Politics
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
new video loaded: Jan. 6 Rioter Hired by Pentagon
transcript
transcript
Jan. 6 Rioter Hired by Pentagon
Elias Irizarry, who pleaded guilty to climbing through a broken window at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, now works for an office responsible for uncovering and defending against terrorism plots at the Pentagon.
-
“Full pardon or commutation?” “Full pardon.”
By Alisa Shodiyev Kaff
June 4, 2026
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
Democrats splintered over a resolution seeking to block the U.S. from assisting Israel’s war against Hezbollah, an Iranian-backed terrorist group, on Thursday.
The measure, offered by progressive Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., would require President Donald Trump to withdraw U.S. forces from Lebanon. For months, Israel and Hezbollah, a U.S.-designated terrorist group and Iranian proxy, have been at war in southern Lebanon, but the United States has not joined the conflict.
A bipartisan coalition of lawmakers, including House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., rejected the measure. Critics argued the resolution could aid Hezbollah and potentially hamstring U.S. military operations in the country.
Tlaib’s resolution failed 92-324, with more than half of House Democrats joining nearly all Republicans to vote it down.
The Lebanon war powers resolution divided Democrats, with House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., joining Republicans in rejecting the measure. (Aaron Schwartz/Bloomberg)
REP RASHIDA TLAIB MOVES TO BLOCK US OPERATIONS IN LEBANON BUT IGNORES HEZBOLLAH
Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., an Israel critic, was the lone Republican to support Tlaib’s measure. Meanwhile, Reps. Derek Tran, D-Calif., and Betty McCollum, D-Minn., voted present.
House Democratic leaders said shortly before the vote they would oppose Tlaib’s resolution and work with the progressive lawmaker on a narrower measure exempting some U.S. military operations in the country. Their statement also denounced Hezbollah as a “violent terrorist organization” and a “sworn enemy of the United States.”
Tlaib, who has accused Israel of committing “ethnic cleansing” in Lebanon, did not mention Hezbollah in her resolution. She and other proponents of the measure also avoided discussing the Iranian proxy force during heated floor debate over the measure.
Republicans highlighted the omission and accused the legislation’s supporters of serving as “proxies for Hezbollah.”
“Apparently they don’t want to see Israel killing Hezbollah, even though it’s Hezbollah that is killing Israeli children, Israeli adults, Israeli elders,” House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Brian Mast, R-Fla., said Wednesday, referring to his Democratic colleagues.
Tlaib asserted that her resolution would only affect U.S. forces actively engaged in hostilities. Republicans, however, disputed that claim and suggested it would hurt U.S. efforts to counter Hezbollah.
“It doesn’t say anything about [whether] you can keep the Marines that are in the embassy,” Mast said, referring to the U.S. embassy in Beirut. “That’s a pretty big oversight. It doesn’t say anything about whether we can keep United States armed forces that are training missions with the LAF [Lebanese Armed Forces]. Again, pretty big oversight.”
Rep. Rashida Tlaib, a Democrat from Michigan, attempted to bar U.S. forces from joining Israel’s war in Lebanon. (Tierney L. Cross/Bloomberg)
RASHIDA TLAIB HIT WITH HOUSE CENSURE THREAT, ACCUSED OF ‘CELEBRATING TERRORISM’ IN PRO-PALESTINIAN SPEECH
The debate turned personal when Rep. Max Miller, R-Ohio, a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, linked Tlaib to Hezbollah.
“Hezbollah is a terrorist organization … and its members are butchers that you like to hang out with to a certain extent,” the Ohio lawmaker said, referring to Tlaib.
A shouting match between the two then broke out, with Tlaib demanding that Miller’s remarks be stricken from the record.
The presiding chair ultimately complied with her request, but Miller doubled down on his remarks.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
“Yes, I said it. I own it, and I stand by it,” Mast said on behalf of Miller on the floor.
Tlaib’s failed war powers resolution comes as Iran has sought to tie Israel’s invasion of Lebanon to its ceasefire negotiations with the United States.
Hezbollah, which has long helped Iran project power in the region, rejected a ceasefire agreement between Israel and Lebanon’s government Thursday.
WASHINGTON — Initial efforts in the Senate failed Thursday to block the $1.8-billion fund that the Trump administration has sought to establish to pay people who claim the government wronged them, though further attempts were likely to come Thursday afternoon.
Republicans narrowly voted down a Democratic amendment to ban the payout fund and then Democrats killed a Republican amendment, which would have prohibited the use of federal money for the fund but would have sent $1.7 billion to the Justice Department’s fraud division.
It was the second effort in Congress to rebuke President Trump in two days, following the House vote Wednesday to rein in Trump’s war powers in Iran.
The dueling amendments were proposed by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.). They were attached to the reconciliation bill that would fund Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Border Patrol, a high priority for Republicans.
The votes came as the Senate began a “vote-a-rama,” during which lawmakers were expected to propose a stream of amendments to the immigration bill on various topics.
The Trump administration’s plan for the payment fund — widely seen as a way for Trump to compensate his political allies, including those who participated in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol — set off particular ire from some GOP lawmakers.
The plan has fueled growing unrest within parts of Trump’s party over his governance, compounded by the president’s endorsement of primary challengers to Sens. John Cornyn (R-Texas) and Bill Cassidy (R-La.), as well as Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), which angered some Republican senators.
Cassidy, who lost his primary and has since voiced strong opposition to Trump’s $1.8-billion fund, became a key player in the Thursday votes, voting down Schumer’s amendment but supporting Tillis’.
On Wednesday, Cassidy joined with Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) to argue in a court filing that the $1.8-billion fund circumvents Congress’ authority and violates the Constitution’s spending and appropriations clauses.
“It is an unconstitutional attempt to spend the People’s money without Congressional approval,” Cassidy and Booker wrote in an amicus brief filed in the federal court case challenging the fund.
The fund was created by the Justice Department to settle a lawsuit brought by Trump against the Internal Revenue Service over the leak of his tax returns. Trump and his sons agreed to drop their personal lawsuit against the government in exchange for the creation of the $1.776-billion fund. Critics immediately questioned the plan, and it drew a rare backlash from Republicans.
In late May, GOP senators derailed plans to vote on the immigration bill over their displeasure with the payout fund and with Trump’s desire to use taxpayer funds for his planned White House ballroom. Senate Republicans removed the ballroom funding from the immigration package Wednesday, another setback for Trump.
The Trump administration sought to back away from its plans for the fund this week, following bipartisan outcry and a federal court ruling that temporarily blocked any payouts from the fund. Acting Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche said Tuesday the administration would end its plans to move ahead with the concept.
But Trump on Wednesday told reporters he didn’t know whether the fund was dead, calling it “a beautiful thing.”
After Schumer proposed the first amendment to ban the fund Thursday morning, the Senate came to a standstill as three key Republican senators deliberated. Schumer framed his effort to ban the fund Thursday as a way to force a referendum on Trump’s plan.
The amendment “offers Republicans a choice: Do you support Donald Trump’s $2 billion taxpayer-funded slush fund, or do you want to protect the American people and their paychecks?” Schumer said on the Senate floor before the vote.
Sen. Bernie Moreno (R-Ohio) urged Republicans to reject the amendment, saying Democrats were planning to “play so many games” on Thursday during the marathon session.
“We are going to fund immigration enforcement and border patrol, and I urge my Republican colleagues to stay united on that singular mission,” Moreno said.
The amendment failed after Cassidy voted against it. Republican Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Jon Husted of Ohio and Dan Sullivan of Alaska voted in favor.
Schumer’s amendment was uniformly supported by Democrats, including California Sens. Adam Schiff and Alex Padilla.
Tillis, who also voted against Schumer’s amendment, immediately proposed his amendment. Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Oregon) urged Democrats to oppose it, saying that the proposal would create “a new slush fund” by giving the money to the Justice Department.
“We heard over the last 48 hours that the acting attorney general said that this fund’s not moving forward. All this amendment does is codify what I believe the policy of the DOJ is,” Tillis said on the floor before voting began on his amendment. “This [fund] is unpopular, this administration has said they’re not moving forward with it; this is an opportunity for us to put it to bed.”
Responded Merkley: “Taking one slush fund and eliminating it and then creating a new slush fund still under control of the attorney general is not the way to go. The way to go is to get rid of these slush funds altogether.”
Trump has faced a recent string of failures, including the House vote Wednesday, a court ruling to remove his name from the Kennedy Center and a record-low approval rating among Americans as concern rises about economic issues, gas prices and Trump’s war with Iran.
On Wednesday, Trump lashed out against the four Republicans who backed the House war powers resolution, calling it “an unpatriotic thing” to do and calling the vote “meaningless.”
“They’re GRANDSTANDERS! They should be ashamed of themselves. MAGA!!! President DJT,” Trump wrote.
Times staff writer Ana Ceballos, in Washington, contributed to this report.
-
World6 minutes ago
Europe Today: Costa speaks exclusively to Euronews as EU-Western Balkans summit underway
-
News31 minutes agoTrump, Netanyahu at odds / Elusive Iran deal : Sources & Methods
-
Los Angeles, Ca2 hours ago'Top Gun: Maverick' actor identified as victim stabbed to death in Tarzana
-
Detroit, MI2 hours agoStorm chances return, which could impact Motor City Pride, graduations this weekend across Metro Detroit
-
San Francisco, CA2 hours agoHilton campaigns in San Francisco as California primary votes still being counted
-
Dallas, TX2 hours agoCrews cover up AT&T branding as stadium becomes
-
Miami, FL3 hours agoMiami leaders gather for FIFA World Cup Host Committee Gala
-
Boston, MA3 hours agoPackage fire outside Boston’s Museum of African American History under investigation
