Can JD Vance reshape MAGA? His recent actions appear to represent a broader ideological shift in how parts of the U.S. understand democracy, aligning more with illiberal systems and challenging traditional democratic norms.
On April 13th, as Hungarian voters removed Prime Minister Viktor Orbán from power after sixteen years, an American politician stood unusually close to the story. Just days before the election, JD Vance had traveled to Hungary and openly supported Orbán’s leadership.
It was an attention-grabbing moment. For decades, the United States has positioned itself as a global advocate of liberal democracy, often criticizing leaders accused of undermining it. Vance’s intervention, however, was not just a break from diplomatic norms, but indicative of a shift in how Americans define democracy itself.
After 16 years in power, Orbán’s loss marks a monumental moment for Hungary. For years, the country has been associated with democratic backsliding, largely due to Orbán’s consolidation of power, nationalist rhetoric, and increasing control over institutions. Hungary is now classified as “Partly Free,” with a democracy score that has steadily declined due to concerns over media independence, judicial autonomy, and electoral fairness. Political scientists have gone further, describing Hungary as an “illiberal democracy” or even an “electoral autocracy,” one in which elections still occur, but the playing field is heavily skewed in favor of those in power.
Hungary has also been pushed to the margins of the European Union after repeated clashes with other nations over vetoing aid to Ukraine and accusations of aligning too closely with Russia in negotiations. In response, the EU has frozen billions in funding, citing violations of rule-of-law standards and systemic corruption concerns.
Interestingly, albeit not that surprisingly, Orbán received support from Donald Trump and JD Vance, largely because of his alignment with conservative, nationalist ideology through his party, Fidesz. If he were a left-leaning leader with the same record, the Trump Administration’s treatment of him would likely be very different. Instead, many of Orbán’s actions have been framed as simply “what’s best for the nation,” by Vance.
There are policy parallels between Hungary and parts of the U.S. — especially on immigration and national identity. But Hungary’s international reputation as a country moving away from liberal democracy makes this a different kind of alignment. When a figure like JD Vance openly supports a leader associated with democratic erosion, it raises questions about whether the United States is moving toward this model. Is there a growing willingness within parts of the American right to embrace a version of democracy that looks very different from the one the United States has traditionally promoted? Vance criticized the EU for what he described as “interference” in Hungary’s internal politics, defending Orbán against accusations of democratic backsliding.
What we are seeing is ideological alignment across borders.
There is a segment of MAGA voters who admire Orbán’s style of governance. But others, even within conservative media like Fox News, have expressed skepticism about Vance’s decision to travel to Hungary just days before the election.
At the same time, Orbán’s loss complicates the narrative. If this was an attempt to legitimize a more illiberal version of democracy, it failed in Hungary. Voters rejected another term under a leader associated with anti-LGBTQ policies, anti-immigration stances, and corruption concerns.
But the question is how much of that platform resonates elsewhere.
The U.S. lacks an external body like the European Union to hold it accountable. The EU has mechanisms, such as financial pressure, legal challenges, and public criticism, that it has used to push back against Hungary when it strayed from agreed-upon democratic standards. Membership comes with conditions, and Hungary has repeatedly been warned or penalized for failing to meet them.
JD Vance, however, framed the EU’s actions as unfair interference, arguing they were targeting Orbán simply because its members “don’t like him.” He’s right:, they don’t. But the criticism is rooted in specific concerns about the rule of law and democratic norms.
We have seen this before in American politics: framing opposition as persecution and turning criticism into proof of victimhood. That narrative didn’t ultimately secure Orbán another victory. But could it work differently in the U.S.?
Internationally, the U.S. is already facing criticism over its own democratic challenges; however, domestically, that criticism often has little impact on political loyalty or any further actions of the executive branch. The parallels are hard to ignore: strong nationalism, anti-immigration policies, distrust of institutions.
So what happens if a system like Hungary’s doesn’t just inspire from afar, but begins to take shape more concretely in the United States?
For now, JD Vance’s effort doesn’t appear to have been particularly successful. But the Republican Party has already undergone a significant transformation in recent years. And given that trajectory, it’s not unreasonable to ask what comes next.
The Zeitgeist aims to publish ideas worth discussing. The views presented are solely those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect the views of the editorial board.