US Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s speech at the Munich Security Conference demonstrated he is a better diplomat than Vice President J.D. Vance, although that’s not much of a hurdle to clear. Where Vance gave a bullying lecture, Rubio’s speech focused on emphasizing the importance of transatlantic ties and maintaining the US-European alliance. He argued the goal of this alliance, however, was to defend a common culture against the “threat” of immigration, raising concerns. And one of the ways he attempted to do this—appealing to shared Christian faith and a common Western civilization—will only make his job harder.

The reaction to Rubio’s speech

As one report on Rubio’s speech noted, the “expectations” among European leaders “couldn’t have been lower.” Vance’s angry lecture rightly rankled European policymakers, and set the tone for the tense year that followed. Given Rubio has been a relative voice of sanity in the Trump Administration, many expected something better.

And Rubio did kind of deliver. He emphasized the United States’ dependence on Europe and continued commonalities. He received a standing ovation. Some were upset by his claim that Europe was facing “civilizational erasure;” the EU’s foreign policy chief countered this claim during her speech. And his outreach was one-sided, expecting Europe to fall in line with US priorities. But at least he provided ground for future improvements.

Foreign policy observers were split. Elliot Cohen argued it was “impressive” for its ability to keep Trump happy while reassuring European allies. Anne Applebaum, by contrast, said nothing of substance had changed.

Rubio’s Civilizational appeals

What caught my attention, however, was the religious element to Rubio’s speech. As I noted in a recent article, religious freedom—supposedly a priority of Donald Trump—has been notedly absent in his second administration. Religion came up several times in Rubio’s speech, however, albeit in a different form.

This isn’t empty rhetoric meant to hide “real” strategic interests.

He noted the Christian faith of early European explorers, and the importance of Christianity to European settlers in the Americas. He discussed the foundational role of Christianity in the shared Western civilization between Europe and the United States.

This isn’t empty rhetoric meant to hide “real” strategic interests. As I discussed in my 2023 book, such appeals to religion are one among many instruments of statecraft states draw on to engage in power politics. Expanding on Goddard and Nexon’s work, power politics are an attempt to build or break apart international coalitions through a variety of means: military, economic or symbolic. Appeals to religion are a symbolic instrument for this task, one that I argue states turn to when religion has high domestic moral authority and they are facing what they perceive as an ideologically-charged international crisis.

So, as Cohen noted, Rubio knew what he was doing. Appealing to a shared Christian faith is meant to increase Europe’s receptivity to US priorities. But Applebaum was also right that the content of Rubio’s message stayed the same—a US-centered alliance focused on Trump’s priorities of fighting immigration.

This is where Rubio’s broader appeals to Western civilization came in. He defined it in not only religious but also ethnic terms. He mentioned Scots-Irish, German, French, Spanish, and Italian immigrants to America. And he warned of “civilizational erasure” caused by “mass migration” that threatens societies’ cohesion. This fits with Bettiza et al’s work on “civilizationism;” states appealing to civilizational identities in order to push back on globalization.

One could question whether Rubio “really” believes any of this. I’d argue—and please read the book for a longer takedown of this tiresome critique—that it doesn’t really matter. Words have an effect, even if you don’t believe them in the deepest recesses of your heart.

Will this work?

So what impact will Rubio’s civilizational appeals have? As noted, his speech went over better than Vance’s, so maybe they helped. But based on my work, they’ll just make things worse.

The integration of religion into political endeavors can lead to reconciliation and cooperation only through close, persistent contact between peoples and small-scale improvements in relations.

In my book I found that religious appeals require credibility and material incentives to be effective. These are both mixed for Rubio under Trump. He is credible in that the Trump administration does seem to care about defending what it defines as Western civilization. But that definition is at odds with Europe’s definition of its own civilization. Likewise, while Trump had some success bullying European states in his first year in office, there is a growing trend of Western states working around the United States.

The result is most likely increased tensions as a result of the religious appeals, despite their intended effect. Wrapping anything in religious language makes people worry, especially when there is a power political message behind it. It also creates confusion over what this means in practice. If Western civilization is defined by Christianity, what about the significant Muslim, Jewish and other religious groups that are part of it? If European colonization of the Americas was driven by religious faith, how do we think about the genocidal effects of that colonization on the indigenous peoples?

One could argue the audience for his speech is Europe’s growing far-right political movements, rather than its established leaders. And that may be true. As I found in my study on Russia, these religious appeals were effective in establishing ties with far-right forces. But in doing so they alienated the rest of society, increasing suspicion of anything to do with Russia. We’ll likely see the same with the US.

Based on my book and current research, the integration of religion into political endeavors can lead to reconciliation and cooperation. But that only occurs through close, persistent contact between peoples and small-scale improvements in relations. It cannot dramatically reshape the United States’ place in the world and any positive effects require, ironically, the sort of diplomatic and humanitarian engagement that Rubio gutted at the State Department and USAID.