“I won’t tell the people of Hungary how to vote,” said JD Vance on Tuesday. The US vice-president was addressing a press conference at the beginning of his visit to Budapest this week, ahead of crucial parliamentary elections on Sunday.
That, however, is exactly what he did at a later rally of supporters of the governing far-right Fidesz party, led by incumbent prime minister Viktor Orbán.
“We’ve got to get Viktor Orbán re-elected as prime minister of Hungary, don’t we?” said Vance. He praised the Hungarian premier as a defender of western civilisation and champion of national sovereignty. He also described Orbán as “a man who has done more than any leader in Europe to bring about a successful resolution to the war between Russia and Ukraine”. Vance concluded with a call to “go to the polls this weekend and stand with Viktor Orbán”.
The endorsement came as Fidesz trailed its main rival, the centre-right Tisza party (led by former Fidesz insider Péter Magyar) by an average of 10 points on Politico Europe’s aggregated Poll of Polls.
READ MORE
The outcome remains uncertain due to a large number of undecided voters. Polls have also proved unreliable in past elections. And a large majority will be required to make changes to policies that enjoy constitutional protection.
But there is no doubt that Fidesz is struggling. It has lately been hit by multiple scandals, including revelations about the use of domestic secret services against political opponents and allegations of collusion with Moscow.
Vance’s assertion about Orbán’s constructive role as an honest broker between Russia and Ukraine appeared questionable, given the Hungarian prime minister’s close alignment with Russian president Vladimir Putin and his opposition to EU sanctions on Moscow. But the remarks echoed Fidesz’s own campaign messaging. It claims to be the “party of peace” while alleging that Tisza would send Hungarian troops to fight on Kyiv’s side in Ukraine.
Vance’s comments about Orbán’s peace diplomacy were far from being his only contestable observations.
At the earlier press conference he praised Orbán – who has led Hungary for 16 years – as “the single most profound leader in Europe on the question of energy security and independence”. Given that Hungary is 85 per cent dependent on Russian gas (and 93 per cent on Russian oil) this statement is puzzling. The same could be said of his argument that, “the seeds of this war” were “planted” when European leaders decided they “were going to cut themselves off from oil and natural gas that came from the east”.
[ Orbán is openly pro-Putin and anti-EU, which means favoured treatment from TrumpOpens in new window ]
These statements are starkly contrary to official White House policy. It strongly encourages European governments to move away from Russian fossil fuels in favour of alternative sources (especially American liquefied natural gas). Vance’s language, however, again ran close to core Fidesz messaging. It alleges that a pursuit of energy diversification under a Tisza government would cause household utility bills to triple.
Such close alignment of Vance’s remarks with Fidesz talking points (even at the risk of creating confusion about US policy positions), indicates careful co-ordination between the American and Hungarian sides. The overlap suggests a desire to go beyond mere endorsement, providing targeted support to Fidesz’s strategic communication narratives.
Vance’s presence in Budapest bolstered Fidesz’s argument that, amid intense geopolitical turbulence, Orbán’s personal connections with key actors are vital to keeping Hungary safe.
But there may be reasons for scepticism about the effectiveness of this late-stage American intervention.
Unlike US president Donald Trump, Vance does not enjoy strong name recognition in Hungary. According to freelance political analyst Zoltán Ranschburg: “A Trump visit could have had a visible influence on the campaign.” He added: “Vance is much less known, or cared for, among Hungarian voters.”
This may explain the strange moment in Vance’s rally speech when (after a first call accidentally went to voicemail) he managed to reach Trump by telephone. The US president then briefly addressed the audience.
“I love Hungary and I love that Viktor,” Trump said before adding: “I’m with him all the way, the United States is with him all the way.”
Vance had the potential to make some impact by announcing a strong programme of US investment (something that had been rumoured beforehand) – but this didn’t materialise.
Instead it was announced that MOL, Hungary’s state oil company, would purchase $500 million of US Crude oil, and the Hungarian army $700 million of Himar rocket systems. Arguably, this means Vance’s visit was secured at a $1.2 billion cost to the Hungarian taxpayer.
According to András Bíró-Nagy of Budapest think-tank Policy Solutions, Orbán’s government has, in general, “expected too much from its friendship with the Trump administration” and, in particular, “has overestimated the likely impact of this visit”. In his view the probable electoral effect is “close to zero”.
According to Ranschburg, the best [the visit] could do “would be “temporarily to divert public attention from the series of massive scandals of the last two weeks”. These, he observes, have “put Fidesz in a really miserable position for the campaign’s last phase”.
Across the two events Vance did not mention the US-Israeli war in Iran, which might have caused difficulty for his hosts. Orbán has cultivated close ties with Tehran (including a nuclear energy co-operation agreement). Any reference to the US looking to Nato allies for support in the conflict would have jeopardised Fidesz’s “party of peace” branding.
But the visit may have carried some risks for Orbán. On March 5th independent investigative outlet V-Square, citing internal Fidesz sources, reported frustration inside the party about excessive reliance on techniques borrowed from the US-Trump campaign that have not translated well in Hungary’s context. Concerns were also reported that the election campaign placed too much emphasis on international links at the cost of domestic concerns.
At any rate, “such an intervention is highly unusual”, notes Géza Jeszenszky who served as Hungary’s foreign minister and was later ambassador to Washington during Orbán’s first period in office (1998-2002). He points out that, by informal diplomatic convention, national leaders are normally reluctant “even to receive counterparts in their own capital before an election”, let alone travel abroad to campaign alongside them.
During his visit Vance defended himself from charges of interference by saying that he came not to influence Hungarian voters, but to send a signal to the EU. “The president of the United States sent me here,” he said, “because we think the amount of interference that’s come from the bureaucracy in Brussels has been truly disgraceful”.
Whatever the motives behind it, Jeszenszky echoes the scepticism of other commentators about the visit’s impact on the election: “On the whole, the Hungarian public, as in many other European countries, don’t decide elections on the basis of foreign policy issues.”
Indeed, he says irritation caused by the transport disruption around Budapest caused by the visit “could lose Orbán more votes than Vance’s presence gains for him”.
