JD Vance, Usha Vance, and Negotiating Faith in an Interfaith Marriage
Image courtesy: Patheos
Editor’s note: This paper was presented at the Southeast Conference of the Association for Asian Studies (SEC/AAS) on January 24, 2026.
On October 29, 2025, at the University of Mississippi, in Oxford, MS, Vice President Vance addressed a Turning Point USA gathering of approximately 3,000 students. One student, a Hindu woman from Nepal, asked him three questions, including one about his Christian faith, his wife’s Hindu faith, and how they planned to raise their children in an interfaith household. The Vice President had a great opportunity to help his audience understand his Hindu wife’s religious faith. In his response, he could have balanced the role of husband with his role as the Vice President of the United States, and as a conservative politician who has been anointed as successor to President Donald Trump, and as the flag-bearer of the MAGA movement. He was addressing a gathering filled with young white men and women in a southern university, and he did not miss the opportunity to cater to that audience. Therefore, instead of spending a moment discussing his respect for and wonder about his wife’s faith, he said that his wife was not very religious, that the two older children (aged 8 and 5) had already been baptized, and that he hoped his wife would join him in his Christian faith, a comment that quickly ignited a storm of reactions across social media and political circles.
“Do I hope eventually she is moved by the same thing I was moved by? Yes. I believe in the Christian gospel, and I hope eventually my wife comes to see it the same way,” the vice president said. “If she doesn’t, then God says everybody has free will, so that doesn’t cause a problem for me.” As an American, a Christian, a husband, a father, a man, and as the Vice President of the United States Vance presented himself not just as a Christian, but as a proselytizer, renewing the problematic and disputed claim that the United States is a Christian nation, and that therefore part of the American agenda is not only to support democracy and the rule of law around the world, but to spread Christianity within and outside the country. For Hindus, this would indicate that the world would continue to be split among violent, monopolist, and supremacist faiths, the so-called “religions of the book”.
In what circles did the Vice President’s remarks go viral? Where were they met with silence or disregard? Who was dismayed, and who was satisfied with his speech? What was the range of responses from the Indian/Hindu communities in the US, in India, and around the world? (See, Tsui & Rehbein, 2025; Thind, 2025; Quill, 2025.) In this paper, we will not focus on these responses but will instead probe how American men and women negotiate faith in their relationships and marriages. We will also examine how faith is negotiated “publicly” in an interfaith marriage.
Root, in a study in 2001, claimed that the US was in the midst of a “quiet revolution” through interfaith marriages. But she was already late by at least two to three decades because anyone who was a graduate student in a big university in the US would have known that intercultural dating among international students, between themselves and with US students, was on the rise. Root’s findings were interesting, however. According to her, women, except for Black women, intermarry more than men, and also that older rather than younger people tend to intermarry. She also found that the later generation of immigrants intermarried more than the earlier ones.
According to the Pew Research Center, 74 percent of American adults are in intra-religious marriages, and 26 percent are in interfaith marriages. Interestingly, this research focuses almost exclusively on marriages between and among Christians, Muslims, and Jews, ignoring Americans of other faiths, indicating that the lens Americans use to view others is mostly an Abrahamic one.
A few more findings about interfaith marriages can help us delve into the opportunity that the vice president lost in publicly negotiating faith in a high-profile, high-power, highly influential interfaith marriage.
It is both a stereotype and a cliché that Asian American women are in more interfaith marriages, equalling or bettering the number of white women in interfaith marriages. Latina women and Native American women also marry across faith in larger numbers, but not so Black women. It is posited that Black women marry less across faith traditions because of strong religious and racial homogamy preference, cultural mistrust and racism, societal and family pressures, desired for shared values and support, and marriage market dynamics (Passel, Wang, & Taylor, 2010). Root, in 2001, had observed that “intermarriage has ripple effects that touch many people’s lives. It is a symbolic vehicle through which we can talk about race and gender and reexamine our ideas about race” (p. 13).
Martin and Nakayama, in a textbook on intercultural communication (2007), note that “although intermarriage will not solve all intercultural problems, the increasing numbers of multicultural people will have a positive impact” (p. 385-386). They point out, however, that intercultural marriage “poses consistent challenges” (p. 387), and that couples can/do adopt four styles in dealing with these problems relating to in-laws, finance, children, eating, drinking, and food habits, and attitudes regarding time, religion, ethnocentrism, etc.
The four styles are submission, compromise, obliteration, and consensus. They noted that submission is most common in interfaith marriages, with one partner submitting to the culture of the other partner; the compromise style, needing each partner to give up some of their culture-bound habits and beliefs came next; obliteration, where each partner sought to erase their individual cultural habits, was an interesting approach to compromise; and consensus, based on agreement and negotiation, the most equitable, demanded that partners exhibit some flexibility and open the space necessary to negotiate. Given the demands and strictures of “monopolistic and supremacist” faiths, how much space is available for negotiation in interfaith marriages? Also, given the present political context, where the two main options offered are right-wing fundamentalism/ultra-nationalism or left-wing socialism, how much negotiating space is available to a man who is anointed as the successor to President Trump? He has to walk a fine line between his “Heritage American” extremist and Groyper nativist supporters, and modern fellow- travelers who believe in the free market and global accommodation and commerce – whose America is not just populated by Whites, Blacks, and Latinos (and the forgotten, ignored, barely visible Native Americans) but people from around the world, following the beat of different religious drummers and different Gods.
Dr. Dilip Amin, who, after observing interfaith marriages and relationships in his own family, set up a non-profit forum called “Interfaith Marriage with Equality” (InterfaithShaadi.org) in 2009 (Rao, 2017). Karmarkar (2024) quotes Amin: “If you want to marry interfaith, and you are very clear about each other’s fundamental understanding of religion, then the rest is beautiful. You go to their religious rituals, you perform our rituals …There is more to love.”
The “inherent pluralism” of Hinduism, Karmarkar quotes Amin saying, allows for any path to the same God, whether through church, mosque, or synagogue. Marrying a Hindu does not require the partner to convert to Hinduism, as Hinduism is a non-proselytizing religion.
- A study by Interfaith Shaadi revealed that 38% of American Hindus marry someone from outside Dharmic/Indic religions (Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism), which means that these 38 percent of Hindus marry either a Christian, Muslim, or a Jew.
- The Hindu University of America noted that around a quarter or more of both Hindus and Catholics in the U.S. marry outside their faith.
Over the years, the Interfaith Shaadi forum has gained in popularity and offered information and stories about people’s successes, challenges, and failures in interfaith relationships. Dr Amin argues that without equality – in faith, practices, beliefs, and attitudes – the road to love and happiness, long-term, will be fraught with danger. He says that his goal is to promote religious pluralism and tolerance, but he acknowledges that it is difficult when it comes to supremacist claims by Muslims, and to an extent, Christians, and that conflict appears very quickly in a relationship, a few months before marriage, or tragically, a few days after the birth of a child. These conflicts usually revolve around the choice of marriage rituals, who will conduct the marriage ceremonies, whether they must change their religious faith, their name, as well as what food shall be cooked at home, what festivals will be celebrated, and so on.
Dr. Amin advises couples that they better discuss these matters early in their relationship than later, “for later may be too late, and the relational dynamics too complicated and fraught”. He also notes that young people are usually more tolerant and accommodating of their partner’s differences in the beginning, but they begin to change their minds and become more adamant due to pressure from parents, families, and religious institutions.
Usha Vance is a Hindu woman, as talented and smart, and equally qualified as her white, Christian husband. One can wager that she will make her marriage work despite her husband’s political inclinations and demands of the job. But for her husband to claim that she is not much of a Hindu practitioner harks back to the case of a Hindu American man who was sued by his Jewish American ex-wife (IndiaFacts, 2025). The man lost in a domestic disputes court but challenged and won in a superior court. This Hindu American man was declared to be in bad faith and penalized by a family court judge in New Jersey, simply for defending his right to raise his children Hindu. He appealed, and with the help of the Hindu American Foundation, he won. While it’s not uncommon for judges to make mistakes, the family court judge’s decision was a clear-cut case of anti-Hindu bias.
The Hindu American husband had 50/50 custody of his young children with his ex-wife. It was clear from the emails they had exchanged that they had decided to raise the children in both faiths, including the children having both Hindu and Jewish names. After their separation, they had gone their separate ways on religious upbringing, with the Hindu American raising the children Hindu on his time and the Jewish American raising them Jewish on her time. The trouble started when the woman decided to schedule additional Jewish schooling for the children, over two hours weekly, on the Hindu American’s time. The husband resisted. Unable to agree, they went to court.
The husband explained to the court how there was a timing conflict with his main Hindu activity with the children (a daily meditation practice). He also argued that his Hindu activity wasn’t being supported by his ex-wife during her time with the children, so why should he be forced to give up his time with the children for her religious activity?
The man was respectful of his ex-wife’s faith, courteous towards her, and accepting of his children’s Jewish heritage. He offered alternatives that would enable his ex-wife to conduct additional Jewish schooling on her time. He explained his religious activities thoroughly. Nothing he presented was found to be untrue.
By contrast, the ex-wife (a journalist for The New York Times, who has written numerous articles on relationships and children, and has represented The New York Times publicly) did the following:
- She claimed the parties had agreed to raise their children Jewish. When the Hindu American presented an old email in which his wife had written to him that they “had always agreed” he could raise the children Hindu, as well, she reversed course.
- While she was trying to make the case that the children were fully Jewish, she went so far as to write that the Hindu American educating his children in Hinduism was “offensive.”
- She questioned her ex-husband’s faith, saying that he did not practice “a moment of Hinduism,” even though he practiced meditation (a Hindu origin practice) every day, twice a day. She insulted him in other ways throughout her papers.
- She presented as evidence a text message from her ex-husband, which she had cropped to convey her desired meaning, when the full text showed the exact opposite (which the Hindu American demonstrated by presenting the full text in court).
- She tried to intimidate her ex-husband from going to court, threatening to take away custody of their children from him unless he agreed to her scheduling demands.
Instead of finding the wife in bad faith, the judge decided the Hindu American was in bad faith. Moreover, the judge rewarded the wife by ordering the Hindu American to pay her counsel fees. However, the appellate court overturned the family court judge’s decision, declaring that there was no reason for the Hindu American to have been found in bad faith, validating his arguments.
While the appeals process worked in this particular instance, the reality is that the vast majority of cases aren’t appealed. Appeals are both costly and extremely difficult to win (due to the amount of discretion given to the judges, especially in family law). Therefore, biased family law judges can still do enormous damage.
In the hearing transcript, the family court judge spoke at length about the importance of Jewish schooling for the children. But she did not once comment on the importance of the Hindu religious activity for the children. In fact, she did not comment on it at all. The judge, a white Christian woman, also did not once ask why the Jewish activity should be given precedence, and enforced on the Hindu American’s time, when the Hindu activity wasn’t being supported on the Jewish American’s time. This judge effectively took children who were supposed to be raised both Hindu and Jewish, and favored their Jewish upbringing over their Hindu upbringing.
Usha Vance, trained as a lawyer, could start a public conversation about the issue of reforming family court procedures. She can bring up the fact that almost all judges in family courts are of Judeo-Christian heritage. Whether it is out of bias or ignorance, giving judges the unfettered ability to decide on religious upbringing (based on “best interests of the child”) seems destined to favor the Judeo-Christian side in such situations.
Negotiating faith publicly in a high-profile marriage is challenging. Each partner has to ensure that they protect each other’s face as much as each other’s faith. They have to pick and choose the venues for airing carefully phrased descriptions of and belief in their faiths, values, and practices. The virulent language on social media and the insidious insinuations in mainstream media are difficult seas for them to navigate. Hindus are easily and quickly labeled “heretics,” “pagans,” and “polytheists,” and Christians can open up the Bible to find many references for “rejecting false gods”. The Associated Press Stylebook, for example, capitalizes “God” for the monotheistic deity but lowercases “gods” for polytheistic figures, while also capitalizing proper names like Allah. Lord Vishnu, the Hindu God, therefore becomes a lower-case god, and Goddess Lakshmi a lower-case goddess. Usha (the Goddess of Dawn), therefore, has a much more challenging task in educating American minds and changing American hearts than her husband, who is a Christian.
In an essay titled “When God Becomes Fragile,” Banerjee (2025) asks why Muslim and Christian fundamentalists generate the category of the ‘infidel,’ and why plurality becomes a threat rather than a possibility. The answer lies “in an epistemic architecture that elevates a single revelation to absolute finality… Truth becomes singular, error universal. In such a system, other gods, scriptures, or views are not parallel expressions of the sacred but negations of it,” he argues. From this structure arises the uncompromising force of the First Commandment — ‘thou shalt have no other gods before Me’,” he points out.
Banerjee argues that in contrast to the “stagnation” of “fundamentalism,” polytheistic religions exhibit “a remarkable circulatory dynamism: ideas, rituals, and personae traverse traditions with comparative ease. This permeability is less a matter of exoteric conformity than of an esoteric economy of power, a subterranean praxis of ritual efficacy and mystic technique in which disparate forms of devotion and expertise meet and are made commensurable”. He points out that this is the reason why polytheistic cultures demonstrate “intellectual elasticity,” and why monotheisms, by “confining sanctity to one authorized source, inevitably enforces a theology of scarcity”.
Bhaskaran (2026), writing about the JD Vance/Usha marriage, said, “From Emerson, Thoreau, and Lucas to modern yoga and meditation teachers, generations of truth-seeking Americans have drawn inspiration from Hindu ideas. Religious freedom means the liberty to explore — not to convert”. She says, “What J.D. Vance wishes for his wife — and how she chooses to respond — is ultimately a private matter between them. But his comment raises a deeper question about the American spirit itself: are we still the society that prizes open-mindedness and the free search for truth? For more than two centuries, some of the most thoughtful Americans — writers, politicians, scientists, and artists — have shown a willingness to learn from Hinduism and Buddhism. Even if they did not explicitly convert out of Christianity, they recognized the philosophical truths and richness of practices that ancient faiths like Hinduism contained.”
She concludes, “Usha Vance is strong and dignified and hardly needs defending. But her husband’s remarks remind us how easy it is to forget the American habit of humility before the vastness of truth. The United States has grown stronger — not weaker — whenever it has looked beyond its boundaries for wisdom. To close that window now would betray both the Hindu spirit of universality and the American spirit of freedom that have, together, kept the light of inquiry burning bright”.
Theoretical Frameworks:
Some potential theoretical frameworks that can be used to study the public negotiation of faiths, not only among high-profile couples but also in any interfaith negotiations, could include the following:
- Face negotiation theory: Stella Ting-Toomey’s face-negotiation theory (Ting-Toomey, 1988, 2004) describes the styles people from different cultures use to manage conflict. Here, “face” is defined as the projected image of oneself in a relational situation. According to Ting-Toomey, people from individualistic and collectivistic cultures use different styles to manage, protect, and save face. She says that “face concern” includes regard for self-face, other-face, or mutual-face, and that in two-thirds of the world, face-concern focuses on the other person, whereas in one-third of individualistic cultures of the world, face-concern focuses on self. Another concept that would be useful in studying face is “face-giving” – the other-concerned facework strategy used to defend and support another person’s need for inclusion. In the present example, Vice President Vance failed to consider his wife’s need for inclusion. It also means taking care not to embarrass or humiliate the other in public. Vance fell short on this score, too. Ting-Toomey says that knowledge, mindfulness, and interaction skills are requirements for effectively communicating across cultures. Who did Vance consider when he addressed the TPUSA event? Did he not realize that the event was broadcast live, and that he was addressing the world and not just the 3,000 mostly white young men and women at Ole Miss?
- The second theoretical framework we can suggest using in this context is the feminist standpoint theory of Sandra Harding (1991) and Julia Wood (1997). These two argue that our view of the world depends on our social location, and that our group memberships shape our experience of the world and our ways of understanding it. They claim that “group affiliations lead to different opportunities, working conditions, and degrees of power and influence, so they generate distinctive accounts of nature and social relationships” (see Griffin, Ledbetter, & Sparks, 2023). While their focus is on women’s status, standing, and affiliations, this theory could be useful in understanding both the Vice President’s “religious” standpoint and his “male” standpoint. Hindus, as a marginalized and minority group, can estimate the potential of this theory for presenting their standpoint, but we should acknowledge that at present, Hindus have been relegated to the tricky “White adjacent” category by activists and some academics go to the extent of claiming that “White supremacy and Hindu supremacy are twins” (Varshney & Staggs, 2024).
- Muted Group Theory of Cheris Kramarae (1981) maintains that “language is literally a man-made construction,” and that “women’s words are discounted in society, and their thought devalued”. If we were to switch this to claim that “religion is literally a Christian/Abrahamic construction that discounts other faiths, beliefs, and practices and devalues them,” we would have a version of how Hindus in the US belong to a muted group. However, if we were to take Usha Vance as belonging to a muted group, we would see how her status as a woman, a Hindu, a Brahmin, and as an Asian spouse would make her a misfit in both the American left/liberal and the right/conservative camps. For the left/liberal groups, Usha is a member of a discriminatory/caste-based religion, that she is a Brahmin, and that, as a Hindu and a Brahmin, she has met with and not spoken to Prime Minister Narendra Modi, a so-called “Hindu nationalist”. For the right/conservative, she is a polytheist, devil-worshipping, Indian immigrant who is not a “heritage American” and who cannot understand and be a member of such right/white/heritage consortium.
In the context of a high-profile interfaith marriage, it is essential that we, as outside observers and commentators, provide a careful evaluation of the potential for negotiating faith publicly in interfaith relationships. The onus, it seems, is on those who represent both the majority and the monopolist religions, because the blunt force of numbers and supremacist and monopolist claims makes it difficult for those minorities that profess a “multitudinous” faith. The schemes, age, traditions, practices, beliefs, philosophies, and texts of Hindus are vast. But Hindus are a majority only in two nations, whereas Christians are a majority in 115 and Muslims in 50 countries. Numbers speak, and sometimes too loudly and too aggressively.
Therefore, how can Usha Vance and JD Vance negotiate their faiths publicly? Is it at all possible, given their positions, their commitments, and their aspirations? What if they miss this opportunity to do so? What will America look like, and what do we want it to look like? When Vance said in a media interview (Quill, November 2, 2025) that “…my wife did not grow up Christian,” and that “… it’s fair to say that she grew up in a Hindu family, but not a particularly religious family in either direction,” he seems to have been unaware of or ignorant about the Hindu approach to religion – of having alcoves at home for their chosen deities, visiting temples on special occasions, near or far, or visiting temples when traveling in India, and of the few opportunities that were available in the US at the time Usha’s parents were bringing her up to carry out Hindu rituals (samskaras) relating to pregnancy, birth, first eating of solid food, naming, marriage, death, etc. How well does he know his wife’s family, but also about Hinduism?
As Dutta (November 28, 2025) commented, “MAGA folks freaked out that she (Usha) was a practicing Hindu, and it was immaterial that her faith had helped JD find Christ again”. The more important question is why the vice president, who found Christ again through the help of his Hindu wife, would want to make his wife a Christian. He could have said in response to the young Hindu woman’s question something that would have gladdened the hearts of Hindus. He could have said, “I believe in Jesus and the Bible, and I am happy in my simple faith, for it is a safe harbor. I accept my wife’s grand multiplex of complex philosophical, practical, textual, and belief traditions, for she finds safe harbor in them. Our children will be introduced to them both, and when they are old enough and intelligent enough, will choose whatever they wish to, but we will encourage them to read deeply and seek deeply from both”. If he had said so, he would have been a statesman; but then, would he be considered the one to take on the mantle from President Trump?
Political Compunctions and Dynamics in an Interfaith Relationship:
In a longish analysis of the splintering of the MAGA movement, Doran (January 14, 2026) says that Vance is Trump’s “strongest firewall,” but he (Vance) keeps close company with Tucker Carlson and his supporters who believe that “American global leadership is a civilizational delusion,” and that everyone of America’s partners “becomes an ideological burden,” and that every American commitment “a mark of corruption”. Doran says that “Vance’s courtship of Tucker Carlson marks a sharp departure from the tradition that brought Trump to power – not the religio-political doctrine of this or that postliberal Catholic theorist, but the Eisenhower-Reagan model of religious politics in America”. Doran says the Eisenhower doctrine meant that “in the United States, religion is politically potent only when articulated broadly enough to bind rival traditions together”. He says that Trump has “instinctively” aligned with the Eisenhower-Reagan tradition, and that “the language of American faith must be expansive and sunny if it is to be politically useful”. However, Vance, with his public comments about wanting his wife to embrace his faith, seems to have succumbed to “sharpening sectarian lines,” signalling “a future in which the tent narrows”. Strangely and ironically, Doran fails to point out the TPUSA comment of Vance’s, showcasing how even the “liberal,” “nonsectarian” American approach to religion excludes Hindus, and seemingly the Second Lady!
What can Usha Vance do publicly that is not confrontational but which can help expand the American liberal and religious spaces? Hindu texts and traditions are rich in their embrace and exposition of the human quest to understand why we are here, what is the meaning of life, and where we go from here, with what tools to carve that road to enlightenment. Every week, for example, she could write a short essay, a musing, taking up one subhashita to explore. A subhashita is an eloquent Sanskrit saying or observation, offering “moral and ethical advice, instructions in worldly wisdom and guidance.” She could narrate stories from the great Indian epics – the Ramayana and the Mahabharata — or she could retell the grand tales from the Hindu Puranas to children, or stories from Indian folk tales, including the Jataka tales, that often feature animal characters like in the Panchatantra, and which teach moral lessons about honesty, self-sacrifice, and wisdom.
Usha Vance could leverage her position to incorporate these moral tales and Hindu traditions in her public addresses skillfully. Creating and opening up such a space for herself might be one way of negotiating faith publicly in an interfaith relationship, and more importantly, opening up the public spaces for mutual understanding and accommodation. If she were to shy away from such engagement and ignore these opportunities, then the force of her husband’s political trajectory will begin to push her farther into the background, to both her personal detriment and to American liberal values. Usha Vance does not live in the times that her parents first came to this country. She now has vast resources – people and institutions – that she can rely on and call for help and support, and bring her Indian and Hindu friends and resources to strengthen interfaith alliances – both personal and public, making America great again!
(Closing note: Vice President Vance and Usha Vance announced a week ago that they are expecting their fourth child this summer.)
References:
Bhaskaran, D. (January 12, 2026). America has always been open to Hindu wisdom: JD Vance should remember that. Medium, https://deepasalem-108.medium.com/america-has-always-been-open-to-hindu-wisdom-j-d-vance-should-remember-that-327ca4b47e54
Banerjee, S. (December 16, 2025). “When God becomes fragile”. White Rose, https://whiterosemagazine.com/when-god-becomes-fragile/
Doran, M. (January 14, 2026). “Why the Trump coalition is cracking up,” The Free Press, https://www.thefp.com/p/why-the-trump-coalition-is-cracking-up
Dutta, N. (November 28, 2025). ‘JD to dump Usha Vance for Erika Kirk’: How Joy Reid normalised Hinduphobia and misogyny. The Times of India, https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/jd-to-dump-usha-vance-for-erika-kirk-how-joy-reid-normalised-hinduphobia-and-misogyny/articleshow/125617008.cms
Griffin, E., Ledbetter, A., & Sparks, G. (2023, 11th Ed.). A first look at communication theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Harding, S. (1991). Whose science? Whose knowledge? Thinking from women’s lives. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Hughes, P. C. (2004). The influence of religious orientation on conflict tactics in interfaith marriages, The Journal of Communication and Religion, 27:2, 245-267.
Karmarkar, R. (February 20, 2024). Hinduism has no rules against marrying outside the faith: But couples say it has its bumps. Religion News Service, https://religionnews.com/2024/02/20/hindu-interfaith-love/
Kramarae, C. (1981). Women and men speaking. Newbury House.
Martin, J. N., & Nakayama, T.K. (2007, 4th Ed.). Intercultural communication in contexts. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Martinez, L., Ting-Toomey, S., & Dorjee, T. (2016). Identity management and relational culture in interfaith marital communication in a United States context: A qualitative study. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 45:6, 2016
Quill, K. (November 02, 2025). JD Vance discusses interfaith marriage and raising Christian children with Hindu wife. FOX News,
Passel, J. S., Wang, W., & Taylor, P. (June 4, 2010). One-in-seven new US marriages is interracial or interethnic. Pew Research Center, https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2010/06/04/marrying-out/
Pew Research Center (February 26, 2025). Religious intermarriage. https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2025/02/26/religious-intermarriage/
Rao, R. N. (2025). “Anti-Hindu bias in an American family court: A New Jersey example, India Facts,
https://www.indiafacts.org.in/anti-hindu-bias-in-an-american-family-court-a-new-jersey-example/
Rao, R. N. (September 15, 2017). “Dad and mom, I am dating Julia”: The challenges of interfaith marriage for Indian Americans. Swarajya,
Thind, R. (December 23, 2025). ‘I hope eventually my wife comes to see it the same way’: JD Vance, Usha, and the social media wars of religion. ABC,
https://www.abc.net.au/religion/catholic-hindu-jd-vance-usha-social-media-wars-of-religion/105997690
Ting-Toomey, S. (1988). Intercultural conflict styles: A face-negotiation theory. In Y. Y. Kim & W. B. Gudykunst (Eds.), Theories of intercultural communication. Sage.
Ting-Toomey, S. (2004). Translating conflict face-negotiation theory into practice. In D. Landis, J. M. Bennett, & M. J. Bennett (Eds.), Handbook of intercultural training. Sage.
Tsui, K., & Rehbein, M. (November 21, 2025). “JD Vance expressed hope his Hindu wife will become a Christian: That’s ruffled feathers in India,” CNN,
https://www.cnn.com/2025/11/21/world/jd-vance-wife-india-religion-debate-hnk-dst
Varshney, A., & Staggs, C. (2024). Hindu nationalism and the new Jim Crow. Journal of Democracy, 35:1, 5-18. https://www.journalofdemocracy.org/articles/hindu-nationalism-and-the-new-jim-crow/
Wood, J. (1997, 1st Ed.), Communication theories in action. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Zutshi, V. (December 15, 2025). “Usha Chilkuri Vance: The Hindu Republican America can’t quite define,” NDTV,
https://www.ndtv.com/opinion/why-america-keeps-trying-to-define-usha-vance-and-fails-9810113
