Politics

Column: Vance is right that Europe's values are no longer the same as America's

Published

11 months ago

February 20, 2025

Column: Vance is right that Europe's values are no longer the same as America's

Vice President JD Vance’s speech Feb. 14 at the Munich Security Conference was not merely the most important speech the precocious young second-in-command has delivered in his political career. It was also a speech that encapsulates an entire geopolitical era — that of a return to prudence, sobriety and nationalism as the hallmarks of American foreign affairs.

This departure from post-Berlin Wall universalist liberalism has been a long time in the making, and Vance’s incisive rebuke of European elites powerfully drove home the point. For the foreseeable future, U.S.-Europe relations will not be the same — and that is a good thing.

Vance took a blowtorch to delicate European elite sensitivities. He excoriated, among other things, Europe’s unfortunate recent turn toward censorship of perceived “dissident” speech and mass immigration from nations such as Syria and Afghanistan. The diplomats assembled in Munich were, expectedly, aghast. One German official broke down in tears from the lectern. In truth, Vance was giving voice to the many Europeans who have been sending clear signals by voting for nationalist-populist anti-immigration parties everywhere from Britain to the old Iron Curtain.

But more than speaking for those Europeans, Vance was speaking as an American — and as a young American nationalist statesman, in particular. And it is here that we see how U.S.-Europe relations could be reset for a decade or more.

For the previous generation of American leaders, the notion of going into the belly of the European Union and delivering such a stern rebuke to high-ranking European leaders would have been unthinkable. For Americans who came of political age during the Cold War, it was simply expected that the United States and Western Europe, specifically, would long be allied in lockstep fashion. After all, in contrast to the Soviet Union and other communist nations, we shared the same values.

Vance’s speech underscored the growing chasm between American and European values. The United States prizes free speech; Europeans increasingly do not. The United States, especially since Jan. 20, once again prizes sovereignty and nationhood; European elites increasingly do not.

But the broader Trump-Vance “America First” critique of Europe goes far beyond a growing “values” chasm. There is also a massive “national interest” chasm. Unless and until Europe comes to appreciate that MAGA-style foreign policy realism places the pursuit of the American national interest above everything else, U.S.-Europe relations will continue to be strained.

The Trump foreign policy doctrine, which goes back to his first term and for which Vance has emerged as an articulate spokesman, is predicated on a sober assessment of the 21st century geopolitical map. We once again live, as we did during the Cold War, in a multipolar world; this time, the power to focus on is communist China. Accordingly, America’s overwhelming imperative is to devote our limited resources — at least those deployed outside our own hemisphere — to containing and repelling China. But America does, of course, have other interests in the world; we are threatened by radical Islamism, and we do depend on the freedom of navigation on the seas just as much as any power.

The relevant question for structuring American foreign relations is thus this: How can we best empower and embolden proficient, generally self-sufficient allies to patrol and safeguard their own regions of the world in a way that redounds to the mutual tangible interests of both our regional allies and the United States itself?

The Abraham Accords peace deals, brokered during the final year of Trump’s first term, demonstrate how this can work in practice. A quintessential act of foreign policy realism statecraft, the accords brought together Israel, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Morocco and Sudan in a strategic Iran-containment alliance. (Saudi Arabia, though formally on the sidelines, supports the accords.) Iran and its myriad proxy militias present a continuing threat to the United States, as we tragically learned at Tower 22 in Jordan last January, and the best-bang-for-your-buck, American-national-interest-securing path to containing the mullahs is to embolden like-minded allies to tend to the problem in their parts of the world.

There could, in theory, be a similar situation in Europe. The United States, after all, is threatened by Russia — albeit not nearly as much as is Europe. But European elites too often try to have it both ways with Russia; they are hopelessly addicted to Russian energy, and Germany above all was the leading proponent of the Vladimir Putin-empowering Nord Stream 2 natural gas pipeline. Despite their addiction to Russian energy, they ironically claim to be deathly afraid of Putin’s territorial ambitions. While EU energy purchases power Putin’s war machine, many of Europe’s NATO members still do not meet their defense spending treaty obligations.

There is a genuine “national interest” gulf between the United States and Europe on the pressing question of Russia, including the settlement of the war in Ukraine. If Europeans are so gravely concerned about the precise nature of the redrawn Donbas border in eastern Ukraine, for instance, they can invest more of their own military and diplomatic resources to pursue that settlement themselves. But Europe should not stand in the way of a U.S.-led resolution to the war in Ukraine.

The post-Berlin Wall unipolar moment is long over. Nationalism and realism are not merely the flavors of the day; they are the flavors of the century. It would behoove Europe to get with the program. JD Vance is right.

Josh Hammer is senior editor-at-large for Newsweek. This article was produced in collaboration with Creators Syndicate. @josh_hammer

Politics

Video: Trump Says ‘Only Time Will Tell’ How Long U.S. Controls Venezuela

Published

8 hours ago

January 8, 2026

Press Room

Video: Trump Says ‘Only Time Will Tell’ How Long U.S. Controls Venezuela

new video loaded: Trump Says ‘Only Time Will Tell’ How Long U.S. Controls Venezuela

transcript

Trump Says ‘Only Time Will Tell’ How Long U.S. Controls Venezuela

President Trump did not say exactly how long the the United states would control Venezuela, but said that it could last years.

: “How Long do you think you’ll be running Venezuela?” “Only time will tell. Like three months. six months, a year, longer?” “I would say much longer than that.” “Much longer, and, and —” “We have to rebuild. You have to rebuild the country, and we will rebuild it in a very profitable way. We’re going to be using oil, and we’re going to be taking oil. We’re getting oil prices down, and we’re going to be giving money to Venezuela, which they desperately need. I would love to go, yeah. I think at some point, it will be safe.” “What would trigger a decision to send ground troops into Venezuela?” “I wouldn’t want to tell you that because I can’t, I can’t give up information like that to a reporter. As good as you may be, I just can’t talk about that.” “Would you do it if you couldn’t get at the oil? Would you do it —” “If they’re treating us with great respect. As you know, we’re getting along very well with the administration that is there right now.” “Have you spoken to Delcy Rodríguez?” “I don’t want to comment on that, but Marco speaks to her all the time.”
Advertisement

President Trump did not say exactly how long the the United states would control Venezuela, but said that it could last years.

January 8, 2026

Politics

Trump calls for $1.5T defense budget to build ‘dream military’

Published

9 hours ago

January 8, 2026

Press Room

Trump calls for .5T defense budget to build ‘dream military’

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

President Donald Trump called for defense spending to be raised to $1.5 trillion, a 50% increase over this year’s budget.

“After long and difficult negotiations with Senators, Congressmen, Secretaries, and other Political Representatives, I have determined that, for the Good of our Country, especially in these very troubled and dangerous times, our Military Budget for the year 2027 should not be $1 Trillion Dollars, but rather $1.5 Trillion Dollars,” Trump wrote on Truth Social on Thursday evening.

“This will allow us to build the “Dream Military” that we have long been entitled to and, more importantly, that will keep us SAFE and SECURE, regardless of foe.”

The president said he came up with the number after tariff revenues created a surplus of cash. He claimed the levies were bringing in enough money to pay for both a major boost to the defense budget “easily,” pay down the national debt, which is over $38 trillion, and offer “a substantial dividend to moderate income patriots.”

SENATE SENDS $901B DEFENSE BILL TO TRUMP AFTER CLASHES OVER BOAT STRIKE, DC AIRSPACE

President Donald Trump called for defense spending to be raised to $1.5 trillion, a 50% increase over this year’s record budget. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)

The boost likely reflects efforts to fund Trump’s ambitious military plans, from the Golden Dome homeland missile defense shield to a new ‘Trump class’ of battleships.

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget found that the increased budget would cost about $5 trillion from 2027 to 2035, or $5.7 trillion with interest. Tariff revenues, the group found, would cover about half the cost – $2.5 trillion or $3 trillion with interest.

The Supreme Court is expected to rule in a major case Friday that will determine the legality of Trump’s sweeping tariff strategy.

CONGRESS UNVEILS $900B DEFENSE BILL TARGETING CHINA WITH TECH BANS, INVESTMENT CRACKDOWN, US TROOP PAY RAISE

This year the defense budget is expected to breach $1 trillion for the first time thanks to a $150 billion reconciliation bill Congress passed to boost the expected $900 billion defense spending legislation for fiscal year 2026. Congress has yet to pass a full-year defense budget for 2026.

Some Republicans have long called for a major increase to defense spending to bring the topline total to 5% of GDP, as the $1.5 trillion budget would do, up from the current 3.5%.

The boost likely reflects efforts to fund Trump’s ambitious military plans, from the Golden Dome homeland missile defense shield to a new ‘Trump class’ of battleships. (Lockheed Martin via Reuters)

Trump has ramped up pressure on Europe to increase its national security spending to 5% of GDP – 3.5% on core military requirements and 1.5% on defense-related areas like cybersecurity and critical infrastructure.

Trump’s budget announcement came hours after defense stocks took a dip when he condemned the performance rates of major defense contractors. In a separate Truth Social post he announced he would not allow defense firms to buy back their own stocks, offer large salaries to executives or issue dividends to shareholders.

“Executive Pay Packages in the Defense Industry are exorbitant and unjustifiable given how slowly these Companies are delivering vital Equipment to our Military, and our Allies,” he said.

“Defense Companies are not producing our Great Military Equipment rapidly enough and, once produced, not maintaining it properly or quickly.”

U.S. Army soldiers stand near an armored military vehicle on the outskirts of Rumaylan in Syria’s northeastern Hasakeh province, bordering Turkey, on March 27, 2023. (Delil Souleiman/AFP via Getty Images)

He said that executives would not be allowed to make above $5 million until they build new production plants.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Stock buybacks, dividends and executive compensation are generally governed by securities law, state corporate law and private contracts, and cannot be broadly restricted without congressional action.

An executive order the White House released Wednesday frames the restrictions as conditions on future defense contracts, rather than a blanket prohibition. The order directs the secretary of war to ensure that new contracts include provisions barring stock buybacks and corporate distributions during periods of underperformance, non-compliance or inadequate production, as determined by the Pentagon.

Politics

Newsom moves to reshape who runs California’s schools under budget plan

Published

10 hours ago

January 8, 2026

Press Room

Newsom moves to reshape who runs California’s schools under budget plan

SACRAMENTO — Gov. Gavin Newsom on Thursday unveiled a sweeping proposal to overhaul how California’s education system is governed, calling for structural changes that he said would shift oversight of the Department of Education and redefine the role of the state’s elected schools chief.

The proposal, which is part of Newsom’s state budget plan that will be released Friday, would unify the policymaking State Board of Education with the department, which is responsible for carrying out those policies. The governor said the change would better align education efforts from early childhood through college.

“California can no longer postpone reforms that have been recommended regularly for a century,” Newsom said in a statement. “These critical reforms will bring greater accountability, clarity, and coherence to how we serve our students and schools.”

Few details were provided about how the role of the state superintendent of public instruction would change, beyond a greater focus on fostering coordination and aligning education policy.

The changes would require approval from state lawmakers, who will be in the state Capitol on Thursday for Newsom’s last State of the State speech in his final year as governor.

The proposal would implement recommendations from a 2002 report by the state Legislature, titled “California’s Master Plan for Education,” which described the state’s K-12 governance as fragmented and “with overlapping roles that sometimes operate in conflict with one another, to the detriment of the educational services offered to students.” Newsom’s office said similar concerns have been raised repeatedly since 1920 and were echoed again in a December 2025 report by research center Policy Analysis for California Education.

“The sobering reality of California’s education system is that too few schools can now provide the conditions in which the State can fairly ask students to learn to the highest standards, let alone prepare themselves to meet their future learning needs,” the Legislature’s 2002 report stated. Those most harmed are often low-income students and students of color, the report added.

“California’s education governance system is complex and too often creates challenges for school leaders,” Edgar Zazueta, executive director of the Assn. of California School Administrators, said in a statement provided by Newsom’s office. “As responsibilities and demands on schools continue to increase, educators need governance systems that are designed to better support positive student outcomes.”

The current budget allocated $137.6 billion for education from transitional kindergarten through the 12th grade — the highest per-pupil funding level in state history — and Newsom’s office said his proposal is intended to ensure those investments translate into more consistent support and improved outcomes statewide.

“For decades the fragmented and inefficient structure overseeing our public education system has hindered our students’ ability to succeed and thrive,” Ted Lempert, president of advocacy group Children Now, said in a statement provided by the governor’s office. “Major reform is essential, and we’re thrilled that the Governor is tackling this issue to improve our kids’ education.”