Vladimir Putin persists in his war against Ukraine, displaying disregard for human life, international law, and Russia’s commitment to uphold Ukraine’s sovereignty. However, his strategy to fragment the West is proving counterproductive. The steadfastness of NATO’s leadership and the initiatives of its principal member nations demonstrate that allied cohesion is not only being maintained but is actively growing stronger. This solidarity is also becoming more apparent within the U.S., where cross-party backing for NATO and for exerting pressure on Russia is undergoing a resurgence.
In the decades following World War II, Republicans and Democrats held a fundamental conviction: that America’s global leadership—encompassing robust alliances and continuous military preparedness—was vital for our national security and economic well-being. Senator Arthur Vandenberg exemplified this transformation when he moved away from isolationist views to back President Harry Truman’s effort to unite with Western allies, for the purpose of opposing the Soviet Union and preventing another global war.
We, the authors, witnessed an instance of that cross-party unity during the early evening of Sept. 11, 2001, when we stood alongside members of the House and Senate on the Capitol steps mere hours after the most devastating attack on American soil in history. Our spontaneous gathering served as more than just a moment of grief—it projected a message globally that the U.S. would not yield to fear, and that its leaders would remain united. Congress reconvened the following morning, even as smoke continued to rise from the Pentagon, determined to respond decisively.
This enduring bipartisan spirit has underpinned American backing for NATO throughout numerous challenges over many decades. The alliance expanded from its initial 12 founding members to 32, played a crucial role in concluding the Cold War, fostered democratic shifts in Central and Eastern Europe, and continually adjusted to emerging threats, ranging from terrorism to cyber warfare and great-power competition.
Nevertheless, in more recent times, tensions became apparent. Discontent regarding burden-sharing intensified, as Defense Secretaries from Donald Rumsfeld to Robert Gates cautioned that NATO faced becoming obsolete if European nations failed to increase their defense spending.
When Russia initiated a full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Europe’s strategic outlook shifted dramatically. NATO allies reacted with unparalleled gravity, coordinating their efforts and uniting in support of Kyiv. What was previously uncertain is now undeniably evident: NATO is not just relevant; it is essential. Putin’s attempt to drive a wedge between the U.S. and Europe has, conversely, reinforced the transatlantic connection, leaving him more isolated and vulnerable.
And while President Donald Trump had previously questioned the value of NATO, he has since demonstrated a firm commitment to the alliance, particularly following the successful June summit where member nations consented to allocate 5% of their GDP to defense. Recent summits held earlier this month further highlighted this fact. The sitting President drew domestic partisan criticism, yet this censure overshadowed a more significant development. Days afterward, European leaders gathered in Washington to align their strategies. With the alliance itself playing a pivotal role, it is instrumental in defining future security frameworks—guaranteeing they embody shared principles, reliable deterrence, and a united opposition to Russian aggression.
Congress has mirrored this acknowledgment. The Graham–Blumenthal bill concerning sanctions against Russia has garnered 85 co-sponsors in the Senate—a remarkable demonstration of cohesion. Furthermore, momentum is growing. Just this week, Senator John Thune, the Republican leader, asserted that “there should be no doubt about where the Senate stands” regarding Russia—highlighting that even those cautious about sanctions consider this legislation crucial for America’s international credibility. Legislators from both parties comprehend the gravity of the situation: Russia’s conflict imperils not only Ukraine but also the global order that has ensured Europe’s stability for close to 80 years. Should Putin succeed, Beijing will certainly draw inferences concerning Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, and wider regions.
As China becomes increasingly assertive—especially concerning Taiwan—the U.S. needs to strengthen its alliances in Asia, uphold a credible deterrent, and develop economic strategies that support American competitiveness. These are not matters of partisan preference; they are national necessities.
During a recent Aspen Strategy Group meeting, in which both authors took part, a cross-party assembly of former officials, academics, and military leaders deliberated on how to achieve consensus regarding critical areas such as Taiwan. The agreement was clear: cohesion must be established prior to a crisis, rather than in its aftermath. Forward-thinking planning, unambiguous communication, and collaboration with allies are indispensable—and will only be successful if Congress and the White House cooperate.
Restoring cross-party consensus will present challenges. However, the recent achievements in fortifying NATO ought to instill a sense of optimism in all of us.
The global community is observing. Our opponents are banking on disunity. Yet history demonstrates that American leadership is most potent when partisan politics are set aside in foreign policy matters. Senator Vandenberg articulated this in 1947, at the time Congress supported the formation of NATO and the Marshall Plan. This principle holds just as much validity in the present day.