At the Munich Security Conference, JD Vance diverged from expectations that he would focus on potential negotiations to end the war in Ukraine. Instead, he launched a broadside against European governments—including the UK—accusing them of abandoning their core values and disregarding public concerns about migration and free speech.
His speech was met with silence from the audience and later faced strong pushback from European leaders. German Defence Minister Boris Pistorius condemned Vance’s remarks, calling them “not acceptable.”
Echoing former President Donald Trump’s stance, Vance urged European nations to take greater responsibility for their own defense, emphasizing that the U.S. would not continue to shoulder the burden alone. While he briefly mentioned the war in Ukraine, stating his hope for a “reasonable settlement,” his address largely focused on culture-war issues, aligning with Trump’s campaign rhetoric rather than traditional security and defense matters typically discussed at the conference.
Vance accused European Union officials of suppressing free speech, blamed the continent for mass migration, and claimed its leaders had abandoned key democratic principles. His remarks prompted a sharp response from EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas, who characterized his speech as an attempt to provoke conflict with Europe, home to some of the U.S.’s closest allies.
Vance singled out several European nations, including the UK, criticizing laws that he claimed restricted religious freedoms. He pointed to the conviction of a British army veteran who silently prayed outside an abortion clinic, arguing that such cases demonstrated a broader retreat from fundamental liberties. He also criticized buffer zone laws restricting protests near abortion clinics, asserting that free speech was under attack. The Scottish government dismissed his claims, stating that their legislation was carefully crafted to address only deliberate or reckless actions near abortion facilities.
Nine days before a pivotal national election in Germany, Vance weighed in on the country's debate over political cooperation with the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party. For decades, Germany’s mainstream parties have upheld a strict policy of avoiding alliances with extremist factions, but Vance denounced this practice. “Democracy rests on the sacred principle that the voice of the people matters,” he said. “There’s no room for firewalls. You either uphold the principle or you don’t.”
His comments were warmly received by AfD candidate Alice Weidel, who praised his speech on social media. Reports later emerged that Vance and Weidel held a private meeting, according to German broadcaster ZDF.
Vance also referenced Romania’s recent election controversy, where the December presidential vote was annulled following allegations of Russian interference. He downplayed the significance of foreign meddling, stating, “If your democracy can be destroyed with a few hundred thousand dollars of digital advertising from a foreign country, then it wasn’t very strong to begin with.”
Romanian Prime Minister Marcel Ciolacu pushed back against this assertion, reaffirming his country’s commitment to free and fair elections and emphasizing Romania’s dedication to shared democratic values with the United States.
Despite the focus on cultural and political issues, Vance did meet with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on the sidelines of the conference. Their discussion reportedly centered on efforts to plan for an end to the conflict. Vance described their exchange as “fruitful,” though no concrete steps toward negotiations were announced.
Trump had previously suggested that U.S., Russian, and Ukrainian officials would convene in Munich for peace talks, but Russia later clarified that it had no plans to send a delegation.
Vance’s speech ultimately underscored the widening rift between Trump-aligned Republicans and European leaders on issues of democracy, migration, and defense. While his remarks found favor among some factions, they were broadly criticized by officials who viewed them as an attack on European governance rather than a constructive contribution to transatlantic security discussions.
