Is JD Vance the Greatest Danger in Trumpland 2.0?

Illustration by Will Allen/Europinion

Barely two months into Donald Trump’s second stint in the White House it is becoming increasingly apparent that Trumpland 2.0 will be even more turbulent than its previous iteration, not least because, whereas in 2017 Trump assumed the Presidency in more peaceful times, in 2025 conflicts rage in Europe and the Middle East. 

Already, there have been warm words for Vladimir Putin, along with admonishments of Volodymyr Zelensky and European allies. Trump has floated the idea of taking Greenland by force while suggesting Canada should become America’s 51st state.

This isn’t surprising. If Trump’s first term proved anything, it is that he is volatile and admires strongman leaders like Putin. It was unlikely a four-year gap would have changed this.

However, there are differences. Trump’s previous Vice President, Mike Pence, was a relatively peripheral figure in the administration. Chosen in an attempt to win the evangelical vote, Pence rarely attempted to provoke or make the headlines. Fast forward to 2025, and Trump’s VP, JD Vance, is a very different kettle of fish. A figure some believed would be quickly sidelined following the election. Instead, Vance’s prominence is growing as he makes the headlines for criticising European allies and accusing Niall Ferguson of “historical illiteracy.”

It is Vance who has arguably been the more inflammatory of America’s two highest-ranking officials. His speech at the Munich Security Council sent alarm bells ringing around Europe as he admonished governments for neglecting the “threat from within”, citing suppression of free speech and immigration as greater security risks than the likes of Putin.

Then, in an otherwise cordial meeting in front of the cameras between the U.S. President and the UK Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, it was Vance who aimed an unprompted dig at Starmer, telling those assembled that the U.S. “know there have been infringements on free speech” in the UK. Starmer quickly rebutted this claim.

In the now infamous spat between Trump and Zelensky in the Oval Office, it was Vance’s interjection which prompted the meeting’s sour turn. Until then, while not exactly amiable, the meeting had progressed without incident. Vance appeared set on changing that.

So we are left with a question. Is Vance’s ‘attack dog’ role one he has been assigned by the President? Or is it something more calculated by a man who undoubtedly will have his eyes set on the top role in 2028? 

To assess this, it is important to note the difference in Vance’s background from Trump’s. Whereas Trump’s life has been spent in the real estate business and reality TV, Vance studied politics and philosophy before receiving a law degree from Yale. He then worked in politics and law, and as a venture capitalist in Silicon Valley under the highly influential and avowed enemy of liberal democracy Peter Thiel.

Unlike Trump, Vance has clear, defined ideological roots. Where Trump cares about media coverage and ratings, a former classmate of Vance’s describes Vance as “his own thinker,” who he believed “had the potential to reshape conservative politics.” This is a man who has had ambitions of putting his stamp on American politics and a vision of how to do so.

It is for this reason Vance is the more dangerous of the two. Trump has an explosive personality but, as Starmer and Emmanuel Macron proved, he can be charmed with the right approach. Tariffs placed on Mexico were rowed back after Trump spoke to Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum on the phone. There is a lot of bluster and a lot of all-caps social media posts, but if you play Trump right, there is the opportunity for a more cordial relationship.

Vance appears less susceptible to this. He is well-read and has spoken in depth about the thinkers who have influenced his worldview, such as the anti-democratic and monarchist Curtis Yarvin, co-founder of the Dark Enlightenment, a neo-reactionary phenomenon best understood as a deeply misanthropic cybernetic totalitarianism. Vance has stated the right should “seize institutions from the left, and turn them against [them]” in a similar way to the “de-Baathification program” and “fire every civil servant in the administrative state, replace them with our people.” He exudes calmness in his manner and delivery while espousing radical views which risk destabilising Western democracy. Vance is a true isolationist, committed to America-first doctrines, having famously stated in 2022 that he doesn’t “really care what happens to Ukraine one way or another.”

He also seems to have perfected working alongside Trump. Support everything he says and allow him the limelight and opportunities will arise to advance your own agenda. The Trump-Starmer meeting was, for the most part, about Trump receiving the rare invitation of a second state visit, but Vance chose his moment to bring up free speech, neglecting the fact that those arrested in the UK were done so for inciting violence.

Of course, this wouldn’t be of much use to Vance if Trump didn’t approve of similar ideas. But Yarvin’s “dark enlightenment” philosophy, which influences Vance (and Musk), plays into the MAGA base’s views and aligns with Trump’s own interests, allowing Vance room to push his vision for America.

The church of Trump has always revolved around one man only. Whether Trump really cares about what comes after him is questionable, but a transition to Vance in 2028 would signal a change in MAGA, merging it into a more strategic movement based on an ideology rather than an individual. This is why JD Vance and those who influence him are who we should be more weary of. The Dark Enlightenment movement plans to permanently reshape American society by seizing the institutions, gutting the civil service and pulling the U.S. away from its Western allies. The world can hopefully survive four more years of Trump, but if Vance is able to continue this project with greater purpose, then Western democracy might be irreparably damaged.