Brett McGurk, a global affairs analyst who held senior national security roles under four presidential administrations, notes that Donald Trump currently faces a political predicament that echoes history. Following a midterm shellacking that handed both legislative chambers to the opposition, Trump finds himself in a position similar to President Harry S. Truman after the 1946 elections. Bush, Barack Obama, Donald Trump and Joe Biden. And the US needed to strengthen countries vulnerable to Soviet pressure, truman had a theory of the case: Soviet expansion threatened American security.
Historical Context: The 1946 Midterms
- 1946 Election Impact: Republicans gained 55 seats in the House and 12 in the Senate, seizing control of both chambers for the first time in 16 years.
- Political Climate: Truman’s presidency appeared effectively finished, with even Democratic Senator J. William Fulbright suggesting the president appoint a Republican secretary of state and resign.
- The Partnership: Truman collaborated with Senator Arthur Vandenberg, a Michigan Republican and Foreign Relations Committee chair, to build the foundations of NATO and the Marshall Plan.
- Guiding Principle: Vandenberg insisted that partisan politics must stop at the water’s edge.
- Operational Reality: Despite their cooperation on foreign policy, Truman still campaigned against the do-nothing Republican Congress, and Vandenberg harbored his own presidential ambitions.
Eighty years later, the possibility of such a cross-party alliance seems remote. Yet, the current threats facing the United States—ranging from the AI-driven technology race with China and the risks of war in Europe, to the ongoing standoff with Iran—demand sustained, long-term policy commitments that transcend single presidential terms. Washington’s inability to maintain a consistent strategy often signals weakness to adversaries like Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping, and Iran’s leadership, who view American domestic division as a sign of terminal decline. He is the author of Brink: Inside the Race to Free the October 7 Hostages. According to shortly after World War II, as the United, Faced a rising Soviet Union, a devastated Europe, and the dawn of a Cold War, President Harry S. According to but they agreed on the challenges confronting the United, And found ways to work together where it most mattered for the country. Europe faces the risk of a larger war as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine nears the five-year mark. And each becomes harder when Washington cannot sustain a policy long enough to make it work. Consider the view from the other side of the ocean. According to or Iran’s leaders: why compromise when the United, Might soon abandon the Middle East altogether. The alternative is to spend two years proving to foes that they can outlast us—and to friends that they should make other plans.
Mojtaba Khamenei, Iran’s new and elusive Supreme Leader, recently suggested that American collapse has accelerated following the midterm results. This perception creates a price for uncertainty, where allies hedge their bets and domestic manufacturers hesitate to invest in long-term projects like defense production without guarantee of government follow-through. A successful model requires a president to accept shared responsibility, as Truman did by involving Vandenberg in the design of policies, and for the opposition to accept that supporting effective national policy might benefit the president. The Marshall Plan, and ultimately the North Atlantic Treaty establishing NATO, their unlikely partnership helped produce the Truman Doctrine. Each requires decisions now that may take years or decades to bear fruit. If you are an American manufacturer being asked to expand weapons production, why build a factory without confidence that Washington will purchase what it produces, even here at home. The Truman–Vandenberg partnership worked because both men accepted responsibilities that went beyond efforts to defeat the other party. Vandenberg demanded changes and brought skeptical Republicans along. There is a lesson here for both parties today. Neither comes naturally in Washington today. A congressional partner needs to know what he is being asked to support — and whether the president will support it tomorrow. To be sure, Trump would have to offer coherent strategies and accept a congressional role in shaping them.
While contemporary Washington remains deeply polarized, prospects for pragmatic governance exist. Senator Chris Coons and Representative Gregory Meeks are positioned to lead their respective Foreign Relations committees and possess the experience to forge compromises. Although they would face significant resistance from those viewing the election results as a mandate for confrontation, they could feasibly exercise oversight while pursuing bipartisan agreements. His administration consulted the senator as proposals developed.
Trump remains the primary obstacle, as his political instincts prioritize inconsistency over shared ownership.
However, if a Truman-Vandenberg spirit were adopted, the nation could potentially secure long-term agreements on critical issues.
A multiyear strategy on Ukraine could stabilize military and economic support, while a cooperative approach to China might accelerate essential infrastructure for the AI race. Regarding Iran, replacing an open-ended conflict with defined objectives and benchmarks could help wind down hostilities. Governing requires reconciling national aims with available resources, a process that inherently leads to more durable and effective policy outcomes. Support for terrorism, or nuclear ambitions, the US is mired in a stalemate with Iran with no easy exit and no reason to expect Tehran to abandon its hostility toward America.
