The Munich Security Conference brought some good news: the transatlantic relationship did not worsen dramatically. After last year’s shock, when JD Vance stunned attendees with a direct U.S. attack on Europe’s liberal democracies, many found Marco Rubio’s seemingly more conciliatory tone this year “reassuring”—including veteran German diplomat and conference chair Wolfgang Ischinger. In fact, the U.S. secretary of state received a standing ovation, likely more out of relief than admiration. But has the Trump administration’s message to Europe really changed from Vance’s assault twelve months ago? What traps are being set, and what lessons should Europeans learn?
A year ago, Vance accused Europe of surrendering to the supposed tyranny and censorship of “woke” liberals and losing sight of the cultural bonds across the Atlantic. His attack puzzled European leaders, who—though often focused on internal struggles—do not see free speech restrictions as a primary concern. The U.S. vice president shocked Munich by insisting Europe’s greatest threat was the woke “threat from within,” even as he endorsed far-right nationalists like Germany’s AfD. The insult cut so deep that this year, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz used his opening address to bluntly warn against American unilateralist values, declaring that “the culture war of the Maga movement is not ours.”
Eager for reassurance, Europeans looked for any sign of transatlantic solidarity in Rubio’s speech. The secretary of state offered warm words, celebrating shared cultural heritage, history, and specifically Western Christianity. He described the U.S. as a “child of Europe” and claimed America was not interested in managing Western decline but instead determined to lead a Western civilizational renaissance.
Beneath the surface, however, Rubio’s speech this year and Vance’s in 2025 were two sides of the same coin. Vance’s was crude, outrageous, even silly—claiming Europe’s biggest problem is a lack of free speech is ridiculous at a time when democracy is backsliding in most of the world.
Rubio’s speech was more subtle and coherent, but he essentially delivered the same message: Washington still believes Europe and the U.S. should be defined by ethno-political values of culture, tradition, and religion. The fact that this history also produced nationalism, racism, fascism, and colonialism seems to be nothing to be ashamed of.
In Europe, many thought we had moved on, defining the continent in opposition to its past—embracing civic and Enlightenment values like democracy, human rights, the rule of law, multilateralism, inclusion, and integration, while rejecting the scourge of nationalism. But for the standard-bearers of the Maga movement, nationalism is something to celebrate. The rules-based order isn’t just dead, as European leaders themselves recognize; in Rubio’s words, it is outright “foolish.”
But if Western civilization is to be nurtured without rules, the vision Rubio outlined is fundamentally one of empire. In this view, the Americas and Europe are bound by ancestry and religion—“connected spiritually,” as Rubio said. Proud nationalist forces on both sides of the Atlantic must jointly battle globalism, cancel culture, and the “civilizational erasure” that mass migration supposedly threatens.
Yet this “Western century” would be marked by raw power, exercised first and foremost within the empire itself by the strong—the United States—against the weak: small and medium-sized European countries, Canada, and South American states. Within the empire, institutions like NATO can and should exist. But the U.S. intention is clear: you pay up—which is…It’s fair that we still call the shots, but it shouldn’t be. There will be other empires in the world, including Russia and China, and the American empire will compete with them. Yet it is also ready to cooperate, perhaps even collude, especially if the price for collusion is to be paid by its colonial subjects.
Rubio’s message was more sophisticated and strategic than Vance’s. But it was just as dangerous, if not more so, precisely because it lowered the transatlantic temperature and may have lulled Europe into a false sense of calm. As Benjamin Haddad, France’s Europe minister, said in Munich, the European temptation may be to press the snooze button once again.
There are good reasons to believe this will not happen. Merz, along with Emmanuel Macron, Keir Starmer, Pedro Sánchez and the European Commission chief, Ursula von der Leyen, all spoke of the need for European independence, for giving substance to the EU treaty’s article 42.7—a pledge of mutual assistance in the event of attack—and for a Europeanised NATO. As von der Leyen put it, the lines that have been crossed cannot be uncrossed. Russia’s war on Ukraine, which approaches its fourth anniversary, added a sense of urgency. So did the sober reminder from the Danish prime minister, Mette Frederiksen, that the US threat to Greenland has not gone away.
While European resolve and collective action will most likely continue, the bulk of the energy will be devoted to working within existing transatlantic frameworks, especially NATO. This should indeed be a key strand of work. The fact that the UK and Italy are each taking over NATO commands from the US signals an important step toward establishing a European “pillar” within the defence alliance. The US will remain critical, providing command and control, specialised capabilities and, above all, the nuclear umbrella. Diplomats believe that at the end of this journey NATO will look very different, with the US representing an estimated fifth or less of its military capacity, down from just under half today.
However, if the US is driven by an imperial vision in which its strategic interests diverge from Europe’s—if Washington no longer considers Vladimir Putin’s Russia a national security threat—should Europeans pin their security hopes exclusively on a Europeanised NATO?
A European pillar within NATO is the most effective route to a secure Europe as the US scales back responsibility for the continent’s defence. It is certainly far more achievable than turning the EU into a military alliance or even defending Europe through formalised coalitions of the willing and able.
But in practice, it cannot guarantee European security if the US pursues its current imperial trajectory. If Europeans were comforted by a false sense of reassurance as they walked away from the packed Bayerischer Hof hotel in Munich, they risk walking straight into the trap that Maga America has laid for them.
Nathalie Tocci is a Guardian Europe columnist
Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
Frequently Asked Questions
Of course Here is a list of FAQs about Senator Marco Rubios recent speech to Europe framed in a natural tone with direct answers
Beginner General Questions
1 What was the main point of Marco Rubios speech to Europe
The main point was a stark warning that the United States primary focus is on competition with China and that Europe must take on a much larger more independent role in its own defense and global affairs rather than relying on America
2 Why are people saying his speech was reassuring was anything but
The phrase suggests that while some might expect a speech from a US leader to be a comforting promise of American support Rubios message was the opposite a blunt statement that Europe can no longer count on the same level of US protection and must fend for itself more aggressively
3 Who was Rubio speaking to
He was speaking at the Hudson Institutes Europe Forum an event attended by European diplomats policymakers and security experts
4 Is Rubio speaking for the entire US government
No As a US Senator he was giving his own perspective and that of a significant faction within American foreign policy However his views on prioritizing competition with China and urging European strategic autonomy reflect a growing bipartisan sentiment in Washington
Advanced Analytical Questions
5 What did he mean by saying the US is in a prewar phase
He meant that the US and its rivals are actively positioning themselves economically militarily and technologically for a prolonged period of intense conflict and competition which could escalate into actual warfare Its a call to urgent action and mindset shift
6 How does this speech relate to past US policy and NATO
It represents a significant shift PostWWII US policy has been the bedrock of European security via NATO Rubios speech challenges that decadesold assumption pushing Europe toward what is often called strategic autonomybuilding its own capable integrated defense force separate from US leadership
7 What specific actions did Rubio suggest Europe take
He urged Europe to 1 Dramatically increase defense spending and integrate its military industries 2 Take the lead on its own regional security and 3
