The Taliban has accused Pakistan of carrying out attacks on the Afghan capital Kabul
Pakistan and Afghanistan's Taliban government have agreed to an "immediate ceasefire" after more than a week of deadly fighting.
The foreign ministry of Qatar, which mediated talks alongside Turkey, said both sides had agreed to establish "mechanisms to consolidate lasting peace and stability".
Zabihullah Mujahid, a spokesman for the Taliban, said ending "hostile actions" was "important", while Pakistan's foreign minister called the agreement the "first step in the right direction".
Both sides claim to have inflicted heavy casualties during the clashes, the worst fighting since the Taliban returned to power in 2021.
Islamabad has long accused the Taliban of harbouring armed groups which carry out attacks in Pakistan, which it denies.
Clashes intensified along the 1,600-mile mountainous border the two countries share after the Taliban accused Pakistan of carrying out attacks on the Afghan capital Kabul.
Rumours had circulated the blasts in Kabul were a targeted attack on Noor Wali Mehsud, the leader of Pakistan Taliban. In response, the group released an unverified voice note from Mehsud saying he was still alive.
In the days that followed, Afghan troops fired on Pakistani border posts, prompting Pakistan to respond with mortar fire and drone strikes.
At least three dozen Afghan civilians have been killed and hundreds more wounded, the UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan said on Thursday.
A temporary truce was declared on Wednesday night as delegations met in Doha, but cross-border strikes continued.
Under the new agreement, the Taliban said it would not "support groups carrying out attacks against the Government of Pakistan", while both sides agreed to refrain from targeting each other's security forces, civilians or critical infrastructure.
Pakistan's Defense Minister Khawaja Asif said the latest ceasefire meant "terrorism from Afghanistan on Pakistan's soil will be stopped immediately", with the two sides set to meet in Istanbul for further talks next week.
Pakistan was a major backer of the Taliban after its ouster in 2001 following a US-led invasion.
But relations deteriorated after Islamabad accused the group of providing a safe haven to the Pakistan Taliban, which has launched an armed insurgence against government forces.
The Metropolitan Police said it is "actively" looking into media reports that Prince Andrew tried to obtain personal information about his accuser Virginia Giuffre through his police protection.
"We are aware of media reporting and are actively looking into the claims made," the force said on Sunday.
It comes after Ms Giuffre's brother called on King Charles III to strip Andrew of his "prince" title, following the announcement he would stop using his other titles.
Prince Andrew has not commented on the reports, but consistently denies all allegations against him. Buckingham Palace has been contacted for comment.
Ms Giuffre, who took her own life earlier this year, said she was among the girls and young women sexually exploited by convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and his wealthy circle.
She also claimed that she was forced to have sex with Andrew on three occasions, including when she was 17.
According to the Mail on Sunday, Andrew asked his police protection officer to investigate her just before the newspaper published a photo of Ms Giuffre's first meeting with the prince in February 2011.
The paper alleged that he gave the officer her date of birth and confidential social security number.
On Friday, Andrew announced that he was voluntarily handing back his titles and giving up membership of the Order of the Garter - the oldest and most senior order of chivalry in Britain.
He will also cease to be the Duke of York, a title received from his mother, the late Queen Elizabeth II.
Former national security adviser John Bolton arrives at court on Friday.
President Donald Trump has made no secret of his desire to see his critics investigated, pressuring the Justice Department to prosecute former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James.
"We can't delay any longer, it's killing our reputation and credibility," the president wrote last month in a Truth Social post.
"They impeached me twice, and indicted me (5 times!)" he said, referencing the four criminal cases he faced after leaving the White House in 2021 and James's civil case.
Both have since been charged, in cases that many experts have said appear to be politically motivated and difficult to win in court.
But the latest charges against a Trump critic, former national security adviser John Bolton, stand apart, legal specialists and former prosecutors say.
"I would say, comparing Bolton's charges to Comey's and James' is like comparing apples to oranges," said Mark Lesko, a former acting US attorney for the Eastern District of New York.
Bolton has been criminally indicted on federal charges pertaining to the alleged mishandling of classified information. Since leaving the White House in 2019, he has become a vocal Trump critic, going so far as to call him "stunningly uninformed" and unfit for office in his memoir.
Experts say that while there may be political reasons to go after Bolton, the procedures used to secure an indictment and the evidence compiled against him indicate a potentially stronger case than the Justice Department brought against Comey or James.
"This misconduct that's being alleged is both more serious and appears to have occurred over a significant period of time," said Carissa Byrne Hessick, a professor at the University of North Carolina School of Law.
During his time as Trump's national security adviser, and after his 2019 White House departure, prosecutors alleged that Bolton put the country at risk by improperly retaining and transmitting classified information to family members using insecure means, including AOL. Some of the documents were labeled top secret.
The indictment alleges that at one point a hacker gained access to Bolton's account where documents were stored and sent an apparent threat to cause "the biggest scandal since Hillary [Clinton]'s emails were leaked".
Bolton pleaded not guilty during a court appearance on Friday to 18 separate charges of mishandling classified information.
Retribution or a strong case?
The timing of his indictment - coming on the tails of charges against Comey and James - has renewed questions about political pressure on the justice system.
Trump once suggested Bolton belonged in jail, and called him a "sleazebag". Bolton, for his part, wrote a book about his time in the Trump administration that was highly critical of the president.
"There's no question that the timing of this indictment, when combined with others, has raised questions about the strength of these charges, and why these charges are being brought now," said Jamil Jaffer, founder and executive director of the National Security Institute at the George Mason University Antonin Scalia Law School.
However, he added, "if the Justice Department is able to prove the facts alleged and demonstrate the information is properly classified, his conduct may very well have violated the law".
Charging such a high-ranking official for mishandling classified documents is "rare" but not unprecedented, said Carrie Cordero, a senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security.
"Cases that involve classified information present challenges to prosecute, but they can and are brought against both low-level and high-level officials, from time to time," she said.
Similarities to investigations into Trump and Biden
Trump similarly faced charges of improperly storing classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida and obstructing their return, but that case was ultimately dismissed by a federal judge and negated by his re-election as president.
A special counsel also found that former President Joe Biden improperly stored classified documents from his time as vice president, but did not criminally charge him.
Bolton's case bears similarities to Trump's and Biden's classified documents issues, said Mr Lesko, who also held a top national security role at the Justice Department.
Strict procedures govern the handling of classified documents. To win a conviction, the government must prove that Bolton knew the information he was transmitting was classified, and he had to knowingly transfer it to someone not entitled to receive it.
"Because of the classified nature of the material at issue in this case, we don't have a lot of details about why the government believes things like the diary entries and the other information he communicated by email, and why there were classified," said Mr Jaffer.
A more traditional prosecution
The process by which the Justice Department brought this case will be under scrutiny, after Trump publicly posted his desire to see his political opponents prosecuted and some of those indictments came to fruition.
But Mr Lesko said in Bolton's case, prosecutors seem to have followed protocol.
"The Bolton prosecution and ultimately the indictment seemed to have followed the regular process including the rules and norms within the Department of Justice," he said.
Unlike Comey's brief, two-page indictment, Bolton's was a more "traditional" document that "clearly sets forth the details involving the facts and circumstances here," Mr Lesko said.
"It seems fairly consistent with a long line of cases... where government officials mishandled and transmitted classified material."
A trove of bigoted messages between members of the Young Republicans is deepening a sharp rift among state groups across the country, further fracturing an organization that has been beset with internal discord and infighting for years.
Young Republicans chapters across the country were divided on how to respond to the texts — with some groups staying silent and others immediately denouncing the Telegram group chat revealed by POLITICO that contained racist, homophobic and antisemitic epithets.
Much of the conflict on how to respond to the texts stems from an August election over who would lead the Young Republican National Federation, the umbrella group for all the state chapters known commonly as Young Republicans.
The election essentially split Young Republicans into two groups: On one side was Hayden Padgett, a Texas Republican and current chair of the Young Republican National Federation who was running for reelection. On the other side was Peter Giunta, who led an insurgent group within the Young Republicans and who previously clashed with Padgett, in part because he challenged Padgett to be chair of the national federation in the August election. Giunta ultimately lost the election.
Giunta, however, was one of the members on the leaked text chain and had posted offensive messages, including “I love Hitler” and “If your pilot is a she and she looks ten shades darker than someone from Sicily, just end it there. Scream the no no word.” Giunta and other members of the group chat also repeatedly used homophobic slurs to refer to Padgett, with Arizona Young Republicans Chair Luke Mosiman at one point writing “RAPE HAYDEN.”
Giunta, who apologized for the texts, did not respond to a request for comment, and Mosiman declined to comment.
After POLITICO revealed the chats, Young Republican leaders in 23 state groups who supported Padget’s reelection bid quickly released statements condemning the leaked text messages. Several used the statements as an opportunity to demonstrate their loyalty to Padgett: Leaders in Missouri, Alaska and Wisconsin, for example, noted in their statements that they opposed Giunta’s attempt to unseat Padgett in August.
By contrast, many of the state groups that previously supported Giunta were silent in the aftermath of the leak, with the exception of a handful of states including Illinois and Georgia that denounced the texts. Several also appeared to have deleted social media posts expressing support for Giunta’s campaign.
One group that endorsed Giunta and his platform over the summer, the Arizona Young Republican Federation, lambasted what it called “mob-style condemnation driven by political opportunism or personal agendas.”
“While certain voices within our movement have been quick to condemn, many of these same individuals have overlooked or ignored deeply concerning rhetoric and actions on the political left–including public celebrations of the tragic death of Charlie Kirk and Jay Jones, calling for the death of family,” the group said in a statement.
The Arizona group, led by Mosiman, also condemned the rhetoric from the Telegram chat but raised concerns about their “authenticity and context.”
The group also used the controversy as an opportunity to take a swipe at Padgett and YRNF leadership, calling out “a troubling disregard for unity and due process” from national leaders who they said failed to communicate with state leaders before releasing its statement.
When asked about criticism against his leadership, Padgett told POLITICO that any claims of division within the organization are “baseless” while calling on Democrats to condemn violent rhetoric from members of their party.
“The YRNF unequivocally condemned the leaked messages in the Politico article—full stop,” he said. “Outside of those in the sticks, every state and local Young Republican chapter stands united.”
The fight over how to respond to the text scandal ultimately exposes the deep fissures within the Young Republican National Federation, which has around 14,000 members who have historically helped the Republican Party run its ground game during elections. Past chairs include longtime Trump ally Roger Stone as well as members of Congress.
One state chair, who was granted anonymity to speak candidly about internal dynamics, said they were surprised some YRNF leaders were “not as strong in condemning the remarks” but hoped the organization could move forward as a united group.
California Young Republicans Chair Ariana Assenmacher, who was Giunta’s running mate in the August election, said in an interview she was surprised by the rhetoric used in the messages and had no knowledge of nor involvement in the group chat.
“I think it’s a very isolated event, and it’s frustrating to see something that is a very small chat being pushed as representation for Young Republicans across the country, which is obviously not the case,” Assenmacher said.
Young Republicans leaders from more than three dozen states did not respond to POLITICO’s requests for comment or declined to comment.
YRNF has seen bitter clashes between warring factions since Padgett was elected in 2023, when the opposing slate garnered less than one-fifth of the vote. But Giunta’s campaign this year picked up significant traction among state leaders disillusioned with the incumbent leadership, winning 47 percent of the vote in August’s national leadership election.
Another state chair, who was granted anonymity due to fears of retribution, said they were not surprised by the maliciousness of the messages but added that they had “never heard anything like that from the people I am friends with.”
“I don’t like attacking our own,” they said. “We spend a lot of time fighting amongst ourselves. The August election was extremely controversial, and there were personal attacks from both sides, very very unkind stuff.”
The state chair added that YRNF has been plagued by division in recent years and that they were “absolutely sure there’s extremely unkind things” in the messages of Giunta’s opponents.
Valerie McDonnell, the youngest state legislator in New Hampshire who stepped down as a Young Republican national committeewoman in August, said she was appalled by the “repeated terrible language about other members.”
“It wasn't just a one-off comment. It was, I believe, over a span of six months, just repeated terrible language about other members,” she said. “This just was beyond belief to see the extent of this.”
Still, the second state chair worried that ongoing divisions in the organization following the August leadership election could hamper the organization’s value to the GOP in the 2026 midterm elections.
“These are the meanest people I have ever met in my life,” the person said of their Young Republicans colleagues. “I love this organization so much, and it meant so much to me in my early- and mid-20s, and it is just different. These kids are not the same. I think they’ve grown up in politics only seeing how Trump treats people and they think that’s how you treat people.”
Samuel Benson, Faith Wardwell and Jason Beeferman contributed to this report.
The Metropolitan Police said it is "actively" looking into media reports that Prince Andrew tried to obtain personal information about his accuser Virginia Giuffre through his police protection.
"We are aware of media reporting and are actively looking into the claims made," the force said on Sunday.
It comes after Ms Giuffre's brother called on King Charles III to strip Andrew of his "prince" title, following the announcement he would stop using his other titles.
Prince Andrew has not commented on the reports, but consistently denies all allegations against him. Buckingham Palace has been contacted for comment.
Ms Giuffre, who took her own life earlier this year, said she was among the girls and young women sexually exploited by convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and his wealthy circle.
She also claimed that she was forced to have sex with Andrew on three occasions, including when she was 17.
According to the Mail on Sunday, Andrew asked his police protection officer to investigate her just before the newspaper published a photo of Ms Giuffre's first meeting with the prince in February 2011.
The paper alleged that he gave the officer her date of birth and confidential social security number.
On Friday, Andrew announced that he was voluntarily handing back his titles and giving up membership of the Order of the Garter - the oldest and most senior order of chivalry in Britain.
He will also cease to be the Duke of York, a title received from his mother, the late Queen Elizabeth II.
The government is looking at the possibility of cutting the rate of VAT on energy bills, Ed Miliband has suggested.
The energy secretary said he would not speculate ahead of the chancellor's Budget in November.
But asked if the government would consider scrapping the 5% rate, he told the BBC the country was facing a "cost-of-living crisis that we need to address as a government" and "we're looking at all of these issues".
The government is under pressure to reduce household energy costs and before the election Labour pledged to lower average bills by £300 a year by 2030.
Miliband told the BBC's Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg programme he stood by that promise but the reason bills were so high was "because of our dependence on fossil fuels".
He added: "There is only one route to get bills down, which is to go for clean power, home-grown, clean energy, that we control, so we're not at the behest of the petrol states and the dictators."
Pressed over whether the government was considering scrapping the 5% VAT rate on energy bills in November's Budget, Miliband said: "The whole of the government, including the chancellor, understand that we face an affordability crisis in this country.
"We face a cost-of-living crisis, a longstanding cost-of-living crisis, that we need to address as a government. We also face difficult fiscal circumstances... so obviously we're looking at all of these issues."
Scrapping VAT on domestic energy bills would save the average household £86 per year and cost an estimated £2.5bn per year to implement, according to the charity Nesta.
There was a rapid spike in energy prices in 2021, following Russia's invasion of Ukraine, and although costs have gone down, they have remained high by historical standards.
It means a household using a typical amount of energy will pay £1,755 a year, up £35 a year on the previous cap.
Earlier this week Chancellor Rachel Reeves told the BBC she was planning "targeted action to deal with cost-of-living challenges" in her Budget next month.
The BBC understands this could also include reducing some of the regulatory levies currently added to energy bills.
Levies known as "policy costs" - which are used to fund environmental and social schemes such as subsidies for renewables - made up around 16% of the average electricity bill and 6% of the average gas bill last year.
Some energy bosses have argued green levies are partly to blame for rising bills and the government's independent adviser, the Climate Change Committee, has long recommended removing policy costs from electricity bills to help people feel the benefits of net-zero transition.
Asked whether these could be funded through taxes rather than coming off energy bills, Miliband said: "That's always a judgement for the chancellor, but let's be honest we know we've got really difficult fiscal circumstances that we inherited... but absolutely we look at those things."
He argued the government had to invest in "aging electricity infrastructure" but there needed to be a "balance between public expenditure and levies".
The cost of household energy bills has become a major political battleground, with the Conservatives and Reform UK blaming net-zero policies for higher prices.
The Conservatives have said they would scrap the Climate Change Act, which legally requires the UK government to reduce emissions to net zero by 2050, as well as ditch carbon taxes on electricity generation and cut a funding scheme for renewables.
Shadow energy secretary Claire Coutinho said her party's plans would cut electricity bills for everyone by 20%.
"[The public] care about climate change but what I don't think they are signing up for is much higher bills and jobs being lost to countries abroad," she told the BBC.
In an interview with the same programme, Green Party leader Zack Polanski argued nationalising energy companies would help cut costs for customers.
His party has also proposed a new tax on carbon emissions to drive fossil fuels out of the economy and raise money to invest in the green transition.
Challenged over whether businesses would simply pass on these costs to customers, Polanski rejected this and said the tax would be "vital for tackling the climate crisis".
"What we need to be doing is finding other ways to support particularly small and local businesses... We know the big corporations are destroying our environment, our democracy and our communities," he said.
"They can make a profit, sure, but this isn't about squeezing out every single profit they can make."
Former national security adviser John Bolton arrives at court on Friday.
President Donald Trump has made no secret of his desire to see his critics investigated, pressuring the Justice Department to prosecute former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James.
"We can't delay any longer, it's killing our reputation and credibility," the president wrote last month in a Truth Social post.
"They impeached me twice, and indicted me (5 times!)" he said, referencing the four criminal cases he faced after leaving the White House in 2021 and James's civil case.
Both have since been charged, in cases that many experts have said appear to be politically motivated and difficult to win in court.
But the latest charges against a Trump critic, former national security adviser John Bolton, stand apart, legal specialists and former prosecutors say.
"I would say, comparing Bolton's charges to Comey's and James' is like comparing apples to oranges," said Mark Lesko, a former acting US attorney for the Eastern District of New York.
Bolton has been criminally indicted on federal charges pertaining to the alleged mishandling of classified information. Since leaving the White House in 2019, he has become a vocal Trump critic, going so far as to call him "stunningly uninformed" and unfit for office in his memoir.
Experts say that while there may be political reasons to go after Bolton, the procedures used to secure an indictment and the evidence compiled against him indicate a potentially stronger case than the Justice Department brought against Comey or James.
"This misconduct that's being alleged is both more serious and appears to have occurred over a significant period of time," said Carissa Byrne Hessick, a professor at the University of North Carolina School of Law.
During his time as Trump's national security adviser, and after his 2019 White House departure, prosecutors alleged that Bolton put the country at risk by improperly retaining and transmitting classified information to family members using insecure means, including AOL. Some of the documents were labeled top secret.
The indictment alleges that at one point a hacker gained access to Bolton's account where documents were stored and sent an apparent threat to cause "the biggest scandal since Hillary [Clinton]'s emails were leaked".
Bolton pleaded not guilty during a court appearance on Friday to 18 separate charges of mishandling classified information.
Retribution or a strong case?
The timing of his indictment - coming on the tails of charges against Comey and James - has renewed questions about political pressure on the justice system.
Trump once suggested Bolton belonged in jail, and called him a "sleazebag". Bolton, for his part, wrote a book about his time in the Trump administration that was highly critical of the president.
"There's no question that the timing of this indictment, when combined with others, has raised questions about the strength of these charges, and why these charges are being brought now," said Jamil Jaffer, founder and executive director of the National Security Institute at the George Mason University Antonin Scalia Law School.
However, he added, "if the Justice Department is able to prove the facts alleged and demonstrate the information is properly classified, his conduct may very well have violated the law".
Charging such a high-ranking official for mishandling classified documents is "rare" but not unprecedented, said Carrie Cordero, a senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security.
"Cases that involve classified information present challenges to prosecute, but they can and are brought against both low-level and high-level officials, from time to time," she said.
Similarities to investigations into Trump and Biden
Trump similarly faced charges of improperly storing classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida and obstructing their return, but that case was ultimately dismissed by a federal judge and negated by his re-election as president.
A special counsel also found that former President Joe Biden improperly stored classified documents from his time as vice president, but did not criminally charge him.
Bolton's case bears similarities to Trump's and Biden's classified documents issues, said Mr Lesko, who also held a top national security role at the Justice Department.
Strict procedures govern the handling of classified documents. To win a conviction, the government must prove that Bolton knew the information he was transmitting was classified, and he had to knowingly transfer it to someone not entitled to receive it.
"Because of the classified nature of the material at issue in this case, we don't have a lot of details about why the government believes things like the diary entries and the other information he communicated by email, and why there were classified," said Mr Jaffer.
A more traditional prosecution
The process by which the Justice Department brought this case will be under scrutiny, after Trump publicly posted his desire to see his political opponents prosecuted and some of those indictments came to fruition.
But Mr Lesko said in Bolton's case, prosecutors seem to have followed protocol.
"The Bolton prosecution and ultimately the indictment seemed to have followed the regular process including the rules and norms within the Department of Justice," he said.
Unlike Comey's brief, two-page indictment, Bolton's was a more "traditional" document that "clearly sets forth the details involving the facts and circumstances here," Mr Lesko said.
"It seems fairly consistent with a long line of cases... where government officials mishandled and transmitted classified material."
The Taliban has accused Pakistan of carrying out attacks on the Afghan capital Kabul
Pakistan and Afghanistan's Taliban government have agreed to an "immediate ceasefire" after more than a week of deadly fighting.
The foreign ministry of Qatar, which mediated talks alongside Turkey, said both sides had agreed to establish "mechanisms to consolidate lasting peace and stability".
Zabihullah Mujahid, a spokesman for the Taliban, said ending "hostile actions" was "important", while Pakistan's foreign minister called the agreement the "first step in the right direction".
Both sides claim to have inflicted heavy casualties during the clashes, the worst fighting since the Taliban returned to power in 2021.
Islamabad has long accused the Taliban of harbouring armed groups which carry out attacks in Pakistan, which it denies.
Clashes intensified along the 1,600-mile mountainous border the two countries share after the Taliban accused Pakistan of carrying out attacks on the Afghan capital Kabul.
Rumours had circulated the blasts in Kabul were a targeted attack on Noor Wali Mehsud, the leader of Pakistan Taliban. In response, the group released an unverified voice note from Mehsud saying he was still alive.
In the days that followed, Afghan troops fired on Pakistani border posts, prompting Pakistan to respond with mortar fire and drone strikes.
At least three dozen Afghan civilians have been killed and hundreds more wounded, the UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan said on Thursday.
A temporary truce was declared on Wednesday night as delegations met in Doha, but cross-border strikes continued.
Under the new agreement, the Taliban said it would not "support groups carrying out attacks against the Government of Pakistan", while both sides agreed to refrain from targeting each other's security forces, civilians or critical infrastructure.
Pakistan's Defense Minister Khawaja Asif said the latest ceasefire meant "terrorism from Afghanistan on Pakistan's soil will be stopped immediately", with the two sides set to meet in Istanbul for further talks next week.
Pakistan was a major backer of the Taliban after its ouster in 2001 following a US-led invasion.
But relations deteriorated after Islamabad accused the group of providing a safe haven to the Pakistan Taliban, which has launched an armed insurgence against government forces.
Vice President JD Vance celebrated the 250th anniversary of the US Marine Corps at an event that included a live artillery demonstration.
That demonstration - which took place at Camp Pendleton in Southern California - drew the ire of the state's governor Gavin Newsom, in part because the exercise closed a section of a popular interstate.
"Firing live rounds over a busy highway isn't just wrong — it's dangerous," Newsom, a Democrat who has often disagreed with the Trump administration, said in a statement.
During his remarks, Vance recalled his time in the Marines, railed against what he called a Democrat-caused government shutdown and critiqued previous military diversity initiatives.
Getty Images
The Marines fired live artillery as part of a demonstration commemorating their 250th anniversary
The demonstration was the largest in a decade in the continental US, the Marines said, and involved fighter jets, Navy vessels, helicopters and live fire from a towed howitzer.
In response to the exercise, Newsom said he closed a section of Interstate 5 in Southern California "due to extreme life safety risk and distraction to drivers, including sudden unexpected and loud explosions".
But officials in the vice-president's office disputed Newsom's remarks that the demonstration was dangerous and accused the California governor of trying to stoke fears.
Getty Images
"If Gavin Newsom wants to oppose the training exercises that ensure our Armed Forces are the deadliest and most lethal fighting force in the world, then he can go right ahead," William Martin, Vance's communications director, told CNN. "It would come as no surprise that he would stoop so low considering his pathetic track record of failure as governor."
Vance, who spoke in front of hundreds of marines, praised his time in the military.
"I would not be here today, I would not be the vice president of the United States, I would not be the man I am today were it not for those four years that I served in the Marine Corps," he said.
Vance spent four years in the Marines and served a tour in Iraq in 2005.
But his remarks largely focused on politics, and in part he attacked "woke" aspects of the military.
"It is our common purpose, it is our common mission and it is the fact that every single person here bleeds Marine Corps green," the vice president said.
Getty Images
One of the Trump administration's focuses has been eliminating diversity initiatives, particularly within the Pentagon.
Vance also used the stage time to rail against the nearly three-week long government shutdown and put blame on Democrats, particularly Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer.
"I bring greetings today from our commander in chief, Donald J Trump, and he wanted me to tell each and every single one of you that he's proud of you, that he loves you and that despite the Schumer shutdown, he is going to do everything he can to make sure you get paid exactly as you deserve," he said.
While thousands of federal workers are working without pay, the Defence Department is paying troops.
Ben Hatcher was pulled on to the stage by Katy Perry during her show in Sheffield
A Katy Perry superfan got to live his out his Teenage Dream after the singer invited him on stage and serenaded him with a song about his village in Derbyshire.
Ben Hatcher, 20, from Monyash near Bakewell, was pulled out of the crowd by the star during her sell-out show at the Sheffield Utilita Arena on Friday.
The student, who danced with the megastar in front of more than 10,000 screaming fans, said the experience was "crazy".
He told the BBC: "I don't want to say I deserve it, but I am the biggest Katy Perry fan - it was like a full circle moment."
The superfan said the experience was an "all time high"
Mr Hatcher said he had been a fan of the popstar since he was six, and recalls "begging" his mum to play her CDs in the car.
He attended the concert in Sheffield with his friend Mia Lloyd and his mother Sharon, as well as two of her friends.
After being invited on to the stage, Mr Hatcher danced with the Roar and Firework star before Perry sang an off-the-cuff song about Monyash, Bakewell and Derbyshire.
"I'm sure she had no idea where it was but it was crazy that she namedropped the places," he said.
Ben Hatcher
Mr Hatcher went to the concert with his mother Sharon and his friend Mia Lloyd
On the experience itself, Mr Hatcher said: "I think I foreshadowed it, me and my friend were screaming the entire time and she did look over a few times.
"We were just vibing and when she was choosing people to come onto the stage we were screaming and our seats were really good, we were directly in her eye sight.
"I was pointing at myself and I couldn't believe it when she picked me, it was so surreal."
Making most of the opportunity, he managed to get a selfie with Perry as a memento.
Supplied
Mr Hatcher posed for a selfie with the pop star on stage
Mr Hatcher, a student of Chinese and economics at SOAS University of London, said he was recognised by other fans after his appearance on stage.
"There was this one nine-year-old girl in the car who rolled down the window after the show and screamed 'Ben you legend'," he added.
"This has been an all time high and my small claim to fame. People will get tired of hearing it but I won't get bored of talking about it."
Login
