Never Trump conservative Bret Stephens credits unexpected wins in NATO, Iran, Ukraine and trade
Bret Stephens New York Times on Trump presidency success (Courtesy Wikipedia)New York, New York (Times Media Service) – New York Times columnist Bret Stephens, once a “Never Trump” conservative, now concedes that the Trump presidency success has far outpaced his initial expectations, pointing to major policy wins in NATO, the Middle East, Ukraine and trade, along with significant domestic legislation that even skeptics must acknowledge.
Stephens Praises NATO Spending Revival
Bret Stephens opens his column by celebrating President Trump’s success in rallying NATO allies to increase defense spending, a move many critics feared would fracture the Atlantic alliance.
He notes that rather than “destroying the Atlantic alliance,” Trump “may wind up being remembered for reviving and rebalancing it, to the advantage of both sides.”
This achievement contrasts sharply with the administration’s rocky first 100 days, which Stephens himself described as “disastrous.”
By framing increased European contributions as a lasting success, Stephens argues that this policy reversal has strengthened transatlantic unity at a critical moment.
He urges other commentators to reassess their assumptions, emphasizing that competent diplomacy can emerge from unexpected quarters.
Bold Moves on Iran and Ukraine
Stephens goes on to commend Trump’s “courageous policy” in authorizing strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities last month, observing that “joining Israel in its strikes…did not lead us into a calamitous Middle East war,” and instead helped bring regional tensions to a swift, if uneasy, resolution.
He credits this decision to a willingness to act decisively in the face of political resistance—even from parts of Trump’s own base—calling it a rare bipartisan outcome in foreign policy.
Turning to Ukraine, Stephens highlights Mr. Trump’s reversal on arms shipments, noting that “speeding the delivery of arms to Ukraine…is the only way to end the war” after an initial pressure campaign backfired.
He suggests that these combined actions signal a more coherent strategic vision, one that embraces realpolitik alongside moral imperatives.
For Stephens, these foreign-policy successes illustrate that effective leadership sometimes transcends partisan expectations.
Trade Deals and Domestic Policy
On the economic front, Stephens expresses relief that Trump’s newly secured trade deals with the European Union and Japan “did not lead to worse outcomes” than predicted, framing them as evidence of prudent negotiation rather than protectionist folly.
He also assesses the administration’s tougher immigration policies, calling them “good policy that’s gone too far” in enforcement, but nevertheless acknowledging their broad political appeal.
Stephens concedes that not all outcomes have been pristine—he describes aspects of the $3.3 trillion spending package as “unbeautiful” but admits it was “needed” to secure a significant victory.
He further notes the administration’s legal pressure on Columbia University over antisemitism, recognizing that “while not the way to go about it,” the effort “did yield results.”
Taken together, Stephens argues these domestic measures amount to a record that demands thoughtful critique rather than reflexive opposition.
Lessons for Critics
Stephens closes his column with a pointed admonition: if Trump’s opponents “want to someday be effective…we have to come to grips with realities that have so far eluded us,” chief among them being “not everything Trump does is bad.”
He reflects on his own journey away from the “Never Trump” label, confessing that the movement’s dogmatism blinded him to legitimate achievements.
By urging critics to engage with policy results rather than personalities, Stephens sets a new standard for accountability across the political spectrum.
His column serves as both confession and challenge: to scrutinize every presidential action on its merits, not its brand.
In doing so, Stephens models how ideological flexibility can strengthen public discourse.
Impact on American Conservatives
Reaction to Stephens’s column has been swift among moderate conservatives, many of whom see his admission as vindication for a more pragmatic approach.
Commentators on Fox News echoed Stephens’s call for realism, suggesting that acknowledging success is a prerequisite for shaping future policy debates.
Some Republican strategists caution that too much praise risks alienating the MAGA base, underscoring the tightrope between principle and party loyalty.
Meanwhile, centrist voices urge Democrats to pursue similar self-examination, lest they repeat the strategic missteps Stephens highlights.
Overall, this rare moment of cross-party candor may signal a modest shift toward policy-first evaluations in an era often dominated by tribalism.
Hanna Crosby / Economic and Political Strategist Writer (Times Media Service)
SoCal economic & political strategist, business consultant, and journalist covering fiscal policy and community impact.
hcrosby@timesmediaservice.com
