In a powerful speech at the Munich Security Conference, U.S. Vice Presidential candidate JD Vance lambasted European leaders for acting like the authoritarian regimes they once resisted and overcame.

Vance presented specific examples, contending that Europe is now canceling elections and incarcerating citizens and journalists for voicing valid opinions.

He referenced the annulment of election results in Romania, the potential for similar actions in Germany, and cited instances from Brussels, the United Kingdom, and France.

Vance's criticism was unapologetic.

He cited a former European commissioner who expressed satisfaction over the Romanian government invalidating a presidential election, cautioning that such actions could soon extend to Germany.

He condemned the decisions of European courts and high-ranking officials who have either nullified or threatened to revoke elections, likening these practices to the oppressive methods of historical regimes that once silenced dissent and free expression.

Mentioning particular events, Vance recalled how Brussels officials indicated that social media could be prohibited during civil disturbances and pointed out police operations in the United Kingdom targeting individuals accused of sharing anti-feminist views online.

He also brought attention to the conviction of a Christian activist in Sweden for participating in a Koran burning, and illustrated how British authorities charged a physiotherapist for silently praying near an abortion clinic—a striking example, he argued, of Europe's current intolerance for free expression.

Vance claimed that these actions signify a severe regression from the democratic ideals that have long been the cornerstone of Western societies.

He emphasized that such measures, echoing the tactics of previously defeated authoritarian adversaries, pose a risk to the very essence of democracy.

Vance warned that when a government nullifies elections or criminalizes dissent, it ceases to safeguard its citizens and instead mirrors the oppressive regimes of the past.

Below is the complete transcript of JD Vance’s address:

"Thank you to everyone present, including the delegates, notable figures, media professionals, and especially the hosts of the Munich Security Conference for organizing such an outstanding event.

We are, of course, delighted to be here.

Today, I want to discuss our shared values.

It’s wonderful to be back in Germany.

As mentioned earlier, I visited last year as a United States Senator.

I met Foreign Secretary David Lamberty, and we joked about our different positions compared to last year.

However, now is the time for our nations, all those who have been granted political authority by our people, to wield it wisely to enhance their citizens’ lives.

I want to express how fortunate I was to spend time beyond the confines of this conference over the last day.

I have been deeply impressed by the hospitality of the populace, even as they cope with yesterday's terrible attack.

My first visit to Munich was a personal trip with my wife, who is with me today.

I have always cherished the city of Munich and its residents, and I want to convey that we are genuinely touched.

Our thoughts and prayers are with Munich and all those impacted by the abhorrent events that have marred this beautiful community.

We are thinking of you, praying for you, and will continue to support you in the days and weeks ahead.

Now, I hope that’s not the last round of applause I receive.

We convene at this conference, of course, to talk about security—usually threats to our external and internal safety.

I see many distinguished military leaders assembled here today.

While the Trump Administration is deeply invested in European security and believes a reasonable resolution can be found between Russia and Ukraine, we also believe it is crucial for Europe to significantly enhance its own defense capabilities in the years to come.

The internal threat I am most concerned about in Europe is not Russia, China, or any other external force.

What worries me is the withdrawal of Europe from some of its core values—values that are shared with the United States of America.

I was taken aback by a former European commissioner who recently appeared on television, expressing pleasure that the Romanian government had annulled an entire election.

He alarmingly noted that if things don’t proceed as expected, a similar fate could befall Germany.

Such casual remarks are startling to American ears.

For years, we have been told that all our funding and support are in the name of our shared democratic values—everything from our Ukraine policy to digital censorship is framed as a defense of democracy.

But when we observe European courts declaring elections void and high-ranking officials hinting at canceling others, we ought to question whether we are maintaining an adequately high standard for ourselves.

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

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

Within the living memory of many in this room, the Cold War pitted defenders of democracy against far more tyrannical forces on this continent.

Consider the side that silenced dissenters, shuttered churches, and canceled elections.

Were they the virtuous ones?

Absolutely not.

Thank goodness they lost the Cold War—because they held neither the esteem nor the respect for the extraordinary blessings of liberty: the freedom to be surprised, to err, to innovate, and to build.

As it turns out, you cannot legislate innovation or creativity, just as you cannot constrain people in what to think, feel, or believe, and we believe these elements are undoubtedly interlinked.

Regrettably, as I observe Europe today, it is sometimes hard to discern what has happened to some of the Cold War victors.

I look to Brussels, where EU commissioners cautioned that they plan to shut down social media during civil unrest the instant they identify what they deem to be 'hateful content.' I note a country where police have executed raids against citizens suspected of sharing anti-feminist sentiments online as part of 'combating online misogyny.' I reflect on Sweden, where just weeks ago, the government found a Christian activist guilty for involvement in Koran burnings that led to the murder of his friend, with the judge chillingly stating that Sweden's laws, designed to protect free expression, do not actually provide immunity to act or speak without risking offense.

Most alarmingly, I consider our close allies in the United Kingdom, where the regression away from conscience rights has jeopardized the fundamental freedoms of religious Britons.

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

He interacted with no one nor obstructed anyone—merely praying quietly by himself.

When law enforcement observed him and inquired what he was praying for, Adam simply stated it was for his unborn son, a child he and his former partner had aborted years prior.

The officers were unimpressed.

Adam was found guilty of violating the government's newly implemented buffer zones law—which makes silent prayer and other actions that could influence a person's decision within 200 meters of an abortion facility illegal—and he was ordered to pay thousands of pounds in legal fees to the prosecution.

I wish I could claim this was an isolated, absurd example of poorly drafted legislation impacting an individual. Unfortunately, it is not.

This past October, just a few months ago, the Scottish government began sending notices to residents whose homes fall within so-called safe access zones, warning them that even private prayer within their own residences could constitute a legal violation.

Naturally, the government urged recipients of these letters to report any fellow citizen suspected of engaging in 'thought crime' in Britain and across Europe.

I fear that the essence of free speech is in retreat.

In both a humorous and truthful sense, I must concede that at times, the most vociferous advocates for censorship have emerged not from within Europe but from my own homeland—where the previous administration menaced and pressured social media companies to suppress so-called 'misinformation,' like the notion that the coronavirus likely originated from a lab in China.

Our own government incentivized private entities to silence individuals who dared express what became evident truths.

Thus, I come here today not only to observe but also to extend an invitation.

While the prior administration seemed intent on silencing voices for speaking freely, the Trump Administration will do the exact opposite.

I hope we can work collaboratively on this.

In Washington, a new sheriff has arrived, and under Donald Trump's leadership, we may disagree with your opinions, but we will defend your right to express them publicly—whether we agree or not.

Now, we have reached a point where the situation has become so alarming that this December, Romania outright voided the results of a presidential election based on flimsy suspicions from an intelligence agency and substantial pressure from its continental neighbors.

As I understand it, the claim was that Russian disinformation had infiltrated the Romanian elections.

I urge my European friends to gain some perspective.

You may believe that it is inappropriate for Russia to purchase social media advertisements to sway your elections—we certainly do—and you may condemn this on the global stage.

But if your democracy can be dismantled with a few hundred dollars’ worth of foreign digital advertising, then it was never very robust to begin with.

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

I truly believe that permitting our citizens to express their thoughts will only strengthen them further.

This, of course, brings us back to Munich, where the organizers of this conference have prohibited lawmakers from populist parties on both ends of the spectrum from participating in discussions.

We do not need to share consensus on everything or even anything with those we engage with, yet when political leaders represent significant constituencies, it is our obligation to at least partake in dialogue with them.

To many of us across the ocean, it now seems that entrenched interests are cowering behind terms reminiscent of the Soviet era like 'misinformation' and 'disinformation'—terms employed to suppress alternative perspectives, to silence differing opinions, or, heaven forbid, to prevent a different vote, even a victorious one.

This is a security conference, and I am certain that you all arrived prepared to deliberate on how to enhance defense funding over the coming years, aligning with newly established goals.

President Trump has made it abundantly clear that our European allies must assume a more significant role in the future of this continent.

We do not use the term 'burden sharing' lightly; it forms an essential component of being part of a shared alliance, where Europeans enhance their contributions while America focuses on regions in dire peril.

But let me pose a question: How will you begin to tackle budgeting concerns if you are unaware of what exactly you are defending in the first place?

I have engaged in numerous fruitful conversations here regarding what you need to defend against, which is undoubtedly significant.

However, what has been less obvious to me—and to many citizens across Europe—is what precisely you are defending.

What is the affirmative vision that animates this collective security arrangement that we all regard as vital?

I firmly believe there is no security if you fear the voices, opinions, and consciences that govern your own people.

Europe faces myriad challenges, but the crisis this continent currently endures—the crisis we all face collectively—is one we have created ourselves.

If you are in trepidation of your own voters, there is nothing America can offer you, nor can you do anything for the American populace who elected me and President Trump.

You require democratic mandates to achieve anything of consequence in the forthcoming years.

Have we learned nothing?

Weak mandates yield unstable outcomes.

There is so much that can be realized with a democratic mandate that stems from being more attuned to the voices of your citizens.

If you aspire to enjoy competitive economies, affordable energy, and secure supply chains, then you need mandates to govern, as difficult decisions must be made to attain these objectives—and we are acutely aware of that in America.

You cannot secure a democratic mandate by censoring your opponents or imprisoning them, whether they are the opposition leader, a humble Christian praying quietly in her home, or a journalist striving to report the news.

Nor can you win one by disregarding your core electorate regarding who gets to participate in our shared society.

There is nothing more pressing than mass migration.

Currently, almost one in five people residing in this country are immigrants—an unprecedented high.

Similarly, the United States is also experiencing record numbers of new immigrants.

In the EU, the number of immigrants from non-EU countries doubled from 2021 to 2022, and it has climbed even higher since then.

We recognize that this situation did not arise in a vacuum; it is the result of a series of deliberate choices made by politicians across this continent and around the world over the last decade.

We witnessed the horrific consequences of these decisions yesterday in this very city, and I cannot revisit that without considering the innocent victims whose delightful winter day in Munich was overshadowed.

Our thoughts and prayers remain with them.

But why did this transpire in the first place?

It is a tragic narrative, one we have heard too frequently in Europe and, regrettably, far too often in the United States as well.

An asylum seeker—typically a young man in his 20s, already familiar to law enforcement—plows a vehicle into a crowd and devastates a community.

How many times must we endure these distressing setbacks before we alter our trajectory and steer our shared civilization in a new direction?

No voter on this continent went to the polls intending to open the floodgates to millions of unvetted immigrants.

In England, they voted for Brexit, and whether you agree or disagree, they cast that vote.

Increasingly across Europe, citizens are opting for political leaders who pledge to curtail unchecked migration.

I personally resonate with many of these apprehensions, but you need not share my views.

I believe people care about their homes, their aspirations, their safety, and their ability to provide for themselves and their children—and they are insightful.

This is one of the most vital lessons that I have absorbed during my brief time in politics.

Contrary to what you might hear from a couple of mountains over in Davos, the citizens of all our nations do not generally perceive themselves as mere educated animals or interchangeable components in a global economy.

It isn’t surprising that they do not wish to be shuffled around or continuously overlooked by their leaders.

It is the essence of democracy to address these significant questions at the ballot box.

I believe that disregarding people, dismissing their concerns, or—worse yet—shutting down media, nullifying elections, or excluding individuals from the political dialogue safeguards nothing.

In fact, it is the most certain method of dismantling democracy.

Speaking out and sharing opinions is not interference in elections, even when those viewpoints originate from outside your own country, even when those individuals are influential.

Trust me when I express this with all jest: if American democracy can endure a decade of Greta Thunberg’s admonitions, you can withstand a few months of Elon Musk.

However, what German democracy—no democracy, whether American, German, or European—will survive is a system that tells millions of voters that their thoughts, concerns, aspirations, and appeals for relief are insignificant or unworthy of consideration.

Democracy is grounded in the sacred principle that the people's voice matters.

There is no space for barriers—you either uphold that principle or you do not.

Europeans, the people have a voice.

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

You can welcome what your people communicate, even when it surprises you or when it contradicts your views.

If you do so, you can face the future with assurance and confidence, knowing that the nation stands with each of you.

To me, that embodies the true magic of democracy.

It is not found in monumental buildings or elegant hotels, nor is it solely in the grand institutions we have established together as a shared society.

To believe in democracy is to recognize that each of our citizens possesses wisdom and a voice—and should we refuse to heed that voice, even our most successful endeavors will yield very little.

As Pope John Paul II once said, 'Do not be afraid.' We should have no fear of our people, even when they express perspectives that diverge from their leadership.

Thank you all, and best of luck to everyone.

God bless you, ladies and gentlemen."