Vice President JD Vance Delivers Remarks at the Munich Germany Security Conference on February 14th 2025

Introduction and Opening Remarks

Expressed gratitude to the hosts and attendees of the Munich Security Conference.
Noted that he was present at last year’s conference as a U.S. Senator and emphasized his new role as Vice President.
Highlighted the importance of the conference as a platform for discussing global security issues.
Expressed sympathy and solidarity with Munich following a recent tragic attack.

The Main Theme: Internal Threats to Democracy

Declared that the biggest threat to Europe is not Russia or China but “the retreat from within.”
Warned against the erosion of fundamental democratic values shared by Europe and the U.S.
Stressed that democracy must be practiced, not just discussed.

Democratic Erosion and Election Integrity

Criticized the annulment of a Romanian election due to alleged Russian disinformation.
Argued that a democracy that can be undermined by foreign digital ads was never strong to begin with.
Warned that threats to democratic elections set a dangerous precedent.

Free Speech Concerns Across Europe

Highlighted various laws and policies that threaten free speech:
- UK Buffer Zone Laws: Criminalizing silent prayer near abortion clinics.
- Sweden’s Quran Burning Convictions: Criminalizing acts of expression that offend religious groups.
- Germany’s Crackdown on Online Speech: Citing recent police raids on individuals for online comments deemed misogynistic.
Expressed concern over EU proposals to regulate social media and suppress “misinformation” during times of unrest.

U.S. and the Suppression of Free Speech

Drew parallels between European restrictions and past U.S. government actions:
- Noted the suppression of discussions on COVID-19’s lab-leak theory as an example of state-driven censorship.
- Criticized the previous U.S. administration for pressuring social media platforms to remove “misinformation.”
Asserted that the Trump Administration is committed to defending free speech, even when opinions differ.

Security and Burden-Sharing in Europe

Reaffirmed the Trump Administration’s stance that European nations must take greater responsibility for their own defense.
Suggested that without a clear understanding of the values being defended, security discussions are meaningless.
Criticized the exclusion of populist political leaders from the Munich Security Conference, arguing that all voices should be heard.

The Migration Crisis and Public Safety

Connected mass migration policies to increased security threats.
Cited recent attacks in Europe involving asylum seekers.
Argued that the European public was never given a democratic say in open-border policies.
Stressed that ignoring public concerns on immigration weakens trust in democratic institutions.

Call to Action and Closing Remarks

Emphasized that democracy depends on listening to the voices of ordinary citizens.
Warned that suppressing dissenting views weakens the democratic process.
Quoted Pope John Paul II: “Do not be afraid,” urging leaders to trust their people and uphold free speech.
Concluded with a message of unity and a commitment to defending democratic values against both external and internal threats.

The Enemy Within: The Battle for Free Speech in the Modern Era

Vice President JD Vance’s recent speech at the Munich Security Conference raised a profound concern that transcends borders: the threat to democracy from within. While external adversaries like Russia and China often dominate security discussions, Vance argued that the most pressing danger lies in the erosion of core democratic values within Western nations themselves. His remarks highlighted the gradual retreat from principles like free speech, open debate, and democratic integrity.

Introduction and Opening Remarks

 At the Munich Security Conference, Vice President Vance opened with gratitude toward the hosts, delegates, and media professionals in attendance. Reflecting on his role last year as a U.S. Senator, he emphasized his current responsibilities as Vice President and the importance of working toward a more secure and democratic future. He also expressed sympathy for the community of Munich following the recent tragic attack, acknowledging the city’s resilience and extending heartfelt solidarity.

The Internal Threat

“The threat I worry about most for Europe is not Russia or China,” Vance said. “It’s the retreat from within, from our most fundamental values.” Rather than focusing solely on external adversaries, he warned that the erosion of democratic principles—freedom of speech, open debate, and the integrity of elections—presents a far greater and more insidious challenge. These values, he argued, must be actively upheld through practice, not just rhetoric.

Case Study: Buffer Zone Laws in the UK

One of the examples Vance mentioned was the UK’s implementation of “buffer zone” laws around abortion clinics. These laws, enacted under the Public Spaces Protection Orders (PSPOs) framework, criminalize behaviors deemed disruptive, including silent prayer.

The case of Adam Smith Connor exemplifies the reach of these laws. Connor was prosecuted for silently praying near an abortion clinic, with authorities citing his silent prayer as potential influence within the restricted zone. Vance pointed out that such laws raise serious questions about the boundaries of free expression and the ability to peacefully voice dissenting views.

Democratic Integrity Under Siege: The Romanian Election Annulment

Vance expressed alarm over the annulment of a Romanian election based on alleged Russian disinformation. He emphasized that nullifying democratic outcomes due to foreign influence sets a dangerous precedent.

“If a democracy can be undone by a few hundred dollars’ worth of foreign advertisements,” Vance argued, “then it wasn’t very strong to begin with.”

This example underscored the importance of democratic resilience and the risks of undermining public trust in electoral processes.

Sweden: Free Speech and Religious Persecution

In Sweden, a Christian activist faced conviction for participating in Quran burnings—an act that led to tragic consequences, including his friend’s murder. While the Swedish court ruled that freedom of expression does not provide “a free pass to say or do anything without risking offending others,” Vance cautioned that such interpretations open the door to subjective enforcement. This case, he argued, highlights the perils of criminalizing speech that offends, as it risks setting a precedent where authorities determine what is acceptable expression.

EU’s Digital Censorship Agenda

Vance highlighted ongoing discussions within the European Union about controlling social media content during times of unrest. He criticized measures that empower authorities to determine what constitutes “hate speech” or “misinformation,” potentially silencing legitimate dissent. The proposed regulations, he suggested, reflect a growing tendency to suppress rather than engage with controversial ideas.

Germany’s Online Speech Crackdown

Germany, too, has faced scrutiny for its aggressive approach to online content. Police raids targeting individuals for allegedly misogynistic comments serve as examples of a broader issue: the prioritization of subjective notions of harm over objective legal standards. Vance urged caution in pursuing policies that, while intended to protect, risk undermining the fundamental right to free expression.

The United States: The Lab Leak Hypothesis and Censorship

The United States, Vance acknowledged, is not immune to these challenges. He cited past instances where government pressure led social media platforms to suppress discussions on the COVID-19 lab-leak theory. Initially labeled misinformation, the theory has since gained credibility, highlighting the dangers of prematurely silencing certain viewpoints. Vance contrasted these actions with his administration’s commitment to defending free expression, even when it involves contentious or uncomfortable opinions.

Security and Migration: A Democratic Dilemma

Beyond issues of free speech, Vance addressed the impact of migration policies on public safety and trust in democratic institutions. He argued that unchecked migration, implemented without robust public consultation, erodes public confidence in government decision-making. Referencing the recent attack in Munich and similar incidents, he connected these policies to broader security concerns. Vance emphasized that addressing these challenges requires engaging directly with citizens’ anxieties, rather than dismissing or censoring them.

A Call to Recommit to Democracy

In his concluding remarks, Vice President Vance stressed the need for open dialogue, transparent governance, and a renewed commitment to democratic principles. “To believe in democracy is to believe in the wisdom of our citizens,” he said. “We must not fear their voices.”

Rebuilding trust requires open dialogue, transparent governance, and an unwavering commitment to free speech. In a world where misinformation can spread rapidly, the solution lies not in silencing voices but in fostering critical thinking and public discourse.

Vance argued that true security and democratic strength come from embracing, not suppressing, the diversity of voices within a society. He urged leaders to stand firm in defending free speech, ensuring election integrity, and fostering public trust. By doing so, he said, the West can confront not only external adversaries but also the “enemy within”—the impulse to suppress dissent in the name of control. Only through renewed faith in democratic values can we navigate the challenges ahead and secure the future of free societies.

The battle for democracy’s future is not against distant adversaries but against the fear of our own people. The enemy within is not the dissenting voice but the impulse to suppress it.

A Misguided Debate on Free Speech

Marco Rubio’s interview with Margaret Brennan on “Face the Nation” CBS on February 16, 2025.

“Face the Nation” provided yet another arena for the clash of ideas, where Secretary of State Marco Rubio, amidst his travels through Europe and the Middle East, found himself at the center of a contentious debate with the show’s host, Margaret Brennan.

The interview took place against the backdrop of Rubio’s recent visit to Jerusalem, but the conversation pivoted to a more heated topic. Brennan, with her characteristic incisiveness, began to question Rubio about Vice President JD Vance’s speech at the Munich Security Conference.

Brennan stated, referencing Vance’s meeting with a far-right party leader in Germany.

“Well, he was standing in a country where Free Speech was weaponized to conduct a genocide, and he met with the head of a political party that has far-right views and some historic ties to extreme groups. The context of that was changing the tone of it. And you know that, that the censorship was specifically about the right.”

Rubio, not one to shy away from defending core principles, retorted with,

“Well, I have to disagree with you. Free speech was not used to conduct a genocide. The genocide was conducted by an authoritarian Nazi regime that happened to also be genocidal because they hated Jews and they hated minorities and they hated those that they- they had a list of people they hated, but primarily the Jews. There was no free speech in Nazi Germany. There was none. There was also no opposition in Nazi Germany, they were a sole and only party that governed that country. So that’s not an accurate reflection of history.”

But Brennan’s assertion that free speech could be ‘weaponized’ in such a manner was not only historically inaccurate but also fundamentally misunderstood the essence of free speech. Free speech, as Rubio pointed out, is not about granting freedom to propagate hate or enact violence; it’s about the right to express opinions, even controversial ones, in a society that values democracy and open debate.

Rubio continued, emphasizing the importance of free expression,

“Why would our allies or anybody be irritated by free speech and by someone giving their opinion? We are after all democracies. The Munich security conference is largely a conference of democracies in which one of the things that we cherish and value is the ability to speak really and provide your opinions. So I think if anyone’s angry about his word they don’t have to agree with him but to be angry about it I think actually makes his point.”

Brennan’s argument seemed to conflate the misuse of speech by authoritarian regimes for state propaganda with the concept of free speech in democratic societies. Rubio further clarified,

“I thought it was actually a pretty historic speech whether you agree with him or not. I think the valid points he’s making to Europe is we are concerned that the True Values that we share, the values that bind us together with Europe, are things like free speech and democracy… these are the values that we shared in common and in that cold war we fought against things like censorship and oppression.”

The crux of the matter is that free speech isn’t about endorsing or protecting hate speech; it’s about ensuring that no government or entity can silence dissenting voices or control the narrative. Brennan’s perspective, while perhaps well-intentioned in highlighting the dangers of extreme ideologies, missed the point that the antidote to bad speech isn’t censorship but more speech—countering misinformation with truth, hate with tolerance, and ignorance with education.

As Rubio concluded on “Face the Nation,”

“I also think it’s wrong again… the point of his speech was basically that there is an erosion in free speech and intolerance for opposing points of view within Europe, and that’s of concern because that is eroding… that’s an erosion of the actual values that bind us together in this transatlantic Union that everybody talks about.”

In the end, this exchange on “Face the Nation” served as a reminder of the delicate balance democracies must strike in protecting free speech while promoting a society where all voices can be heard, debated, and, if necessary, challenged—not silenced.

Historical Context and Facts:

The claim that “free speech caused World War II” is an oversimplification and misrepresentation of the complex causes that led to the war. Here’s a breakdown to debunk this assertion:

1. Historical Context:

Rise of Totalitarianism: The 1930s saw the rise of totalitarian regimes in Germany (Nazis under Hitler), Italy (Fascists under Mussolini), and Japan (militarists). These regimes suppressed free speech, using propaganda and censorship to control narratives and eliminate dissent. The very essence of Hitler’s control was the suppression of any form of free expression, with the Nazis outlawing all opposition parties by 1933, controlling all media, and using propaganda to maintain power.

2. Causation of WWII:

Treaty of Versailles: The harsh terms imposed on Germany after WWI led to economic instability and resentment, setting the stage for political upheaval.
Economic Depression: The Great Depression of the 1930s exacerbated economic conditions, leading to social unrest and increased support for extremist parties promising change.
Aggressive Expansionism: Germany’s invasion of Poland in 1939 directly precipitated WWII, driven by Hitler’s expansionist ideology and military strategy, not by free speech.
Appeasement and Diplomacy Failures: The policy of appeasement by Western powers, notably the Munich Agreement, allowed Hitler to annex parts of Czechoslovakia without war, emboldening further aggression.
Alliances and Pacts: The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact between Germany and the Soviet Union allowed for the partition of Poland and gave Hitler a free hand in the West.

3. Misuse of Free Speech:

While free speech might have allowed for the spread of Nazi ideology in the early stages, the Nazi regime itself quickly abolished free speech in Germany once in power. The restriction of free speech was a tool used by the Nazis to consolidate power, not a cause of the war. This is evident in the “Enabling Act” of 1933, which effectively ended democracy in Germany by giving Hitler dictatorial powers.

4. Propaganda vs. Free Speech:

The Nazi regime used propaganda to manipulate public opinion, which is distinctly different from free speech. Propaganda under totalitarian regimes is about control and disinformation, not the open exchange of ideas that characterizes true free speech. Goebbels’ Ministry of Propaganda was dedicated to this task.

5. International Dynamics:

The war was also about global power dynamics, colonial ambitions, and the failure of the League of Nations to maintain peace. Free speech in democratic countries like the UK, France, or the US was not a significant factor in these dynamics but rather was curtailed where fascist regimes took hold.

6. Post-War Reflections:

After WWII, the importance of free speech was recognized in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), highlighting its value in preventing the kind of oppression that led to the war, rather than causing it.

In conclusion, while free speech might have allowed for some initial dissemination of extremist views in the Weimar Republic, it was the suppression of free speech and democratic principles under totalitarian regimes, combined with international political failures and economic conditions, that directly contributed to the outbreak of WWII. Free speech, as a democratic value, aims to promote open debate and prevent the kind of authoritarian control that characterized the Axis powers. Therefore, claiming that free speech caused WWII is both historically inaccurate and misleading. Rubio’s defense of free speech in his interview with Brennan was not only a rebuttal but was also backed by historical facts that clearly demonstrate the opposite of Brennan’s assertion.