In a passionate speech at the Munich Security Conference, U.S. Vice Presidential candidate JD Vance criticized European leaders for mimicking the authoritarian regimes they once opposed and overcame.

Vance provided specific instances to substantiate his claims, asserting that Europe is currently nullifying elections and jailing citizens and journalists for voicing legitimate opinions.

He highlighted the annulment of election outcomes in Romania and the potential for similar actions in Germany, along with instances from Brussels, the United Kingdom, and France.

His condemnation was pointed and unambiguous.

He referenced a former European commissioner who expressed satisfaction at the Romanian government’s decision to void a presidential election, cautioning that Germany could soon follow suit.

Vance condemned the actions of European courts and high-ranking officials who have nullified or threatened to nullify elections, likening these actions to the oppressive tactics of previous regimes that suppressed dissent and freedom of expression.

Citing particular incidents, Vance recalled instances where Brussels officials indicated that social media might be shut down during civil unrest and noted police actions in the United Kingdom targeting citizens for anti-feminist posts.

He also drew attention to the sentencing of a Christian activist in Sweden for taking part in a Koran burning and elaborated on how British authorities prosecuted a physiotherapist simply for silently praying near an abortion clinic—a clear illustration, he argued, of Europe's current stance against free expression.

Vance asserted that these actions signify a significant regression from the democratic principles that have historically defined Western societies.

He underscored that such measures, which reflect the tactics of previously vanquished authoritarian adversaries, jeopardize the very essence of democracy.

Vance warned that when a government nullifies elections or criminalizes dissent, it no longer serves to protect its citizens but rather imitates the repressive regimes of the past.

Here’s the complete transcript of JD Vance’s address:

"Thank you, and thanks to all the esteemed delegates, distinguished guests, and media representatives, and especially to the organizers of the Munich Security Conference for hosting such a remarkable event.

We are excited and pleased to be here.

Today, I want to focus on our shared values.

It’s wonderful to return to Germany.

As you may know, I was here last year as a United States Senator.

I met with Foreign Secretary David Lamberty—and we joked about how our roles have changed since then.

But now is the time for all nations, especially those of us fortunate enough to hold political power, to use it wisely for the betterment of our communities.

I had the opportunity to spend time outside the conference walls over the past day.

I have been deeply touched by the warmth of the locals, even as they cope with yesterday’s terrible incident.

The first time I visited Munich was on a personal trip with my wife, who is here with me today.

I have always cherished Munich and its people, and I want to express our heartfelt sentiments.

Our thoughts and prayers are with Munich and all affected by the tragedy that struck this beautiful community.

We are thinking of you, praying for you, and we stand with you in the days and weeks ahead.

Now, I hope that won’t be the last round of applause I receive.

We come together at this conference to address security—typically concerning both external and internal threats.

I see many distinguished military leaders present today.

While the Trump Administration is genuinely concerned about European security and believes we can reach a reasonable resolution regarding Russia and Ukraine, we also think it’s crucial for Europe to make significant strides in self-defense in the coming years.

The internal threat I am most worried about in Europe is not from Russia or China or any foreign entity.

What concerns me is the internal retreat from some of Europe’s foundational values that we share with the United States.

I was taken aback by a former European commissioner who recently appeared on television, exuding joy over the Romanian government's annulment of an entire election.

He cautioned that such developments could potentially unfold in Germany if matters do not proceed as planned.

These nonchalant remarks are deeply shocking to those of us in America.

For years, we have been told that everything we support is in defense of our shared democratic principles—everything from our Ukraine policy to digital censorship is purportedly about upholding democracy.

But when we observe European courts nullifying elections and senior officials threatening to do the same, we must question whether we are maintaining a sufficiently high standard for ourselves.

I say 'ourselves' because I fundamentally believe we are on the same team.

We must go beyond merely discussing democratic values; we need to embody them.

For many of you in this room, within living memory, the Cold War positioned defenders of democracy against far more tyrannical forces on this continent.

Consider the side in that struggle that censored dissenters, closed places of worship, and annulled elections.

Were they the defenders of good?

Absolutely not.

Thank goodness they lost the Cold War—because they neither valued nor respected the extraordinary gifts of liberty: the freedom to be surprised, to make mistakes, to innovate, and to build.

As it turns out, innovation or creativity cannot be mandated, just as one cannot compel individuals on how to think, feel, or believe, and we know these elements are intrinsically connected.

Sadly, when I survey Europe today, it is sometimes unclear what has transpired among some of those who prevailed in the Cold War.

I look to Brussels, where EU commissioners cautioned that social media might be shutdown during periods of civil unrest if they detect what they deem 'hateful content.' I observe a country where police have executed raids on individuals suspected of voicing anti-feminist sentiments online as a part of 'combating online misogyny.' I turn to Sweden, where just two weeks ago, authorities convicted a Christian activist for engaging in Koran burnings linked to the murder of his friend, with the ruling judge grimly noting that Sweden's laws safeguarding free expression do not grant immunity from causing offense.

And perhaps most troubling, I look to our dear friends in the United Kingdom, where the decline in conscience rights has put the fundamental liberties of religious Britons particularly at risk.

A little over two years ago, the British government charged Adam Smith Connor—a 51-year-old physiotherapist and army veteran—with the outrageous crime of praying silently for three minutes, 50 meters from an abortion clinic.

He was not obstructing anyone or interacting with anyone—just silently praying alone.

When law enforcement in the UK questioned him about his prayers, Adam explained it was for his unborn son, a child he and his former partner had aborted years prior.

The officers were unmoved.

Adam was found guilty of violating the government's new buffer zones law—which criminalizes silent prayer and other acts that could be seen as influencing decisions within 200 meters of an abortion facility—and was sentenced to pay thousands of pounds in legal costs to the prosecution.

I wish I could claim this was an isolated, bizarre example of poorly crafted legislation affecting a single individual, but it is not.

Just last October, the Scottish government began sending out letters to residents in designated 'safe access zones,' advising them that even private prayer within their own homes could be unlawful.

Naturally, the government urged recipients to report any fellow citizens suspected of 'thought crimes' in Britain and beyond.

I am concerned that free speech is under siege.

In the interests of honesty and humor, I must admit that the loudest advocates for censorship have sometimes originated not from Europe but from within my own country—where the previous administration threatened and pressured social media companies to censor what it considered 'misinformation,' including the notion that the coronavirus may have leaked from a lab in China.

Our government encouraged private companies to stifle voices that dared to express what turned out to be an undeniable truth.

Thus, I come here today not merely with an observation but with a proposal.

Just as the prior administration seemed eager to silence individuals for expressing their views, the Trump Administration will decidedly do the opposite.

I hope we can collaborate on this front.

In Washington, there is new leadership, and under Donald Trump's guidance, while we may disagree with your positions, we will defend your right to express them in the public sphere—whether we agree or not.

Now, we have reached such a critical juncture that this December, Romania outright canceled the results of a presidential election based on flimsy allegations from an intelligence agency and significant pressure from neighboring countries.

As I understand it, the claim was that Russian misinformation had tainted the Romanian elections.

I would urge my European friends to gain some perspective.

You may view it as unacceptable for Russia to purchase social media ads to sway your elections—we certainly agree, and you can denounce it globally.

However, if your democracy can be dismantled by a few hundred dollars' worth of digital advertising from abroad, then it clearly was not very robust to start with.

The encouraging news is that I genuinely believe your democracies are far less fragile than many fear.

I firmly believe that allowing your citizens to express their thoughts will only strengthen them further.

This, of course, brings us back to Munich, where the conference organizers have barred lawmakers from populist parties on both the left and the right from these discussions.

We don’t need to agree with everything or anything that others express, but when political leaders represent a significant constituency, we have a responsibility to engage in dialogue with them.

To many of us across the Atlantic, it now seems that old, entrenched interests are concealing themselves behind harsh, Soviet-era terminology like 'misinformation' and 'disinformation'—terms used to suppress alternative viewpoints, to stifle diverse opinions, or, heaven forbid, to thwart a different vote, even a victorious one.

This is a security conference, and I assume you all arrived prepared to discuss how to boost defense spending over the coming years per new targets.

President Trump has made it unmistakably clear that our European allies must assume greater responsibility for the future of this continent.

We do not use the term 'burden sharing' lightly; it is a fundamental aspect of being part of a shared alliance, one in which Europe must rise to the occasion while America focuses on regions of the world facing critical dangers.

But let me ask you this: How will you begin to tackle budgeting challenges if you do not clearly understand what it is you are defending in the first place?

I've engaged in many fruitful conversations in this room about what needs defending, which is critically important.

However, what has been less apparent to me—and to countless citizens of Europe—is what precisely you are defending.

What positive vision drives this collective security arrangement that we all deem so crucial?

I firmly believe there is no security if you fear the voices, opinions, and consciences of your own populace.

Europe is facing numerous challenges, but the crisis currently confronting this continent—the crisis we all share—is one of our own creation.

If you are operating in fear of your own electorate, there is little America can do for you, nor can you assist the American citizens who elected me and President Trump.

You require democratic mandates to achieve any valuable objectives in the approaching years.

Have we not learned anything?

Weak mandates yield unstable outcomes.

A great deal can be accomplished with a democratic mandate derived from being more attuned to the voices of your citizens.

If you seek competitive economies, affordable energy, and secure supply chains, you need mandates to govern because tough choices will need to be made to accomplish these aims—and we understand this well in America.

You cannot secure a democratic mandate by censoring your adversaries or imprisoning them, whether they are the opposition leader, an ordinary Christian praying in her home, or a journalist simply trying to report news.

Nor can you attain one by sidelining your core electorate on matters such as who belongs in our shared society.

The urgency of mass migration is paramount.

Currently, nearly one in five individuals living in this country were born abroad—an unprecedented level.

Similarly, in the United States, immigration is occurring at an all-time high.

In the EU, immigration from non-EU nations doubled between 2021 and 2022, and has risen even further since then.

We recognize that this situation did not arise in isolation; it is the outcome of a series of deliberate decisions made by politicians across this continent and globally over the past decade.

We witnessed the consequences of these choices just yesterday in this very city, and I cannot mention it again without thinking of the innocent victims whose lovely winter day in Munich was shattered.

Our thoughts and prayers remain with them.

But why did this occur in the first instance?

It is a horrifying tale, one we have heard too often in Europe and regrettably, too many times in the United States as well.

An asylum seeker—often a young man in his mid-20s, already known to law enforcement—drives a vehicle into a crowd and devastates a community.

How many times must we endure these shocking tragedies before we change course and steer our shared civilization in a different direction?

No voter on this continent cast a ballot to open the doors to millions of unvetted immigrants.

In England, they opted for Brexit, and whether one agrees or disagrees, that is what they chose.

Increasingly across Europe, citizens are voting for political leaders who pledge to terminate uncontrolled migration.

I concur with many of these concerns, but you may not share my viewpoint.

I believe the people care deeply about their homes, their dreams, their safety, and their ability to provide for themselves and their families—and they are wise.

This is one of the crucial lessons I have gleaned during my brief political career.

Contrary to what you may hear a few mountains over in Davos, the citizens of all our nations do not typically see themselves as educated animals or interchangeable parts in a global machine.

It is hardly surprising that they do not want to be shuffled around or persistently overlooked by their leaders.

It is the role of democracy to navigate these significant questions at the ballot box.

I maintain that dismissing people, minimizing their concerns, or—worse—shutting down media, annulling elections, or excluding individuals from the political arena is counterproductive.

In fact, it is the surest path to dismantling democracy.

Speaking up and voicing opinions does not constitute election interference, even when these views emanate from outside your borders, even when the speakers hold influential positions.

Believe me when I say this humorously: if American democracy can endure a decade of Greta Thunberg's critiques, it can withstand a few months of Elon Musk.

However, what German democracy—no, democracy of any kind, whether American, German, or European—can endure is a system that informs millions of voters that their thoughts, concerns, aspirations, and requests for relief are invalid or unworthy of consideration.

Democracy hinges on the sacred idea that the voice of the people is significant.

There is no space for barriers—you must either uphold this tenet or not.

European citizens, your voices matter.

European leaders face a choice, and I firmly believe we need not fear the future.

You can embrace what your people communicate to you, even if it is unexpected or contrary to your beliefs.

If you do, you can approach the future with assurance and confidence, knowing that the nation stands united behind each of you.

To me, that is the authentic essence of democracy.

It is not found in monumental edifices or elegant hotels, nor is it present in the esteemed institutions we have collaboratively constructed as a society.

To believe in democracy is to acknowledge that every citizen holds wisdom and voice—and if we disregard that voice, even our most successful struggles will yield little.

As Pope John Paul II once stated, 'Do not be afraid.' We should not be afraid of our citizens, even when they express opinions that diverge from their leadership.

Thank you all, and best wishes to each of you.

God bless you, ladies and gentlemen."