Vladimir Putin continues to run the clock on Ukraine, with no respect for human life, international law, or Russia’s prior commitments to support Ukraine’s sovereignty. Yet his effort to divide the West is backfiring. The resolve of NATO leadership and the actions of key member countries show that allied unity is not only holding but strengthening. That unity is increasingly visible in the U.S. as well, where bipartisan support for NATO and for pressure on Russia is experiencing a revival.
For decades after World War II, Republicans and Democrats shared a basic belief: that American leadership in the world—including strong alliances and sustained military readiness—was essential to our national security and prosperity. Senator Arthur Vandenberg embodied this shift when he abandoned isolationism to support President Harry Truman’s bid to join Western allies in creating NATO, to counter the Soviet Union and insure against another world war.
The two of us saw a glimpse of that bipartisan unity in the early evening of Sept. 11, 2001, when we joined members of the House and Senate on the steps of the Capitol hours after the deadliest attack in history on American soil. Our spontaneous chorus of “God Bless America” was more than a moment of mourning—it was a signal to the world that the U.S. would not cower, and that our leaders would stand together. Congress opened for business the next morning, with embers still burning at the Pentagon, determined to respond with resolve.
That same bipartisan spirit has anchored U.S. support for NATO through decades of challenges. The alliance grew from 12 founding members to 32, helped end the Cold War, supported democratic transitions in Central and Eastern Europe, and adapted to new threats from terrorism to cyberattacks to great-power rivalry.
In more recent years, however, strains were evident. Frustrations over burden-sharing mounted, with Defense Secretaries from Donald Rumsfeld to Robert Gates warning that NATO risked irrelevance if Europe did not invest more in defense.
When Russia launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Europe’s calculus changed. NATO allies responded with unprecedented seriousness, boosting defense budgets, reinforcing the eastern flank, and aligning behind Kyiv. What once seemed uncertain is now clear: NATO is not only relevant, it is indispensable. Putin’s bid to divide the U.S. from Europe has instead strengthened the transatlantic bond, leaving him more isolated and exposed.
And while President Donald Trump had previously questioned NATO, he has shown a strong commitment to the alliance ever since the successful June summit where allies agreed to spend 5% of GDP on defense. The recent summits earlier this month underscored this reality. President Trump’s meeting with Putin in Alaska drew partisan fire at home, but the criticism obscured a more consequential development. Days later, European leaders convened in Washington to coordinate strategy. With NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte playing a pivotal role, the alliance is helping shape the contours of security arrangements now under discussion—ensuring they reflect shared values, credible deterrence, and a unified front against Russian aggression.
Congress has echoed this recognition. The Graham–Blumenthal bill to impose sweeping secondary sanctions on Russia has drawn 85 co-sponsors in the Senate—a rare display of unity. And momentum is building. Just this week, Senator John Thune, the Republican leader, declared that “there should be no doubt about where the Senate stands” on Russia—underscoring that even skeptics of sanctions see the legislation as vital to America’s credibility abroad. Lawmakers on both sides understand what is at stake: Russia’s war threatens not only Ukraine but the international order that has kept Europe stable for nearly 80 years. If Putin prevails, Beijing will draw conclusions about Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, and beyond.
As China grows more assertive—particularly toward Taiwan—the U.S. must reinforce alliances in Asia, maintain a credible deterrent, and craft economic policies that sustain U.S. competitiveness. These are not partisan preferences. They are national imperatives.
At a recent Aspen Strategy Group meeting, where we both participated, a bipartisan group of former officials, scholars, and military leaders discussed how to forge consensus on flashpoints like Taiwan. We agreed: unity must be built before a crisis, not after. Proactive planning, clear messaging, and coordination with allies are essential—and will succeed only if Congress and the White House act together.
Rebuilding bipartisan consensus will not be easy. But the recent success around strengthening NATO should give us all optimism.
The world is watching. Our adversaries are betting on fracture. But history shows that American leadership is most effective when politics stops at the water’s edge. Senator Vandenberg said that in 1947, when Congress backed the creation of NATO and the Marshall Plan. It remains just as true today.
The post How to Rebuild Bipartisanship in National Security appeared first on TIME.
