The American Populist Reset Has Already Begun

VP Vance spoke to the Munich Security Conference with a softer tone than in February but still the made the case for American populism.

When JD Vance stood before the Munich Security Conference in February, he didn’t play diplomat. He played truth-teller.

Facing a room filled with European elites, the Vice President called out a creeping authoritarianism that he said was threatening freedom on both sides of the Atlantic.

“I look to Brussels, where EU Commission commissars warn citizens that they intend to shut down social media during times of civil unrest the moment they spot what they've judged to be quote, hateful content.”

He also pointed to examples closer to where he stood.

“Or to this very country where police have carried out raids against citizens suspected of posting anti feminist comments online as part of quote, combating misogyny on the internet, a day of action."

That speech turned heads—and stirred backlash—but Vance didn’t back down. Today, he returned to a Munich Security Conference event, this time in Washington.

The message was more measured, but the core argument was unchanged: if the West wants to defend its values, it has to start living up to them.

Opening the discussion, Vance spoke to the shared roots of America and Europe, but made clear the nature of that relationship has to evolve.

“We are on the same civilizational team,” he said.

“European civilization and American civilization, European culture and American culture are very much linked, and they're always going to be linked.”

But shared history doesn’t mean an open checkbook.

“Sometimes I've been criticized as a hyper realist,” he acknowledged.

“I think of foreign policy purely in terms of transactional values. What does America get out of it?”

With Europe, he admitted, it’s more complicated. The bonds run deeper than trade or treaties. Still, a reassessment is overdue.

Vance said:

“The president and I believe that it means a little bit more European burden sharing on the defense side,”

He warned that the current balance simply won’t hold.

“That security posture is not adequate to meet the challenges of the next 20 years.”

Disagreements, he added, are natural in any partnership—but that doesn’t undermine the alliance itself.

“It doesn't mean that Europeans won't criticize the United States or the United States won't criticize Europe,”

“But I do think fundamentally, we have to be—and we are—on the same civilizational team.”

The discussion then turned toward Ukraine. Here, Vance offered a perspective rarely voiced in Washington.

His position wasn’t about choosing sides. It was about ending the war. “You don't have to agree with the Russian justification for the war,” he said.

“But you have to try to understand where the other side is coming from to end the conflict.”

He didn’t excuse the invasion, but he did criticize the refusal to engage in serious diplomacy—something he said President Trump has pushed for behind the scenes.

“And I think that's what President Trump has been very deliberate about, is actually forcing the Russians to say, here is what we would like in order to end the conflict.”

When Russia floated its first peace proposal, the U.S. dismissed it out of hand. Vance saw that as a mistake.

“Our reaction to it was, you’re asking for too much—but this is how negotiations unfold.”

He reiterated that peace won’t come from speeches or sanctions. It will require real dialogue.

“The step that we would like to make right now is... basic guidelines for sitting down and talking to one another.”

America, he said, is ready to help—but the process has to be led by those actually at war.

“Obviously, the United States is happy to participate in this conversation, but it's very important for the Russians and the Ukrainians to start talking to one another.”

That desire for de-escalation, Vance argued, is the heart of Trump’s entire foreign policy.

“Our strong view, is that the continuation of this conflict is bad for us, it's bad for Europe, it's bad for Russia, and it's bad for Ukraine.”

He framed the approach not just as strategic, but deeply moral.

“We think that if cool heads prevail here, we can bring this thing to a durable peace that will be economically beneficial for both the Ukrainians and the Russians, and most importantly, will stop the end of the of the destruction of human lives.”

He described a side of Trump that rarely gets airtime: a president driven not by ego, but by a desire to end needless suffering.

“I think people appreciate this about our president here in the United States is, he has a genuine humanitarian impulse about this. He hates innocent people losing their lives.”

“He hates even soldiers losing their lives in unnecessary conflicts. He just wants the killing to stop.”

According to Vance, this is the new American doctrine: no more forever wars, no more blank checks for conflict.

“And that will continue to be America's policy. But obviously, as all of you have seen, we'll navigate that policy and react as the parties bring their grievances to us.”

From war to trade, Vance shifted focus to another pillar of American strength—and vulnerability: the economy. He made it plain that the era of lopsided trade with China is over.

“What the president has said is we must rebalance the global economy vis-a-vis China.”

With China running an annual trade surplus approaching $1 trillion, Vance said the current arrangement isn’t just unfair—it’s unsustainable.

“We cannot absorb hundreds of billions of dollars… most of it coming from the People's Republic of China.”

The administration’s approach, he explained, isn’t limited to tariffs. It’s about forcing structural reform.

“The PRC is going to have to, frankly, let their own population consume them a little bit more.”

Leveling the playing field isn’t just about America versus China, though. Vance said new trade rules are needed across the board.

“It means that American manufacturers are going to have to be treated more fairly… we’re going to have to cut some new trade deals with our friends in Europe, but also with some of our more adversarial nations.”

His message was firm: the system we’ve relied on is broken.

“It simply cannot persist,” Vance said.

“It was not sustainable ten years ago. It was certainly not sustainable four years ago. And we're very, very committed to changing it.”

That rebalancing, he said, also extends to Europe.

“For too long,” Vance argued, “most nations in the world have been way too hard on American exporters and American firms.”

He criticized not just tariffs, but regulatory barriers that seem designed to keep U.S. products out.

“We want to make the entire world a little bit more open to the products built by American workers.”

Sometimes, he said, the hurdles aren’t even legal—they’re bureaucratic.

“There are—sometimes you have an official at the Ministry of Defense completely disconnected, as far as we can tell from an actual law or regulation, who will just say we're not buying American products.”

And when it comes to tech, the bias is clear.

“Sometimes you have officials in Europe who will say, well, we're going to penalize American technology firms in a way that we would never penalize European technology firms.”

What the U.S. wants, Vance said, is simple. “We just want a little bit more fairness. Or to use the president's favorite word, reciprocity.”

Before closing, Vance circled back to where all of this started—his warning in Munich about the dangers of silencing dissent.

That speech, he said, wasn’t just about Europe.

“One of the things that I said in that speech that didn’t get as much airplay is that everything that I said there applied as much to the previous American administration as it did any government in Europe.”

His concern was broader: when governments decide what speech is allowed, public trust begins to crumble.

“I mean this from the heart and as a friend, that there is a trade-off between policing the bounds of democratic speech and debate, and losing the trust of our people.”

He acknowledged that every country sets limits—but warned against drawing the circle too small.

“We have to be careful that we don’t draw the lines in such a way that we actually undermine the very democratic legitimacy upon which all of our civilization rests.”

And he rejected the idea that this was about pointing fingers.

“It’s not Europe bad, America good,” he said.

“It’s that I think that both Europe and the United States, we got a little bit off track, and I’d encourage us all to get back on track together.”