Vance and Rubio: America's message to Europe between scolding and reassurance

In my piece on Tuesday, I discussed how the Munich Security Forum's report outlined the challenge that Trump's America poses to Europe and the international order through its disruptive stance toward the global system. In this article, I will try to assess the message America is sending to Europe by analyzing the speeches delivered by two key figures of the Trump administration at last year's and this year's forum. At last year's forum, Vice President J.D. Vance's scolding tone, which identified Europe's core problem as 'democratic decay,' drew attention. This year, Secretary of State Marco Rubio stood out with a tough yet reassuring message that framed the issue as 'civilizational decline.' Can the differences between these two speeches be interpreted as different expressions of the same message, or do they point to deep divisions within the administration regarding the diagnosis and cure?

DEMOCRATIC DECAY OR CIVILIZATIONAL DECLINE?

The central critique in Vance's speech was that European technocratic elites, fearful of their own electorate, were hollowing out democracy. Europe had become alienated from its own voters because it failed to uphold democratic values. Elites who couldn't manage migration flows, excluded right-wing and populist movements, turned a blind eye to the annulment of elections in Romania, and ignored voters' demands were undermining democratic legitimacy. In contrast, Rubio's diagnosis was that the Western alliance is a civilization based not only on economic and political ties but also on shared values and beliefs, and that this civilization's decline was being met with indifference. Rubio argued that for years, inertia had prevailed on issues like deindustrialization, weakening supply chains, climate policies undermining energy security, large migration waves, and the geopolitical struggle with China.

Rubio, stating that the Trump administration would not remain a bystander to this process and aimed to lead a civilizational revival, delivered a positive message asserting that America would continue to be part of the transatlantic alliance. A significant stylistic difference emerged with Rubio, who emphasized shared history and values with Europe and said past mistakes were made 'together' and the future should be built 'together,' in contrast to Vance's populist rhetoric directly targeting European elites. Unlike Vance's embrace of right-wing and populist politicians in Europe, Rubio stressed national sovereignty and national interest, arguing that America's willingness to act stemmed from its focus on solving problems, while also pointing to the ineffectiveness of international institutions like the UN. Although Vance and Rubio seem to agree that the West has lost its unity and is weakening, they diverge on the causes and, especially, the cure.

UNDER WHAT CONDITIONS IS AMERICAN LEADERSHIP POSSIBLE?

While Vance focuses on how intolerance towards populist politics and restrictions on freedom of speech erode democratic values, Rubio grounds the issue in the West's lack of belief in its own civilizational history and capacity. For Vance, the problem is primarily democratic erosion; Rubio diagnoses the illness as a decline in civilizational capacity. Vance's proposed solution relies on strengthening democratic legitimacy by allowing the people's demands to be reflected in politics, whereas Rubio's proposal concentrates on a movement of civilizational renewal. Vance sets Europe's self-transformation as a condition, while Rubio offers a reassuring message by emphasizing building the future together. The fundamental difference between the messages of Vance and Rubio lies precisely here: both state that America's support and leadership will depend on certain conditions.

Vance expects reforms from Europe in terms of values and legitimacy, while Rubio conveys the message that national capacity and sovereignty need to be strengthened. Vance's emphasis on America's shared destiny with Europe is negligible, whereas Rubio stresses that, as children of the same civilization, we are all in this boat together. It could be argued that these two messages are complementary, focusing on Europe's democratic renewal and capacity-building. Seeing the right-wing populist politics favored domestically by the people as normal, thereby increasing democratic legitimacy, while simultaneously building defense capacity to instill the self-confidence that embraces Western civilization values, can be viewed as complementary elements. However, there is also an implicit threat here: if Europe fails to implement internal reform, America's populist leaders might support technocratic elites' opponents, potentially fueling internal conflict. Furthermore, if national capacity-building as Rubio envisions proves impossible, Europe could be reduced to a mere spectator in the struggle against Russia and China.

Vance's scolding over 'democratic decay' and Rubio's reassuring message about 'civilizational decline' can be seen as two different interpretations of the Trump administration's message to Europe. It can be said that Europe's test of democratic legitimacy in its domestic politics and the imperative to rebuild its strength and capacity complement each other. Both messages stop short of signaling a clear break with Europe, but they state that American support, leadership, and partnership will only be possible under certain new conditions. If Europe overcomes its internal crisis of democratic representation, secures its borders, and strengthens its national security capacity, it will alleviate America's burden, making a partnership based on greater burden-sharing possible. If it fails to do so, it will have to risk America becoming a party to conflicts within Europe. Moreover, European states unable to achieve national renewal would become increasingly ineffective in the global great power struggle. Therefore, for the Trump administration, the issue is more concrete than whether America is returning to the transatlantic alliance: American leadership is no longer a free and automatic security umbrella, but a conditional stance that does not shy away from taking a hard line against a Europe incapable of generating legitimacy and capacity.