash underscores how fraught that balance has become.

What We Still Don’t Know — The Nuances Behind the Story

While the criticism is broad and loud, some questions remain open:

Did the NYT consciously choose to soften the migrant’s criminal record to fit a broader narrative — or was the framing more a matter of structural storytelling choices under tight editorial constraints?

How much of the public backlash is genuinely about fairness and victims’ rights — and how much is amplified because of broader political polarization around immigration?

Will this episode influence how newspapers cover similar cases in the future — tenser headlines, clearer moral distinctions, or more explicit victim‑centered framing?

Understanding those nuances requires deeper insight into newsroom decision-making, editorial guidelines, and the pressures modern media faces in covering controversial subjects.

Conclusion — Why This Matters Beyond One Article

The clash between JD Vance and The New York Times is much more than a spat — it’s a microcosm of contemporary tensions in media, identity, crime, and immigration.

When a high‑profile figure like Vance publicly condemns a major newspaper for its framing, it raises serious questions about media responsibility, narrative power, and public trust.

For readers — and for journalists — the lesson is clear: how we tell stories matters. Headlines are not innocent. Tone is not neutral. And in a divided media landscape, every choice carries moral weight.